Scottish Executive's Programme
Resumed debate.
The next item of business is continuation of the debate on the First Minister's statement on the Scottish Executive's programme. Members who wish to contribute to the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Some members who wish to contribute to the debate do not yet have a voting card. Will that be borne in mind?
We will try to sort that out as quickly as possible, Mr Aitken.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this morning's debate in this magnificent debating chamber. As one who spent several years as a student at Glasgow School of Art in the now famous—but when it was built controversial—Mackintosh building, I am sure that the chamber and associated parts of this complex will be as well received in years to come as Glasgow's Mackintosh building, which receives visitors from all over the world, is today.
Yesterday, we heard the First Minister outline our legislative programme. The key values of that programme—fairness, tolerance and respect—are the key values that we need in our justice service as we build the safer, stronger Scotland in which we all want to live. We are undertaking the most ambitious and sustained reform of our justice services for a generation. Our goal is a criminal justice service that puts public safety at its heart by ensuring that justice is delivered—and seen to be delivered—for victims and witnesses, without ever losing sight of the need to be fair to the accused. We need justice services that challenge prejudice. They need to work with society to remove the twin stains of racism and bigotry from our country. They need to put respect back on the agenda in our communities. In short, we need a criminal justice service that is on the side of the many who abide by the law, not of the lawbreaking few.
Devolution is working for a safer Scotland. We have had a 5 per cent reduction in crime and a 7 per cent reduction in violent crime. Overall, we have the lowest crime rate in nearly 25 years. The Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency has made record seizures of criminals' ill-gotten gains. The police have their highest ever crime clear-up rate. Across the country, there is a huge expansion of youth justice programmes to prevent and divert young people from offending. The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 will provide children, women in rape cases and other sensitive victims and witnesses with extra protection and support in court.
People want to feel safer in their homes or in the streets, but if their daily experience is of graffiti, vandalism and disorder in those streets, they will not necessarily see, or believe that there is, the reduction in serious, violent crime that has been reported in the figures. That is why tackling antisocial behaviour was vital in showing troubled communities that the Executive and the Parliament were on their side, but that is just the start.
The minister has just said that we have the lowest crime rate in 25 years, but can she explain why the fear of crime is rising?
Mr Rumbles has highlighted exactly the point that I am making. If people see graffiti, vandalism and disorder in their communities week after week, month after month, their experience will not lead them to believe that the crime rate is falling. That is why the Executive took the whole issue of antisocial behaviour so seriously.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would like to move on.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I give way to Johann Lamont.
It would be a bad start to this debate to suggest that people in communities who are raising such issues are imagining them. There are issues to do with unrecorded crime and people having confidence in the system's ability to deal with such problems, so it is important that there is a drive to make people feel that it is worth their while to report the difficulties that they face; otherwise people will be led to believe that their difficulties are of their own making.
That is absolutely right, and the Executive took the experiences of people in those communities seriously. That is why we have tackled antisocial behaviour and it is also why we have changed the way in which the police are able to record crimes, so that those experiences are noted and, more important, acted on.
As I said, that is only the start of the programme. Improving public safety means improving the prevention and detection of crime, but it also means having a criminal justice service that is properly resourced and in which every agency and organisation works together towards common goals. We must have a criminal justice system that understands and responds to public expectations, exactly as Mike Rumbles and Johann Lamont have outlined, and which understands that something must be done about those expectations, rather than criticising them as being unrealistic. We need a system that recognises the need to tackle quality-of-life crime as well as serious and organised crime, and I believe that our legislative programme and our reforms will build on all the work already started.
I have very little time, but I want to say a few words about the justice programme that the First Minister outlined yesterday.
Will the minister give way?
I really need to move on.
Protecting children must be a priority. That is why we shall seek the swift introduction of bills on the protection of children from sexual harm and female genital mutilation. Strengthening the law to protect children from those who would seek to abuse them and making it unlawful for young girls to be sent abroad to be mutilated must surely be a priority for the Parliament.
We have all been shocked to see the latest pictures coming from Beslan in Russia last night. That was a terrible tragedy and one can only imagine what those children and adults must have felt like in that environment, and indeed what the families must now be feeling.
Whenever possible, we must move to prevent sexual harm before it occurs, but also to punish it with serious time for those serious and sickening crimes when they are carried out, sending a loud and clear signal that there is no safe haven in Scotland for those who would seek to harm our children.
There will also be protection in the form of our new risk management authority to oversee the management of very serious violent and sexual offenders, not just for a month or a year, but to the end of their days. That new body is already legislated for and will begin its work in the new year. Today, I have announced an important next step with the appointment of those tasked with leading that new public safety watchdog.
Long-awaited reforms of family law, which again will put the best interests of children first, will happen. Those reforms will emphasise the responsibilities that adults have towards children, not just the rights that they seek to exercise. We know that stable families, in whatever shape or form, are essential to give children the best start in life, and the family law bill will update the law on unmarried fathers, on divorce and on safeguards for cohabitants.
However, changing the law is not always enough. We also need to change attitudes and cultures, which can often be harder to achieve, but we will not shirk from that. I want to ensure that families get support when they need it most, in times of difficulty, and I will ensure that the issues that are raised by step-parents and grandparents who want to offer children love and affection and to play a crucial part in their development are addressed. However, this is not just about legislation or changing the law and I intend to continue to work with those with an interest in those issues to develop solutions that work better for children.
The legislative programme also outlined that we will bring Scotland's licensing laws into the 21st century to tackle the scourge of binge drinking and the problems of under-age drinking. There is a clear set of principles for the new system: preventing crime and disorder; promoting public safety; preventing public nuisance; promoting health; and, crucially, protecting children. The new system will give communities more of a say while supporting the responsible businesses that contribute to a healthy economy.
Since devolution five years ago, the Executive has invested heavily in giving the courts and the prosecution service the extra resources that they need and investment has been matched with reform. Today, I can announce that we are building on the strong achievements of devolution by supporting a request from the Lord President for an additional two full-time judges. Additional resources for the bench will be provided where and when they are needed most.
However, we know that there is still much more to do in reforming summary justice into sharp, modern courts that serve local communities and deliver smart sentences that are geared to offenders putting something back into the very communities against which they have offended.
Our biggest challenge is to reduce reoffending and to break the cycle that sees too many offenders return time and again to our courts and prisons, and time and again sees them recycled back on to our streets and into our communities.
I did not notice any commitment in the legislative programme to introduce legislation to enact the recommendations of the Justice 1 Committee in the previous session of Parliament on the regulation of solicitors.
That matter was on the agenda when I met the Law Society of Scotland earlier this week. Mr Swinney is probably aware from correspondence that I sent to him previously that we are continuing to take the matter forward. I will be happy to correspond with him further on the matter.
I want public safety to be put at the heart of our reforms. That means that we have to be prepared to take on challenges. No Government before has seriously tried to address reoffending, but no Government in Scotland today can afford to ignore it. If we do not try to address the matter, we will let our communities down and I am not prepared to let that happen.
I will bring forward detailed proposals in the autumn to consider how we can make more effective transitions from custody to the community, which balance rehabilitation with punishment. The proposals will focus on the things that we know help an offender to stop a life of crime in its tracks, such as providing access to jobs, treatment for addictions, housing and family support, and making them face up to their responsibilities.
Those will be modern laws for a modern Scotland. We have a challenging agenda for justice, but it is a challenge that we are up for and up to. We must now step up and join up the opportunities that devolution brings us. The legislation that we deliver from this building must make a real change to ordinary lives in everyday communities. A fast, firm and fair public justice service that is worthy of the public's trust is what we aim for and what we intend to take forward.
Our justice system exists to serve the interests of the people of Scotland and reforms that ensure that it is more responsive to the needs and views of the people of Scotland will be supported by Scottish National Party members.
The Executive's two new proposals—the proposal to introduce a bill at an early date to protect children from internet grooming by those who would seek to abuse and exploit children and the proposal to increase the penalties for those who would send a young girl out of Scotland to undergo female genital mutilation—are worthy and will be supported by the SNP. I hope that they will attract cross-party support within Parliament.
The SNP has long supported the need to review family law in Scotland to ensure that we have a legal framework that reflects the diverse and changing society in which we live today. Equally, on the proposal for licensing law, the existing laws neither reflect contemporary attitudes towards alcohol nor tackle effectively irresponsible or criminal behaviour that is linked to alcohol misuse. Therefore, the Scottish National Party believes that there is a need to introduce new legislation in both those areas and it looks forward to the publication of the bills.
However, in listening to the minister's speech this morning and in reflecting on the First Minister's statement to the chamber yesterday, one might be left with the impression that the Executive's stewardship of our justice system had been a good one. The reality would tell us another story. Let me remind members of the Labour-Lib Dem Executive's record in some areas of our justice system. The Executive stated that it was committed to tackling the problem of overcrowded prisons and that it would seek to reduce the prison population. Instead, five years on, we have record numbers of prisoners within our prison system.
On that point, Mr Matheson.
Let me continue.
The Executive's commitment to deal with the number of female prisoners in Scotland was made back in 1999 by Henry McLeish—remember him?—who stated that a key priority for a new Labour Government would be to reduce the female prison population in Scotland. Five years on, we have record numbers of females in Scottish prisons.
Does Mr Matheson recognise, and indeed welcome, the fact that we are currently spending more than £1 million a week in equivalent sums to upgrade our prison estate? Does he recognise that, although the buildings must of course be modernised, it is as important that the programmes that we carry out in our prisons to ensure that people do not end up in that revolving door—through the custody process, back into the community and then back into the custody process—are also addressed? Will he give his support for the measures that we are outlining to try to tackle reoffending?
Rather than make another speech, the minister should recognise that she had the chance to deal with the issue the first time round.
I wish to point out that the Labour-Lib Dem Executive has been responsible for the Scottish justice system for some five years, and her colleague two seats away—Mr Jim Wallace—was responsible for it for four years. The Executive has failed to deal with overcrowded prisons and Scotland's prisons continue to be overcrowded.
Earlier this year, we witnessed the Executive's continuing obsession with privatising public services when we had the fiasco over the Reliance contract—a contract that, at one point, appeared to be more like a prisoner early-release programme than a prison escort service. One of the most recent examples of the contract fiasco was when young offenders went from Polmont young offenders institution in Falkirk, in Reliance vans, to Barlinnie prison in Glasgow. They were then transferred into a Reliance van and taken back to Falkirk sheriff court to have their trial, and then taken back to Barlinnie in a Scottish Prison Service van. They were then transferred into a Reliance van and taken back to Polmont young offenders institution. That is an example of the sheer shambles of the contract and it provides further proof that privatising public services for private profit is a recipe for disaster.
Finally, there is the proposal that ministers do not appear to like to mention by name: the single correctional agency—an issue yet again dodged by the First Minister in his statement yesterday. It is a proposal that, notionally, is meant to be about reducing reoffending—I say "notionally" because there is no clear authoritative evidence to suggest that such a major structural reform would effectively reduce reoffending. It is the responsibility of any reasonable Government to demonstrate that its policy proposals can deliver on its objectives. When it comes to the single correctional agency, the Executive has failed to deliver and it is because of that failure that, if the Executive continues to press ahead with the proposal for a single correctional agency, it will be opposed by the SNP.
The Executive could have and should have done more for our justice system. To help the Executive on its way, let me give it three policy areas that I believe it should pursue over the coming term. First, there is a need in the justice system to have a system of family courts, combining civil and criminal matters, allowing issues to be dealt with in a more coherent and holistic fashion. Such a system has proven to be very successful in many other jurisdictions. Secondly, the Executive could introduce a system of unit fines, to provide greater recognition of an individual's ability to pay a fine in the first place, ensuring greater equity in the system and addressing the issue of fine defaulters.
Thirdly, the Executive should consider rolling out a programme of periodic detention systems in Scotland. Such systems, which have been successful in other European countries, allow offenders to serve their sentence but maintain employment and family contact, which are two key issues that must be addressed if we are to prevent reoffending. I hope that the Executive will take on board my three proposals with the good intention with which they are made.
As many members have said, the new Parliament building gives us a chance to make a fresh start and to meet head on the challenges that face Scotland. The First Minister told MSPs that it is time for us to raise our game, but it is a pity that he does not recognise that it is also time that the Executive raised its game.
I have listened to the minister and I recognise that, as has been mentioned, the Executive has been presiding over law and order in Scotland for five years, but I must commence on a discordant note. In that time, we have seen a 40 per cent increase in rape and attempted rape, a 26 per cent increase in fire-raising and vandalism and a 27 per cent increase in drug-related crimes. Of course, those figures cover only reported crimes. I am not alone among members in having heard first-hand accounts from individuals in our communities who are so fed up with the lack of police and delays in the system that they do not report crimes. Johann Lamont was right to refer to unreported crime, which is now the lurking ogre in every community in Scotland. It is small wonder that 22 per cent of Scots do not feel safe in their neighbourhoods, which is the point to which I think Mr Rumbles alluded. Sadly, throughout Scotland there are only 140 police officers on our streets at any one time. There is no disconnection between what is happening and why people feel apprehensive. Unlike the Executive, people in Scotland still think that lawlessness, disorder and criminal activity are rampant; they know, because they live with it.
I listened to the First Minister's statement yesterday and to the Minister for Justice today and I by no means discount some of the proposed measures. On a positive note, I am pleased that the Executive will introduce legislation to offer children greater protection from grooming for sexual offences. However, I point out that the issue was championed in the Parliament by my colleague Margaret Mitchell. I am glad that the Executive has finally accepted that children in Scotland should receive the same protection as those south of the border receive.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been talking about reforming family law since the advent of the Scottish Parliament. We are now informed that, after yet another consultation, legislation will be forthcoming. I want to champion a forgotten cause and, in so doing, utter a word that has apparently been dropped from the Executive's vocabulary: marriage. I urge the Executive to remember that everything that we do must be with the best interests of children at the fore. To the minister's credit, she acknowledged that, but the Executive must recognise the evidence that a child who is born to a married couple will do better at school and is less likely to suffer from emotional problems. It is wrong to imagine that, because we applaud and recognise the virtue of marriage, we stigmatise other relationships. That is not the consequence. We must ensure that marriage is not undermined by changes in the law or trivialised by being turned into a conditional contract that is terminable at short notice. Why is the Executive so cowardly in applauding the institution of marriage?
I hope that Miss Goldie accepts that, in the consultation paper produced on the issue, the Executive recognised that marriage has a special place for many Scots, but also that the reality is that many people do not live in married relationships. The important thing is to ensure that the best interests of children are served when relationships go wrong. Those interests are best served not by couples warring over the children, but by resolving problems. Does Miss Goldie accept that the Executive takes the issues of marriage and, more important, stable family relationships seriously?
In nothing I have said have I impugned the Executive's genuine attempts to deal with other relationships, but I am deeply concerned that the Executive is not lauding and trumpeting the one relationship that works to the betterment of society. The Executive is not giving political leadership.
Somewhere up the ministerial sleeve, the Executive has proposals on a single correctional agency and the proposals set out by Sheriff Principal McInnes. We await firm proposals, but I have grave reservations about a single correctional agency—another bureaucracy is the last thing that we need. I point out that justices of the peace have provided a valuable contribution to the Scottish legal system over the years and a decision to abolish them should not be taken lightly.
As I have indicated, the programme offered by the Executive is far from radical. I suggest that, sadly, that is predictable. There are no plans for extra police on our streets, but extra police are a necessity, particularly if we are to address antisocial behaviour and enforce recent legislation.
Further, while the Executive talks about clamping down on smoking tobacco, which is a legal drug, we hear nothing about clamping down on illegal drugs. We are in a position in which the Scottish public, while being told not to smoke, are being told how to take drugs safely.
There is an alternative. The Scottish Conservatives are prepared to offer radical policies.
Is there a safe way to smoke?
I do not smoke, and in my opinion there is probably not a safe way to smoke. However, the fact is that tobacco is a legal substance and while we are being told not to take that legal substance, the Executive is displaying ambivalence in relation to illegal substances, which it is apparently suggesting are acceptable. I am deeply concerned about that.
Will the member give way?
I am running out of time and want to draw my remarks to a close.
On policing, one of the most obvious frustrations that I hear mentioned by constituents relates to their feeling of total impotence and their inability to have any say in what sort of policing is provided. Of course, their desires are diametrically opposed to those of our chief constables. As I have previously said, the Scottish Conservatives consider that the only way in which to address this problem is to have directly elected police board conveners. All the other parties in the chamber have scorned that suggestion and have rejected it as a way forward but at least my party is proposing an alternative to the people of Scotland—a workable proposal that offers some way out of the present void. If one combines that proposal with a replication of the situation in New York, where police boards are required to compute what is happening in their areas, publish crime statistics and let the public know what is happening, we would get back on the road towards reinstating order in our communities.
I look forward to finding out what proposals are contained in the police bill. However, I think that the people of Scotland want not more police powers but more police. That is an important distinction to draw.
My party feels that a host of remedies could be available to the Executive but that the Executive does not have the political will to address the issues. Honesty in sentencing has disappeared, we have an ineffective way of collecting unpaid fines, which the Executive does not appear to want to address, and other elements of our criminal justice system, particularly children's hearings, have inadequate powers that are unsuitable for dealing with the challenges of today.
There are elements of the Executive's programme for justice in its legislative schedule that will meet with Conservative support. However, the main concern of my party is that the fundamental flaws in our justice system that cause difficulties with the maintenance of law and order have not been addressed in the past five years by the Executive and there is nothing in the programme to suggest that they will be addressed.
We have all waited a long time—and spent a great deal of money—for Enric Miralles's dream to become reality. Standing here today, I think that only the churlish would deny that this is a magnificent and unique building that is a fitting home for our Parliament. It remains to be seen whether the debates that we take part in, the speeches that we make and the legislation that we pass will do justice to our surroundings and, more important, to the people of Scotland.
While I want to concentrate on justice issues, I take the opportunity, as the former convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, to urge the Executive to move to ban smoking in public places. Responsible for more than 13,000 deaths every year, smoking is the biggest killer in Scotland and the biggest drain on the health service's resources. Every year, millions of pounds are poured into cancer research, yet we already have a cure for most cancers. The cure is to stop smoking or, better still, not start at all. I know that I have digressed slightly from the area of justice but the issue that I have raised is fundamental to the effort to improve Scotland's health.
Another fundamental issue that we face is the need to build a modern criminal justice system that is fit for our people and the 21st century. We have delivered some good things in relation to the justice agenda. We have delivered reform of the High Court and record investment in our police forces—I particularly welcome the extra resources that are coming to Lothian and Borders police. However, there is still a long way to go, particularly in relation to reoffending and public confidence in the system, which colleagues have mentioned.
I am delighted that a great deal of the justice programme will be about improving the quality of life for people and—this is important—for children and young people, following the Parliament's good work last year on the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. The Executive will introduce legislation to tackle one of the greatest fears that parents have: the growing evil of children being groomed by paedophiles in chat rooms. That legislation, coupled with proposals to improve the protection of children, represents a welcome move. Parents generally will also welcome plans to crack down on binge drinking and to give local communities a greater say on licensing decisions.
We will also support the proposed bill on the prevention of female genital mutilation and legislation to reform charity law, bearing in mind the important place of the voluntary sector in national life. We will also welcome legislation to tackle some of the issues to do with the police force.
The proposed family law bill will be one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Parliament. The bill will represent a genuine attempt to reflect the diversity of modern families, to acknowledge and extend the rights and—crucially—the responsibilities of unmarried fathers, to introduce more humane time limits in relation to separation prior to divorce and to offer greater legal protection to cohabiting couples and—most important—to their children. There will be keen debates during the next few months about the needs, rights and responsibilities of grandparents and step-parents, but it will be crucial that we keep the best interests of children at the heart of our debates. I am sure that we will do so and improve the lives of Scotland's families.
The children's hearings system is rightly respected by MSPs of all parties for the work that it does, in relation to not only young people's offending but the care and protection of young people. In a recent debate we all made it clear that the system should be properly resourced and strengthened as a result of the Executive's review and that it should not in any way be undermined. That means that we must invest in the provision of social workers and take forward the excellent fast-track scheme that the Executive has put in place. It is crucial that we also encourage experienced social workers to stay in the profession.
I welcome a lot of the good work that the Executive has already done on youth justice. Much of the focus has been on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which will assist some of my constituents, who struggle as a result of persistent harassment. We have also been investing in multi-agency youth justice teams. Mike Pringle and I visited a new team in Edinburgh recently and were impressed by the enthusiasm of criminal justice social workers, police officers, voluntary sector workers and housing officers who were all working together to tackle a difficult problem, for the benefit not only of young offenders, but of the offenders' victims and the communities in which they live. That model of multi-agency working is the key to improvements throughout the justice system. At the link centre at Edinburgh prison I have seen for myself what can be achieved when the social work service, the Scottish Prison Service, the voluntary sector and key partners such as local housing providers and Jobcentre Plus work together. This year, 48 prisoners have left prison and moved into work or training as a result of the new programmes at Edinburgh prison. Thanks to improved throughcare funding from the Executive, those people have the chance to turn around their lives and end the cycle of reoffending.
I welcome the Minister for Justice's comments on reducing reoffending, and the commitment that the First Minister gave yesterday to rise to that challenge. I hope that they will match their words with action to expand and resource alternatives to custody and offender programmes in and out of prison, and to reduce the number of short-term prisoners in our overcrowded prisons. Let us be radical; let us raise our game in criminal justice and deliver holistic solutions that focus on the offender as an individual and on the reasons why an individual offends. Currently, 83 per cent of prisoners have no access to programmes that challenge their offending or tackle the reasons behind their offending—the minister mentioned some of those, such as drug addiction. That is just not good enough. The focus on alternatives to custody will offer a better future for all of us. Alternatives to custody are more effective and cheaper than prison and represent a better use of public resources. However, if such programmes are to work it is crucial that they are inspected, evaluated and evidence-based and that they command public and judicial confidence.
The legislative programme can increase public confidence in the law and will bring real benefits to the people of Scotland. I look forward to working towards those aims in this wonderful building.
I call Shiona Baird. Although I understand that her speech is not on justice, it is in order.
This debate is about the full Executive programme and not only about justice, so I want to focus on some of the challenges that were not mentioned in the First Minister's statement—the challenges of climate change, of dwindling oil supplies and of destruction of natural resources. We need a real vision of sustainability in its true sense, not the economic growth at all costs that is generally proposed. We face tremendous challenges of learning to live within our means, and this Executive is simply not taking those challenges seriously enough. It is still looking back to old solutions, such as building its way out of congestion. We need the Executive to look forward and to see the very best in the world and adopt it—to look to Sweden with its high standards of home insulation, to New Zealand with its zero-waste policy, and to Canada with its cold-water cooling systems.
We in Scotland want our name to be known in the world; we want to have a name for vision and inspiration beyond this building. In Scotland, we have innovative companies that see the need for sustainable development and which have imaginative ideas. They are dedicated to their vision, despite not getting the full support and leadership that would really make a difference to them. In renewable energy, we have companies such as Wavegen, which has been supplying the grid for years with a small device off Islay; or Ocean Power Delivery, which has been testing its wave-energy converter in the Orkneys, funded by venture capitalists; or hydrogen fuel cell companies such as SiGen, which just needs market support. The venture capital energy specialists, 3i, agree with us. Three times more investment is needed in marine energy to capture the 7,000 jobs that we stand to lose to Portugal. That money is available through the renewable obligation certificates, but there is no commitment from this Executive to invest that money in emerging renewables.
We have individuals, such as Moir Lockhead of FirstGroup with his bullet train idea; or Iain Gulland of Alloa Community Enterprises, who is bubbling over with enthusiasm for the job-creating, resource-saving and cash-saving concept of zero waste. If I had to make one wish for a far-reaching policy that I would like this Executive to embrace, zero waste would be it. Zero waste is not just about managing our waste better and recycling more; it is about managing all resources throughout their life cycle and eliminating waste in every area of human activity. That is the kind of big idea that inspires people and gives them hope that we can develop our country sustainably. I would like the Executive to forget that it was a Green who suggested that idea. It is not my idea; I just looked at the concept in action around the world and thought, "Yes. This is what we need for Scotland." However, the Executive's myopic aim for economic growth at any cost has little time for such ideas.
Many more individuals and institutions are out there trying to find sustainable solutions. We have sustainable housing initiatives in Fife; we have the University of Strathclyde and its work in using human sewage as fertiliser; and we have the University of Dundee and the Robert Gordon University and their work on water resources. I have to apologise, because I am sure that many more people whom I have not mentioned are also beavering away. We—but most of all the Executive—must listen to those people, must get excited by their vision and must back them. The people of Scotland are looking for that vision and drive and for the Executive to inspire them and lead them. We all want to feel proud of Scotland. We want that wow factor, so please give it to us.
This debate is about offering a vision of a different Scotland—a more socially just Scotland. I am sure that, as we open this new building, people across the country will be taking stock of the achievements of this Parliament after five years. They will list free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of poindings and warrant sales and long-needed land reform, which made a unique difference to living in Scotland. Surely that was the whole point of devolution in the first place. That approach remains the yardstick by which this Parliament will be measured. With that in mind, I want to suggest a change that, although not strictly a justice issue, will bring justice to tens of thousands, if not millions, of Scots.
Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish author and historian—who is not often cited by socialists—once tellingly remarked:
"No lie can last forever."
I believe that NHS prescription charges, which were introduced in 1951, represent an injustice at the heart of the national health service. The Beveridge report of 1942 laid down the fundamental aim of the NHS to provide a health service providing full preventive treatment of every kind
"to every citizen without exception, without remuneration limit and without an economic barrier at any point".
To be fair, even the economists and accountants whose idea prescription charges were saw them as a "temporary and necessary evil". Let us not forget that the charges were introduced to pay for Britain's involvement in the Korean war.
Today, all the available evidence suggests that such user charges deter access to health care. The rise in prescription charges between 1979 and 1984 led to a 40 per cent drop in the number of people taking their prescriptions. Gordon Brown himself, in a recent Treasury report, made the point well in ruling out plans for charging patients to see GPs. If it is an injustice to charge people to see their GPs, it is surely an injustice to charge them for the medicines that the GPs prescribe for them.
Yesterday, the First Minister promised that the Executive will improve access for people in Scotland. It is obvious that the NHS is undermined if people cannot access the treatment that they need. The citizens advice bureaux believe that, annually, as many as 70,000 prescriptions are not redeemed in Scotland because patients cannot find the £6.40 that is required for each medicine. Day in, day out, community pharmacists throughout the country face pleas from patients who ask them which of the vital medicines that have been prescribed for them they can leave out. In recent months, I have received hundreds of letters containing stories of chronic pain and agony suffered by patients throughout Scotland who bear their conditions with great dignity yet are worried sick about where they are going to find the money to pay for their medication.
I accept the fact that, in this Parliament, there is a debate raging—it has raged and continues to rage—about the best way to ensure that the Parliament's resources go to the people who are in most need. However, prescription charges exist in some illogical and archaic netherworld. They are neither wholly means tested nor universally available. The logic behind them is arbitrary and archaic. The minister said in a previous debate in Parliament that 91 per cent of prescriptions are dispensed free. That could easily give the false impression that this is a trivial matter that affects only a minuscule proportion of society. That is not true. Half the population of Scotland must pay the charges—it is an issue with 2.5 million potential beneficiaries.
It is argued that prescription charges bring vital extra income into the NHS. That income currently amounts to £45 million, representing just 4.9 per cent of the total NHS drugs bill of £850 million and less than 0.5 per cent of the NHS budget in Scotland. The legitimate question is: where is the money to come from to pay for the abolition of prescription charges? Fortunately, there is no shortage of answers. The Minister for Health and Community Care recently announced £41 million for front-line services this year. Welcome as that money is, it was apparently not in the budget announced in his statement at the beginning of the year. One health group has suggested that we examine the healthy profits that are made by drug companies in this country and ask them to contribute. Surely, a glass Parliament such as this is not the best place to argue that we cannot find the money, as the cost of this building would have paid for the abolition of prescription charges 10 times over.
Colin Fox says that the programme should be funded from the profits of the drug companies. However, one of his colleagues previously suggested that the assets of all drug companies should be expropriated. What profits would be available to fund his programme after that expropriation?
I referred to one of the many suggestions about how to pay for charges. I am sure that everybody in the chamber is well aware that drug companies make enormous profits from supplying the NHS with drugs.
I could put it another way and say that the bill for abolition is just the cost of two Wayne Rooneys. Eliminating the "necessary evil" of charges would signal our determination not to allow the injustice to persist.
In "Yes, Minister", Sir Humphrey used to ask Jim Hacker nervously, "Minister, you're not about to make a brave decision, are you?" I am asking the Executive to take a brave decision—real changes never come without such decisions. However, Jack can relax, because the idea has been test driven in Wales, and the walls of the Parliament there did not crash down as a result. Wales started with a review in mind—the same as the Executive's intention—but at the end of the evidence-taking process, the brave decision was taken to embrace the full abolition of charges. That decision was widely welcomed.
All the polling evidence in Scotland suggests that the people of Scotland are equally behind the idea. I hope that the Executive will live up to the vision of the people of Scotland, abolish prescription charges and end the injustice at the heart of the national health service.
There was a definite sense of occasion yesterday during the first-ever showing of the new debating chamber in action, and not enough can be said about the wonderful work that our staff have done to make that happen. We all appreciate that.
In many ways, we are all overawed to be here. In achieving home rule for Scotland in 1999, I did not dwell on the significance of having a permanent home but, after spending a few days here, I have no doubt that it adds something to Scotland's legislature. As a nation, we can be proud of what we have built, if we want to be. It is up to all of us to ensure that the public have the access that they want in order that they can make their judgment on the building.
It goes without saying that flitting to this place should make no difference to our overall goal of improving ordinary Scots' lives, as many members said yesterday. We have been asked to raise our game. Football metaphors are common currency in Scottish politics, but we all know that what is involved is anything but a game. It is about serious hard work, serious debate and seriously hard decisions.
My plea is that we all do our best to live up to that expectation. As politicians, we know that we have a heavy duty to the public to have real debates and argument that are lively, if possible, and even passionate about subjects that matter to us. However, we must respect the opinions of, and listen to, others. Above all, we must see where consensus lies among the parties, because the public will expect that from the Parliament—although not too much, in case the press are too bored by that.
Michael Matheson challenged the Executive well on its record. We would expect him to do nothing less than that in opposition. However, if we are to raise our game, it is also fair to give the Executive credit where it is due. It is the first Government seriously to tackle slopping out. I read that Barlinnie has dramatically reduced slopping out and I note that the Scottish Prison Service took credit for that, but the Executive should have some credit, too.
We are the first Government to offer an alternative to dealing with women's offending by creating the 218 Time Out centre in Glasgow. We are the first Government to acknowledge, by establishing the drugs courts, that we must tackle drug addiction. We are the first Government to reform the High Court radically for the public's benefit and to offer a victim-centred approach to justice. I could go on about what the Executive has done under its justice programme, but I ask only that the Opposition give credit where it is due.
I will make a few comments that go beyond the justice agenda about what is important to me as a Labour member. Our first priority is to grow the Scottish economy—that is what the partnership agreement says and that is right. However, it is crucial that our First Minister clarified in his statement yesterday that the purpose of that priority is to pursue a strategy that can divert resources to those who need them most, to the creation of successful home-grown industries and to the nurturing of skills in the economy for the benefit of all Scots. We must emphasise that that purpose is in mind—it is not growth for growth's sake or for those who already benefit from it; rather it is growth to meet our targets for lifting children out of poverty, for creating a better environment and for sharing business success with a work force that has helped to create it. We must make further progress on low pay; that must be one purpose of our growth agenda in the private sector in particular.
The United Kingdom director general of the Confederation of British Industry said at the organisation's annual Scottish dinner last week that the unions are irrelevant in a global economy. Although Bill Aitken—who is not here but was at the same table as me—enjoyed seeing my blood pressure rise, it needs to be highlighted that that is certainly not the case in Scotland or for the Executive, which has worked well in partnership with the unions on low pay and training. It is important to note that.
The Opposition has claimed that there is no vision. In some respects, that is a wee bit of a cliché: they would say that, wouldn't they? However, not all aspects of nation building are visionary. There is sheer hard work—change is not always fast and we do not always see results immediately. I think that we have done all right with the 60 bills that were passed in the first session of the Parliament, the 12 bills that are forthcoming and the very important initiatives that are being taken. We have the job of modernising civil law, family law and planning law, shortening our waiting lists, bringing health services closer to people and increasing life chances. We have all those things to do.
I will say what I think our priorities should be. Our planning system is in desperate need of modernisation—some local plans are more than 50 years old. It is a bold idea to reform planning law and I know that at some point in the future a planning bill will be introduced. There will be some lively debate on that issue because there is divergence of opinion on it within the parties, which is healthy. In my view, although business rightly wants a less regulated and freer system so that it can achieve what it needs to achieve, there must be fairness for communities. I urge the Executive to consider introducing a form of review or appeal for communities, which I believe can be done speedily and without damaging business interests.
On transport, we have new powers and I am sure that we will use them to our advantage. However, I want ministers to consider a measure that I am considering including in a member's bill in order to bring more effective bus services to our communities. Currently, there is no statutory requirement for operators to consult communities on withdrawal of services, but I think that communities should have a say on that issue. We should do more to deliver better bus services.
I am pleased that affordable housing is such a high priority for the Executive. I know that I am not alone in saying that there is a desperate need in my constituency for socially rented housing. I know that we also have commitments in respect of the private sector.
On justice, there is still much more to be done, as we have discussed this morning. I agree with Michael Matheson that more needs to be done in the matter of women in custody. Shortening that vicious cycle for women must be a high priority.
There has been some light-hearted talk about lap-dancing clubs, but Glasgow recently faced the prospect of becoming the lap-dancing capital of the UK. That is not an image that Glasgow wants to have and I give all credit to the licensing committee that rejected the two applications that were made, so that the city has not become the UK's lap-dancing capital. I know that the Executive is committed to dealing with that issue and I urge it to consider introducing legislation that would give local authorities the powers to regulate this area of the law, if they wish.
A considerable number of back benchers have indicated that they wish to speak this morning, and I will try very hard to fit them all in. If members limit their speeches to six minutes, I will do so, but if they overrun they will take up other members' time.
Many members have kindly asked after the health of my wife, Margaret. After speaking to her earlier this morning, I am pleased to be able to say that it is hoped that she will be discharged from Dr Gray's hospital in Elgin in the next few days. However, she will need to spend several weeks rebuilding her strength. She has asked me to express her thanks to all members who have kindly asked after her. We cannot thank enough the staff who have looked after her at Dr Gray's hospital.
As you know, Presiding Officer, I have taken more than a passing interest in the Holyrood project as it has unfolded. Now that we are here, let me say this about the building: I like it. I hope that before the main event in this process takes place we can resolve a matter on which I sought guidance some weeks ago: is Holyrood pronounced with a long O or a short O? When I discussed the question with a member of the press who is not very supportive of this institution, he came up with the line, "Some say Holyrood, others say Hollyrood, let's call the whole thing off." We can all agree that none of us—even in the Conservative ranks—would support that for a moment.
I suspect that, as more people in Scotland have the opportunity to see this building for themselves, the majority will like it. This is a subjective matter and it is not an issue on which we should force people in any way to form a view. However, I suspect that people will come to the conclusion that we now have a building that is fit for a Parliament, but a Parliament that has the powers only of an assembly.
I want to address remarks that the Minister for Justice made this morning. We all want to address offending and reoffending so I want, as a result, to highlight an example of a method that is used not to deal with offending after it has happened or to prevent its recurrence, but to prevent offending in the first place and to turn younger people away from offending towards a life without criminality and antisocial behaviour.
Over the summer, some of us might have seen a programme called "Bad Lads Army", which followed the transformation of a group of young men from feckless individuals who practised a life of crime into good citizens. I am not advocating that we go back to the approach that was shown in the programme; however, as the minister knows, a modern version of that, called operation youth advantage, is already operating in Scotland. The scheme has been pioneered by the Army, working with the Northern constabulary and Grampian police, and asks young people who have been identified by the police, the social work department and schools as having already embarked on small-time crime—such as graffiti, minor theft, vandalism and foul language—or who it is thought are on the cusp of going into big-time crime, whether they would like to participate in a residential course conducted in an army barracks. Most of them say yes, and when the parents are consulted, most of them also say yes. When individuals who had been on the course—which exposes young people to physical exercise, lessons on citizenship, information on addiction and so on—were evaluated after a year, the results showed that almost none of them had reoffended.
Surely that example should be replicated throughout Scotland. I made this same speech—you know that I enjoy doing that, Presiding Officer—15 months ago on 5 June 2003. I made the same points then and felt that the minister listened attentively, which I can see that she is clearly doing now. I pursued the matter thereafter with two parliamentary questions that asked for the scheme to be replicated throughout Scotland. Unfortunately, the minister replied:
"it is for individual police forces to decide on the extent of their involvement. As a result, the Executive has made no representations to the Ministry of Defence about extending the scheme."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 5 September 2003; S2W-2071.]
That is an opportunity lost.
In her other response, the minister added:
"it will be for individual forces to decide on the extent of their involvement."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 17 June 2003; S2W-679.]
However, I do not believe that that is good enough. The public are not interested in whether a policy is left, right or centre or whether it is politically correct or not; they are interested in what works.
As I and the SNP have argued, an approach that exposes young people who have led feckless, reckless lives that are devoid of discipline, to the sort of techniques that we have seen on the television programme that I mentioned, that the public understand and that work so spectacularly, should be replicated throughout Scotland.
Listening to the First Minister's speech yesterday, I was reminded of Miss Tallulah Bankhead's famous saying:
"There is less in this than meets the eye."
Now that we have new leadership in the SNP and now that its members have so wisely elected Nicola Sturgeon to lead us in this Parliament, we will continue to do as I have done this morning and offer, in the spirit of our new democracy, a positive idea that works and that can really tackle antisocial behaviour before, not after, it occurs.
It is nice to hear Fergus Ewing being so modest about his abilities. I am sure that he will take all our good wishes to his wife, Margaret. We are delighted to hear that she is on the mend.
I will mention a couple of proposed bills before I go on to talk about those in which I have an interest as party spokesman. On the issues that are raised by the proposed bill on smoking, the Parliament has to be careful because there seems to be an assumption that when the proposed bill is passed, people in Scotland will suddenly stop smoking. Yes, there will be more smoke-free premises, but it would be naive for any of us to believe that the legislation will cut down on smoking. I have just come back from Donegal where I spent a few days last weekend and where there is suddenly a plethora of beer gardens and sheltered buildings attached to pubs and other premises, which are catering for smokers as well as non-smokers.
How would the member reduce smoking?
My point is that we should not assume that the proposed bill on smoking will reduce smoking. That argument comes up elsewhere and I do not want to use the rest of my speech to consider greater access to anti-smoking measures; there are other ways in which it could be done.
My second point is about the proposed Gaelic language bill. Having come back from Rannafast in Donegal, which is at the centre of the Irish Gaeltacht, I hope that members on the committee that will consider the bill will work with our Irish colleagues and consider the whole of Gaelic culture, not just the language. There is much more to Gaelic culture than just the language.
I move on to issues for which I am the spokesman. First, on the charities bill, Conservative members will certainly support all moves to restore confidence in charities and to encourage giving through donations and volunteering. I hope that Parliament will have a balanced debate about private schools and that we will consider the contribution that they make to our society. During the recess, I visited Gordonstoun School and discovered quite a bit about it that I had not been aware of, such as the fact that it was founded by a Jew who was fleeing persecution from Nazi Germany between the two world wars. The school is also based on community principles; pupils are involved in the local fire service, mountain rescue team and coastguard and are called out regularly to help with those services. That is something that could be more widely learned in Scotland.
We also have to ask why the Inland Revenue has 18,000 charities in its database, yet the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has 28,000. Ten thousand charities not being registered with the Inland Revenue has to be a matter for concern. We are not looking for more regulation or over-regulation; we want only that those that are bona fide charities abide by the rules. We must also have a balanced debate that defines the characteristic of independence in charities, particularly when we consider the example of Scottish Natural Heritage, a supposedly independent charity that required two ministerial directives to move it to Inverness. It is going to be difficult for charities to be free from external control or third-party direction when they are under ministerial direction. I look forward to a balanced debate on that issue.
On the proposed housing bill, if we are to do things better in Parliament, we have to ensure that we consult properly and adequately so that we include all the issues in the appropriate bill. The national registration scheme for private landlords did not fulfil that criterion. A consultation on that issue was not undertaken prior to legislation. A national registration scheme for private landlords should not have been in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, particularly when we are going to be considering a housing bill in this session.
When Margaret Mitchell's internet grooming amendment to that bill came to the Communities Committee, it was not accepted by members, mainly because no pre-legislative consultation on it had been undertaken. I supported Margaret Mitchell's amendment, but I understood and acknowledged other committee members' point that no consultation had happened. Having rejected proposals on internet grooming as part of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, we should also have rejected the registration scheme for landlords, because the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill was not the appropriate bill for such a scheme.
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute.
We are consulting on a housing bill and conducting post-legislative consultation on a national registration scheme for private landlords, which forms part of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004.
Housing is not the only answer. Where people have a care need that is assessed, the absence of that care leaves many people isolated. For people with mental health and alcohol problems, the isolation of their own home may be the worst, rather than the best, option.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, especially as we have now, at last, moved into what I think will become a building of great architectural merit and a worthy addition to Scotland's built heritage.
Yesterday the First Minister not only outlined the Executive's legislative programme for the coming year, but reflected on what has already been achieved. For example, he mentioned the Tenements (Scotland) Bill, which will put in place the final piece of the programme that later this year will end feudal tenure in Scotland. It is highly unlikely that that achievement, which is long overdue, would have been made without devolution, given that it has taken three major bills to bring it about. People who complain about our Parliament's having insufficient powers should perhaps reflect on that fact and acknowledge what the Parliament can do, rather than spend too much time talking about what it cannot do.
Yesterday's debate on the Executive's programme ended with the Minister for Transport's speech. Like other members, I welcome the forthcoming transport bill which, in introducing a Scotland-wide concessionary travel scheme, will build on what was achieved in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. I welcome the continuing shift in budget allocation towards public transport and I am glad that the Executive intends to fulfil the agreement with the United Kingdom Government to improve Scotland's railways by bringing together rail operation and track infrastructure. That is essential not only for the reopening of previously closed railways such as the Kincardine-Alloa-Stirling line, the Larkhall to Milngavie line and the Airdrie to Bathgate line, but it will lead to increased capacity, which is so important for constituencies such as mine in Fife.
There is no doubt that over the past five years there have been improvements in Fife's rail services; capacity has increased and new stations have opened. However, the improvements have not matched the increase in demand. In particular, the huge rise in the number of people commuting from Dunfermline, Rosyth and Inverkeithing means that overcrowding on peak-hour services remains acute and reliability is still a major difficulty. It is clear that more investment is needed in Fife circle and east coast main line services through Fife to ease those problems.
If we are serious about providing realistic alternatives to the people who travel by car over the Forth bridge, convenient, clean and comfortable public transport needs to be provided. Higher bridge tolls and congestion charging alone will not stop motorists. The Ferry Toll park and ride scheme and new bus lanes have improved bus travel to and from Edinburgh, but that needs to be built on. This week, Fife Council agreed that a new ferry link across the Forth between central Fife and north Edinburgh was a viable option and I hope that other members, especially the Minister for Transport, would welcome such a link as a valuable addition to travel across the Forth estuary.
I was pleased that the First Minister acknowledged yesterday the important contribution that the people who work in our public services make. As a former local government worker, I get a bit tired of the constant carping by some members of the Parliament about the apparent shortcomings of the public sector. It was important that the First Minister acknowledged the innovation, expertise and commitment that exist in much of our public sector's work force: I certainly endorse that.
However, I am not complacent. I acknowledge that in some areas we need to step up our game and make real improvements. That is especially true of our criminal justice services, particularly those that seek to reduce reoffending. As a nation, we imprison far too many people. We need tough action to be taken against people who pose a danger to others, but there is little point in repeatedly handing out short sentences, especially if we are serious that among the key jobs that our prisons should undertake are rehabilitation and cutting down on reoffending rates.
The problem of recidivism also affects people who are given community sentences. It is not only our prison staff who are challenged in their work to address the issue; local authority criminal justice social workers and their voluntary agency partners also have work to do in that respect. In order to reduce reoffending and further drive down crime statistics, our criminal justice system, local authorities, courts and prisons must all work much more closely together. A more joined-up and integrated approach will make a difference to our criminal justice service, just as that approach will see real improvements in our other much-valued public services.
Like others, I want to say how good it is to start the new session in this new, wonderful Parliament building with a debate on the Executive's programme for government for the coming year. The debate gives us the opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved so far and to highlight what we hope to achieve in future. Today, I will focus on justice issues—an area in which I believe we are making a real difference and in which exciting things are happening in the coming year.
In my first year in the Scottish Parliament it was encouraging to see bills coming before the justice committees that would make a real difference to the lives of so many people, not only in my constituency of Edinburgh South, but across Scotland as a whole. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004 will greatly improve the operation of the court system by cutting delays and uncertainties in the High Court; the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 will protect witnesses such as children and vulnerable adults; and the Tenements (Scotland) Bill, which is proceeding to its stage 3 debate, is the third cog in the wheel. It will dramatically improve the management of tenements across Scotland and provide much-needed reform.
The Lib Dems ensured that the antisocial behaviour strategies will examine the facilities and services that are available for under 16s, thereby ensuring real alternatives to antisocial behaviour in areas across Scotland. We are using electronic tagging and drug testing and treatment orders to try and keep the people who commit low-order crime out of prison, as prison is simply a training ground for turning people into reoffenders.
One of the challenges for the coming year is to ensure that prison is used effectively as a punishment for serious crime. Prison should be used as a place in which people can be rehabilitated over a period of time. Locking up people because they have committed minor offences does no one any good. Rigorous community sentences are far more effective at giving victims some sort of justice.
It would be useful if the member could define what he considers to be a minor offence and say what action should be taken against someone who commits a large number of minor offences.
Far too many people in prison are serving sentences of anything from a week to three months. Many of them committed offences such as motoring offences. We do not need to put people into prison for such an offence. Margaret Smith and I visited a very good new scheme, which is based in Leith. We met a young man of 27 who, although he had never had a licence, started driving at 17. He has been taken out of offending as a result of the scheme and is no longer in prison. We need to address those sorts of issues. Real money needs to be provided to increase the number of secure places that are available for our young people so that those with real problems can be helped and kept out of prison.
The challenges for the year ahead are great. Obviously, we will have to give serious consideration to the McInnes report into the workings of summary justice. Personally, I am opposed to the removal of the wealth of experience that lay justices bring to the bench. I agree with the dissenting voices to the report that said that they were not convinced as to that plan. I look forward to seeing what the consultation brings out on the matter. If people come out in favour of some element of lay justice, I hope that the Minister for Justice will listen to those voices. Clearly, the use of more sheriffs and stipendiary magistrates will be more expensive.
The other big challenges for the year ahead include the proposals for changing how criminal justice social work is delivered. Many people to whom I have talked about the proposals are not convinced that change is needed. People are saying that it would damage the partnership work that is being done by social work, the prison service, the police and other agencies. My colleague Margaret Smith referred to that in her speech. The consultation shows clearly that very few people responded positively to the proposals.
The front line for justice issues is always the police on the streets. I was pleased to hear recently that an extra £600,000 was made available for extra policing in the capital. Sadly, that is not near the £1 million that the police had asked for, but I know that it has allowed the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police to have more police in the capital and to continue to grow their number in the coming years.
Extra police on the streets have already made a real difference in my constituency where, over the past year, antisocial behaviour has been brought under control through partnership working between those extra police and the youth action team. I have mentioned the youth action team in the chamber before. It is a wonderful innovation, involving local residents and officials from the City of Edinburgh Council. The Deputy Minister for Communities saw it for herself when she visited my constituency on a couple of occasions. I would hope that the model that has been employed in the Inch and in the surrounding area could be used as best practice across Scotland.
I was pleased to hear yesterday that the Executive is going to tackle many other justice issues, including liquor licensing, the protection of children and the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. Those issues will give members of the justice committees much to debate and scrutinise, and I look forward to the year ahead. The Executive has been criticised because the legislation over the coming period is perhaps light. That might be a good thing. As a relatively new member, I believe that we do not spend enough time looking back at the laws that we have passed and at their results in our communities.
To digress slightly, I think—I would, of course—that there was one glaring omission from the First Minister's statement yesterday: the lack of action on plastic bags. Although that does not feature in the Executive's plans in the coming year, I can tell the Parliament that my environmental levy bill will be introduced in this session. I hope that, when the First Minister was in Ireland recently, he saw the real benefits that a charge on plastic bags has brought there. There has been a 97 per cent reduction in bag use in Ireland and a change to far more sustainable carriers. Here in Lothian, Ikea has set the trend, and there is more to come. That can only be a good thing, and I hope that the Executive and the Parliament will support my proposal when it is introduced.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without welcoming the First Minister's comments yesterday on the need to tackle smoking and his recent road-to-Damascus—or perhaps that should be road-to-Dublin—conversion. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, and referring particularly to Mary Scanlon's comment about the lack of evidence on whether a ban on smoking in enclosed spaces reduces the incidence of smoking, I would say to Mary that she should go and look at the research. Such a measure reduced smoking in New York by 11 per cent, and smoking in Norway was reduced by 3 per cent before the bill there even passed into law. International evidence shows that such bans reduce the rate of smoking by 4 per cent on average.
I welcome the sudden burst of support from around the chamber, especially from those members who remained silent during the campaign for the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed spaces, which I have been involved in since I was elected. Even more welcome is the support from members who said previously that they were not supporters of a comprehensive ban. I am glad to see that the dramatic conversion of the Labour First Minister to the smoke-free cause has become contagious among Labour members. I welcome all those members on board the campaign for a cleaner, healthier and safer Scotland.
I turn now to justice. I welcome the Executive's announcement of its plans for the added protection of children. That is critical, and I am glad about the focus of some of the forthcoming bills that were announced yesterday. However, the Executive committed itself to reducing the prison population, and it is clear that it has failed to do so over the past five years. The number of prisoners in Scotland continues to rise year on year. In my role as a member of the Justice 1 Committee, I have visited a number of prisons over the past year. I am only too aware of the problems of overcrowding in many prisons.
Will Stewart Maxwell's party put its weight fully behind our proposals to build two new prisons, so that we can continue to tackle not just the problem of overcrowding, but that of slopping out?
Will the minister put her weight behind a proposal that those prisons should not be privatised?
Well, I would say to Mr Maxwell—
No—the minister has had her intervention.
Overcrowding in our prisons is not just something that affects prisoners; it makes the working lives of prison staff more difficult and, on occasion, more dangerous. Overcrowding also makes it extremely difficult for the Scottish Prison Service to deal with many of the problems that it currently faces. I fear that it will lead to an ever increasing number of human rights cases.
The biggest problem with the failure to reduce the number of prisoners is that it interferes with prison staff carrying out the rehabilitation programmes that are designed to reduce reoffending, or even prevents them from doing so. Given that more than 60 per cent of prisoners reoffend within two years of release, it is now well past the point when action must be taken. Part of the solution to reducing rates of reoffending lies in tackling offending early.
Justices of the peace generously give of their time and they know the area in which they serve. Often, they are aware of the individual circumstances of those who appear before them and the effect that their actions have on that community. Why would we want to get rid of such a resource? However, that is what the Executive has wrongly proposed. If the Executive goes down that road—
May I offer a point of clarification?
I know that the issue is under review.
What the member has said is factually inaccurate, and he should correct it.
I have corrected it. However, it would be a mistake for the Executive to go down that road.
In its response to the summary justice review, the District Courts Association said:
"Participation by members of the public is an important element of democracy."
JPs are the perfect example of such participation. I urge the Executive to reconsider the McInnes report's proposal to scrap the lay justice system. Instead, why does it not put in place the resources to improve and to use properly the skills and knowledge that the JP system brings both to local communities and to the legal profession?
The introduction of a UK supreme court is one of the most important proposed changes to our legal system, but the First Minister's statement made no mention of it. Perhaps that was a deliberate omission or perhaps he was too embarrassed to mention it. If that is the case, who can blame him? Surely even the unionists on the Labour and Lib Dem benches understand that Scotland's unique legal system is worth defending.
If Labour and the Lib Dems meekly hand over our legal system to London by yet again invoking the overused and discredited Sewel motion, that will be because they want to force the issue through this Parliament with no scrutiny and little or no debate. This Parliament was established to provide Scottish solutions to Scottish problems by repatriating to Scotland at least some powers over our own affairs. It was not established in order that Labour and Lib Dem members could snuff out one of the few uniquely Scottish institutions that has survived the pressure to conform to English law during almost 300 years of union. I urge all members to defend the Scottish legal system by throwing out any proposals for a UK supreme court when they get the chance.
The Executive often speaks about justice for all. That is a noble aim indeed, but how can the Executive square the circle of justice for all when innocent children are locked up behind barbed wire in Dungavel? How can such treatment of the most vulnerable in our society be reconciled with the Executive's worthy and lofty statements? Frankly, I do not believe that it can. The Executive's shameful position, whereby it has cowered behind the Westminster Government and constantly cried that such powers are reserved, can be aptly summed up by Abraham Lincoln's phrase:
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
Those poignant words show how far the Executive must go to raise its game. If the Executive is serious about justice for all, let us hear something more than, "It's nothing to do with us," when it is next questioned on the matter. Actions speak louder than words, but words would at least be a start.
Of course, the real reason for the Executive's inaction is the lack of power that the Executive and Scotland have over our own affairs. Devolution is nothing more than a halfway house. All that is wrong with the Executive was again encapsulated in a single sentence by Abraham Lincoln, which sums up the difficulties that Scotland faces:
"I believe this Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free".
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this first debate in our new Parliament building. As many of my colleagues have said, the legacy of Donald Dewar and Enric Miralles is a building that is both inspirational and challenging. The building challenges us all to live up to the ambition and confidence that were needed for its creation. I am sure that we will all strive to be equally ambitious and aspirational in our efforts to create a better Scotland.
I am particularly pleased to be able to take part in the justice section of the debate. Over the past five years, we have often debated social justice. We have taken that to mean that there must be a sense of fairness about how our resources are used. In particular, we have taken it to mean that the Parliament must strive to develop opportunities for the poorest people in our communities. That sense of fairness and responsibility must extend to the protection of our communities from those who, day after day, help only to erode and destroy our communities. Often, the poorest in our society are the ones who feel those effects the most. They suffer the daily grind of abuse, violence, threats and destruction that are dished out by a small minority of antisocial and violent people.
I am pleased that the Parliament has already taken strong action to tackle that scourge on our communities. I am equally pleased that the First Minister has indicated that there will be no let up. I welcome his announcement of the introduction of a bill to protect our children from those who would prey on them. I know that the measure will be welcomed by the Moira Anderson Foundation, which is an organisation based in my constituency that provides help and support to families who have suffered the effects of sexual abuse.
In addition, the Parliament still has important items of business to conclude from the previous parliamentary year, not the least of which is the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. The protection of those who work in our emergency services must remain a priority and we must send a clear signal that we will do everything in our power to punish those who seek to impede or harm them.
Today, however, I would like to focus on the proposals for reforming licensing law. I believe that that is a vital piece of legislation and exactly the type of issue that this Parliament should be tackling. It may not have the grandeur of Nicola Sturgeon's bullet trains—which, incidentally, would bypass most of the communities that we represent, just so that she can get to her work on time—but it would help to improve the lives of those in many communities across Scotland, including communities such as Calderbank in my constituency.
Is it the case that Karen Whitefield does not support a high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow?
I support moves to ensure that we have a transport infrastructure that allows all people in Scotland to get about, and the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate line will do far more than a bullet train between Glasgow and Edinburgh would.
I recently visited Hugh Lucas, the chairman of the Calderbank heritage group. Hugh showed me some of the devastation caused by people drinking outside. He showed me the nature park that it had taken the group years to develop but which it has taken a group of antisocial drinkers only weeks to destroy. He showed me the broken glass that is strewn across the local football pitch and which makes playing football perilous for children. He showed me the pond in the nature park, which is poisoned with beer cans, broken bottles and plastic bags. He showed me where the park bench was, before a group of drunken youths set it on fire. In his opinion, those are the effects of having too many off-licence premises in the village open for too many hours. Mr Lucas is quite clear that future licensing laws must take into account more effectively the views of local people. He is equally clear that the number of licences granted must be in proportion to the local population.
I certainly share those views. Our licensing laws must help in the battle to break the link between alcohol abuse and crime. They must punish those shopkeepers who knowingly sell alcohol to under-18s, and they must challenge the culture of binge drinking, which often leads to violent behaviour. That is why I welcome the proposals to curb the use of drinks promotions that encourage people to drink quickly. I also back the Nicholson report recommendations on improving how local people can interact with licensing. They are the people who suffer the effects of an overabundance of licensed premises, so it is only right that they should have a say in the licensing process. I look forward to the progress of that bill through the Parliament, as do many of my constituents. I know that this new Parliament will provide an excellent venue for politicians to listen closely to the views of the public during the passage of the bill.
I welcome the vision for Scotland set out by the First Minister yesterday, and I welcome his continued commitment to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. To those who say that the Parliament has lost touch with the people of Scotland, I say that dealing effectively with crime and antisocial behaviour is the most pressing issue brought to constituency MSPs. That is why ensuring that there is justice for all is, and should remain, a central priority for this Parliament.
My two Liberal Democrat colleagues have dealt very well with the legal issues, so I would like to range a bit more widely, if I may. I speak as a great enthusiast for the Parliament as an institution, as a signed-up supporter of the coalition and as a person who is pleased that we are now in a permanent home that has many excellent features. What we have failed to do so far is to excite the Scots. Many people have a vision, but we have not managed to get it over to the Scottish people that we have a vision, and that we can deliver it—that is also important.
For a start we want to run our own affairs better. There are four main legs of government: the Parliament, the Executive, the civil service and local government. Local government officials by and large think that civil servants are theoretical people who have never run anything and civil servants think that local government cannot run anything—or it runs things but it does so very badly. Civil servants, imbued with the Westminster ethos, think that back-bench MSPs are the enemy and should be kept in the dark as much as possible. Government departments have an ethos of not co-operating with each other and likewise in local government.
We have to get our act together to deliver a better result for the Scottish people. There should be committees of some sort that act as fora in which all four sections can meet on equal terms and discuss issues seriously, rather than ask questions across a table, which is useful but limited. We are not allowed by law—mistakenly in my view—to co-opt people on to our committees, but there must be ways of getting us together so that the four parts of government can assist each other. We all have talents, but we are currently not allowed to use them collectively.
My next point is that we are even worse than Westminster in the excessive power of the party machines. Parties determine the agenda, the speakers and have excessively vigorous whipping organisations—those are worse than at Westminster. We must be grown up and people have to be more relaxed about the outcome of unimportant votes and about defending every word in a bill; ministers currently feel that because a civil servant wrote it he or she has to defend it.
Does Mr Gorrie agree, given that the committees in this Parliament play a substantially greater role—probably four times as great—than at Westminster and with the virtual absence of whipping in committees, that much of the work of this Parliament is based on rational analysis of the issues in front of parliamentarians, unconstrained by external, irrational whipping?
I wish I shared Stewart Stevenson's view. What he says is true to some extent, but he has an over-optimistic view of the position.
We must have arrangements that give Parliament its voice; Parliament as an institution does not have a voice. We need Parliament and back benchers collectively to have arrangements whereby we can co-operate better with like-minded people without being disloyal to our parties—we have to sort out our own affairs.
My suggestion for a vision would be to start at the bottom with communities; if we can create good communities we will get rid of a great many of the problems that we have discussed in the debate. Currently the public sector and the commercial sector are well organised—they have a voice and they are big pillars of the establishment—but the community voluntary sector, community enterprise, co-operatives, small businesses and so on have very little say. They need to be built up and supported so that they can contribute fully to planning and delivering the services that society urgently requires, which they do very well when they are allowed to.
We must fund those activities in a rational way. We currently waste huge amounts of money by funding projects. Then when the project has got going the funding stops—all the good work is undone and the money is wasted. That happens because new equals a good story; if a minister, a councillor, a health board or whoever has a new project, that gets a story. Keeping a good existing project going does not get a story, so it is ignored. We must have a system of continuing core funding for people who are doing good work—whether they are voluntary organisations or other groups. We must continue to fund successful programmes rather than stop them in order to fund something new—that applies to the voluntary sector and to council activities. We need a national system for allocating funds in a rational and fair way.
We must also build up the social economy: the micro-businesses, the co-operatives and the community businesses. There is good work being done, but we need more focus on such activities, because they fall between the enterprise structure and the community structure. Building up communities can be a real way of producing a vision for Scotland.
I want to speak about two aspects of the Executive's programme: justice, which has been discussed this morning, and health. I look forward perhaps to hearing further detail on health issues this afternoon.
First, on justice, we have been discussing the number of prisoners and having a rather unproductive debate about whether we are reducing the number of prisoners by increasing the number of spaces that we are building for them. There is relatively broad consensus that there is not much point in sending people to prison unless they come out of that experience changed by it. There are three Rs in the justice system. The first of them, which the public thinks about a great deal, is restriction of liberty. That is the punishment part of the system. The very act of a person being locked up, having reduced communication with their friends and family and having little opportunity to participate in the economy—they cannae go tae their job in the morning—is the punishment.
The second R, which has been discussed to some extent—and about which we heard nothing in the Executive's programme—is restitution, or restorative justice. There is a great deal of opportunity for members throughout the Parliament to come forward with ideas on that subject. It is a subject that is not yet much developed, and I would like the Executive—and indeed my SNP colleagues—to continue to develop it.
I am glad that that point has been raised as restorative justice is one of the issues that, because of the lack of time, I had difficulty developing in my speech. I can give the member the assurance that the Executive is absolutely committed to ensuring that we have sentencing programmes in which offenders have to make some reparation in the communities against which they have offended.
I thank the minister. I am delighted with that, and I am sure that, as sensible proposals come forward, the minister will have a fair wind for them from the SNP. I am equally sure that we shall make our own proposals.
The most important of the three Rs is rehabilitation. Scotland is spending an increasing amount of money on programmes in the prison service—I very much welcome that. However, I have considerable concerns about what I have seen happening in the private sector in prisons. I am not just referring to what is happening in Scotland. I visited a private prison in Wales and found a lamentable failure to engage in a meaningful way in rehabilitating prisoners and ensuring that, when they left prison, they were less likely to reoffend. The figure of 60 per cent reoffending has been mentioned.
I take a considerable interest in the programmes and work of Peterhead prison, in my constituency. I very much welcomed the minister's spending a day with us in the north-east, observing the work of the prison. I hope that she was not too alarmed by the number of prisoners who greeted me by my first name; I can assure her that it is simply because I am their constituency MSP and not for any other, more sinister reason. We have not yet found a way of providing adequate support to what is going on at Peterhead. I recognise that the minister is focused on delivering two new prisons in the central belt for other purposes, but I hope that we will get an early indication that we can get the necessary investment to support, sustain and further develop what happens at Peterhead.
The minister will know, from her meeting with Liberal-independent Aberdeenshire Council, at which I joined her, that there is considerable concern about the proposals for a single correctional agency. The SNP initially took a neutral approach to the proposals, but as we have talked to local authorities in Aberdeenshire and elsewhere, it has become increasingly apparent that local authorities feel that they have a valuable contribution to make through the criminal justice social work system, which they provide and administer. We are in real danger of moving in a centralising way that runs against good practice and effective delivery of the rehabilitation efforts that must take place after prisoners are no longer within prison walls. More generally on that front, there are worrying signs within the Executive. Local authorities have been given the power to promote well-being, but we have seen little change in the Executive's relationship with and empowering of councils.
One of the major issues that will occupy us as we engage with the topic of health is the automation of record keeping in the health service. As we introduce changes in the pattern of out-of-hours care and call centres, more and more of patients' preliminary contact with the health service is with people who have no access to their medical records. That will cause health problems as well as introducing significant inefficiency in the system. In England, substantial amounts of money are being spent to do something about that—I look to England from time to time to learn from what happens there. We will return to that issue.
The First Minister said yesterday that he wanted us to be the best small country in the world. I have more modest ambitions: I want us to be equal to other small countries. I have no grand vision that Scotland is uniquely better than everywhere else, but I think that Scotland is as good as everywhere else. I welcome Mary Scanlon's conversion to the cause of independence—I hope that she moves from advocating independence for charities to advocating independence for Scotland.
A Scotland of ambition and enterprise and one that is characterised by fairness, tolerance and respect—those were the values and the vision that the First Minister set out and which should underpin all that we do in the Parliament. Like many other members, I welcome the legislative programme, with its focus on protecting the vulnerable and giving people new rights and the continuing focus on modernising our justice system. However, legislation is only a small part of what we do—our policy priorities and where we spend our money are equally important.
Irrespective of the mechanism, we were all elected with similar aspirations for devolution: the desire to make a difference, to transform the experience of people in our communities and, for Labour members, to close the opportunity gap and deliver social justice. All those ambitions remain today. Although a lot has been made of the fact that we are a small country, we are big on ambition and potential. The fact that we are small can be a positive asset: it is easier to harness delivery mechanisms, we have an opportunity to get things done quicker and it is easier to take risks and test out what works best.
We need to be ambitious about what can be achieved, particularly in the cause of social justice. I have long believed that a strong economy and a strong society are different sides of exactly the same coin. To tackle poverty and implement the progressive values for which Labour members stand, we need to create the conditions for sustained economic growth. A vibrant economy offers us a clear and effective means of achieving social justice, but we need to be more explicit in our aim of targeting communities and vulnerable individuals. I ask the Executive to continue its efforts—in all portfolios, not just communities—and do more to close the opportunity gap. That work should be the hallmark of this Government.
I see that the lights in the chamber have gone off—the lights have often gone off on me—but I intend to carry on in full flow, as long as you can hear me, Presiding Officer. Not seeing me is probably a benefit.
I will mention education and enterprise and reflect the reality of what is going on in my local community. In primary education, attainment levels have risen in West Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute, not least due to the Executive's efforts. That situation will be enhanced by the additional hundreds of millions of pounds that are being directed towards the creation of new schools. However, the picture is not the same in secondary education. Too many of our young people leave school with no qualifications and few skills and, in some cases, unable to read or write. Their ability to make progress is severely hampered and their opportunities are not realised. Our ability to thrive as an economy will hinge on the skills and knowledge of our people—all of our people. Let me echo what Cathie Craigie said yesterday. If the Executive does only one thing and merely tackles only the inherent problem of literacy and numeracy, we can build on that.
We also need to improve economic performance, particularly in disadvantaged areas. In the constituency of Dumbarton, for example, the numbers of unemployed have reduced dramatically—there has been a 60 or 70 per cent reduction in youth unemployment—but the pace of change is slower. It takes more effort and we remain above the Scottish average. The number of business start-ups is another indication of buoyancy in an economy but, in Dumbarton, there are significant falls in the numbers of businesses being created. We rely on too few employers to sustain our local economic base. We need to do more to make communities sustainable in the constituency of Dumbarton. We need to create not only competitive people but competitive places.
I would like the Executive to do two things. It should remove economic barriers that hamper the flow of people and businesses by abolishing tolls on the Erskine bridge. I know that that is supported by at least two of the Presiding Officers and by my colleague Des McNulty. Secondly, I would like the Executive to provide a new focus to the place by considering establishing a lower Clyde initiative that would start at the Erskine bridge and stretch up to the Gare loch. That would allow us to focus on what needs to be done to ensure that that area has a competitive future.
On health, I believe that the minister understands the concerns that have been expressed in this chamber and which will probably be reflected this afternoon. I also believe that the minister will be helpful and will reflect on those concerns. Let me explain to the chamber the scale of nonsense that local people face in my community as a consequence of NHS Argyll and Clyde's proposals for service change. They face the centralisation not only of specialist services but of virtually all services. They face travelling for two-and-a-half hours by public transport to get across the Clyde to Paisley, bypassing five hospitals en route. They will pass the Golden Jubilee hospital, Gartnavel, the Western infirmary, the Royal infirmary and the Southern general hospital to get to the Royal Alexandra hospital. That is a complete nonsense in urban Scotland. People face a local service that is not patient centred and they face a health board that is accountable neither to them nor to me.
In short, I want Scotland to have one NHS, with people and their needs and interests at the centre. Health boards need to be clear that that is the message that we are sending them.
I want to explore in further detail some of the things that the First Minister said yesterday and, perhaps more important, some of the things that he did not say.
A couple of years ago, Jack McConnell said that his Executive was going to "do less, better." If that were an alternative to doing a lot of things badly, few could question the logic. However, it turned out that, while the coalition was, indeed, doing fewer things, it was not necessarily doing them better. So, as we discovered in yesterday's statement, it is time to raise the goalposts again. The softly-softly approach has been abandoned, and no fewer than 12 major pieces of legislation will be introduced this year. However, as we say in my part of Fife, it is a poor cadger that shouts "stinking fish."
I had to pinch myself to realise that the litany of supposed achievements and aspirations that the First Minister was talking up yesterday had happened in the same small country that I live in. Like Jack McConnell, I believe that Scotland is one of the best small countries in the world. However, I believe that despite, rather than because of, the efforts of the coalition. The coalition had nothing to do with the creation of our wonderful scenery—although its policies, in particular those on wind farms, might go a long way towards destroying it. The coalition has done nothing to improve the quality of Scottish education, which was once recognised as of international class but which is now too often regarded as second rate. The coalition has turned the thrifty, entrepreneurial country that Scotland once was into a land in which one in every four employees works in a public sector that accounts for an extraordinary 52 per cent of the country's gross domestic product.
However, this week, Jack McConnell seems to have seen the light. His latest big media message is that the balance between the public and private sectors has swung too far in favour of the state and must be redressed, but—wait for it—that will be done not by reducing the public sector in places such as Fife, where council employment has increased by another 5 per cent, or 600 employees, this year, but by increasing the private sector. Apparently, we can do one but we cannot do the other. Does the First Minister intend to follow Gordon Brown's example and make public service job cuts? If he does not, was his latest soundbite an example of how he intends to raise the game in Parliamentary debates?
Will the member give way?
A little later, perhaps.
I am reminded of my days in the Salvation Army and the old hymn:
"Tell me the old, old story, for I forget so soon …
Tell me the story simply, as to a little child
For I am weak and weary and helpless and defiled."
I expect that that strikes a chord with many Scots as we enter this Executive's sixth year.
Mr Brocklebank talked about the increases in public sector employment. Given that most of those employees are teachers, social workers and workers in the health service, will he tell us how many doctors, nurses and social workers the Tories would get rid of?
In Christine May's part of Fife—the part that we both come from—by far the largest employer is the public sector. Indeed, that is true for the whole of Fife. I will not guess at how many teachers, doctors and others there are, but is Christine May happy with that statistic? I do not believe so.
Jack McConnell told members that his job is not to create jobs, but to create the climate in which enterprise, innovation and risk taking can grow. That sounded great until he sat down after more than an hour without having once mentioned the Scottish industry that led the world in risk taking, innovation and sheer hard work. Of course, I am talking about the Scottish fishing industry.
Will the member give way?
A little later, perhaps.
Jack McConnell's words about creating a climate of opportunity must stick in the craw of thousands who have been forced to leave the sea, not because there are no fish to catch but because the Executive and the United Kingdom Government prefer Scottish fish to be caught by Spaniards, Danes and the French. For our own hardworking innovators, Jack McConnell did not have a single word of sympathy, far less constructive advice. After the war there were 28,000 full-time fishermen in Scotland. Two decades ago there were still 10,000. Now the figure has dropped to fewer than 4,000 fishermen and nearly 170 Scots boats have been decommissioned during the past two years alone. Given that for every man at sea we can estimate that there are eight workers ashore, in fewer than 20 years we have witnessed the virtual destruction of the most entrepreneurial industry that Scotland ever produced.
In the debate on housing in north-east Fife that took place before the summer recess, the member talked about people who could not afford property in St Andrews and who had to move away and earn more money before moving back. Is that the climate of opportunity for the Conservatives?
In the debate to which Jeremy Purvis draws attention, I described what I did. Whether others choose to do the same thing is their business.
Crews from Peterhead and Fraserburgh are being forced to fish off Namibia and West Africa. So much for Jack McConnell's campaign to attract fresh talent to Scotland—he is dispersing some of our finest talent elsewhere. Meanwhile, according to new figures, Scotland now imports as much fish as it catches. In other words, while our fishermen are thrown on the dole or driven thousands of miles away to scratch a living, the fleets of our European competitors lie off our coasts and frozen haddock and cod from China and Russia flood Scottish markets.
In April, the Executive tried to spin some credit out of having won back a paltry two extra days at sea for our fishermen. The truth is that that has yet to be passed by the European Commission and, even if it was achieved next month, it would mean only six extra days for this year. That would not be enough for our fishermen to make a single extra trip.
I do not have to remind members of who bears the responsibility for the sad state of Scottish fishing. This Executive and this UK Government bear that responsibility for their blind support of the wasteful, shambolic and wholly discredited common fisheries policy. In 2007, the European fisheries fund comes into effect. To be eligible for funding, every recipient has to express "support for the CFP". So, if someone is opposed in principle to that wretched and failed policy, they have to lie to gain any funding.
No, the member is over time.
I imagine that more spin and more porkies should be no problem for a UK Government led by a man whom even Labourites dub Tony Bliar; and, judging by yesterday's performance, I think that it would be no problem for a Scottish Executive led by a First Minister whose nose, I swear, went right on growing the longer he spoke yesterday.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's debate on the Executive's forthcoming legislative programme. Before beginning, I thank those who have worked so hard to make our vision for our Parliament a reality. The opening of this Parliament building is the final stage in completing Donald Dewar's vision for a devolved Scotland and I am sure that he would have been very proud yesterday. It is a great privilege to be able to contribute to this debate in this chamber—which, to me, is awe inspiring. However, as the First Minister said yesterday, it is not the building that matters, but what we do in it.
We commenced our first meeting in the new building with a time for reflection. Perhaps it is incumbent on us all to reflect on the journey that we have travelled since that historic sunny day when we walked together up the Royal Mile in 1999 and to think about the ambitious journey that we are about to embark on.
I will concentrate my comments this morning on two areas of great importance to me and to my community—the protection of our children and young people and the protection of our communities. As the convener of the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, I welcome the proposals for a bill on the protection of children and the prevention of sexual offences. Like many colleagues, I believe that the bill will further strengthen the law to ensure that predatory sex offenders who groom children with the intention of sexual assault can be prosecuted.
I am pleased that the bill will give chief constables the power to apply to the sheriff court for a risk of sexual harm order. I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on that; from my experience, I know that it will be important in protecting our children and young adults. I am also pleased about the proposal for early intervention to restrict the movements of convicted offenders. Although I am delighted that the bill will be introduced within a few weeks, I ask the minister for further information on timescales. I extend an invitation to her to attend a future meeting of the cross-party group in order to discuss further the proposals, which I believe are very important.
Our cross-party group has been working towards the development of a national strategy for survivors. Following the group's one-year-on event, Malcolm Chisholm set up a short-life working group to look at services for adult survivors; the minister is currently considering the working group's report. The bill will be an important part of the strategy. It needs to encompass protection, prevention and punishment, as indeed it will. The survivor groups, and survivors represented on my group, want our children to be protected from predatory activity. We need to work hard to support yesterday's children and to prevent today's children from becoming the adult survivors of tomorrow. I am pleased to say that devolution is allowing us to debate and discuss these serious issues and to deliver solutions.
We are all aware of the challenges that face our communities. This morning, we have heard about antisocial behaviour, disorder and criminal activity. Much of the crime is being perpetrated by reoffenders, so I was pleased to hear about the wide-ranging action that the Executive will take to improve the quality of life of the people in our communities who find themselves the victims of such crime. However, I agree that the job cannot be for Government alone, although Government has a key role. We are most effective when we work together. In my constituency of Kirkcaldy, and throughout Fife, there are many examples of best practice and exemplary multi-agency working, not least the new police contact centre, which has given people the confidence to report crime and has seen a 10 per cent increase in police work; the much-heralded success of Fife's antisocial behaviour orders pilot; and the introduction of the community wardens scheme.
Two particular successes that Hugh Henry visited recently were our summer diversification programme, which was a great success, and our POP awards—I assure members that there was no singing; the awards relate to problem-oriented policing and are about partnership policing in action. Many of my constituents have been suffering as a result of antisocial behaviour and dangerous driving by the much-publicised boy racers and cruisers that we have had on Kirkcaldy promenade. As well as the dangers, residents have had to cope with excessively loud music from cars, the constant sounding of horns and other nuisances. I thank Margaret Curran for the support that she gave to my group by including antisocial behaviour within vehicles in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. That is evidence of true partnership working and that work is making a real difference to our community.
However, I want to raise with the Minister for Justice the issue of the funding of Fife constabulary—an issue on which I know that she has received much correspondence. Fife constabulary's current funding arrangement is a problem mostly because of historical funding issues and is based largely on a formula that was introduced in 1996. Even following the review by the Executive in 2002, funding per head of population is still 11 per cent below the Scottish average. I am aware that other factors, such as deprivation and rurality, are crucial in determining allocation, but the minister is aware of the issues that we face in Fife. I hope that we can address those issues so that my constituency can benefit from the much-needed enhanced patrol levels, the improved partnership working that I have spoken about and improved response times.
To conclude—I know that I am running over time—I agree with many members who have spoken this morning that it is of major importance to our communities that we tackle together the on-going issues of crime and antisocial behaviour. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Executive, especially Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson, on its commitment—past and present—to tackling those major problems.
It is a great privilege to take part in the first debate in this building. I congratulate all those whose hard labours have made the building possible and who have contributed to the building work.
I will respond to the speech that the Minister for Transport made yesterday. Although he identified the Executive's past failures, I believe that the programme for government over the next year will not deliver the policies that are necessary to address those failures. Over the past day, we have heard how the Executive programme is well meaning at heart. Nonetheless, I believe that it is confused and contradictory in relation to delivery, like the party to which the Minister for Transport belongs—the Lib Dems—which supports congestion charging as a way forward but opposes it when it is suggested for Edinburgh.
In the transport white paper, the Executive states:
"The transport vision of previous governments was too often dominated by the private car."
It informs us that 74 per cent of single pensioners have no access to a car. The paper continues:
"The cost of motoring has steadily declined in real terms over the past 20 years while the cost of rail and bus fares has increased."
It further states that
"a third of drivers say they would like to use their cars less".
So what is the answer? Social justice and social inclusion demand a strategy to reduce road traffic and improve public transport. The Executive even accepts road traffic reduction as a goal, but it refuses to set meaningful targets or to make public a clear strategy. The proposed transport bill—which was outlined yesterday by the First Minister and Nicol Stephen—will be a missed opportunity. It will contain no meaningful targets and no clear strategy for dealing with the real problem of too much road traffic. Will the proposed national agency be tasked to deliver road traffic reduction targets, or will the current levels of road traffic continue to rise inexorably, as they have done over the past 10 years? Traffic volume has increased by 18 per cent, whereas the number of bus journeys is down by 16 per cent. Where is the strategy to reverse that? Will the agency be more than just someone for the Executive to blame its failure to deliver on?
The bill will establish regional transport partnerships with no reference to the sustainability agenda or the social justice agenda. Why are sustainability and social justice omitted yet again? As for democracy, the new regional partnerships will have only one councillor from each local authority and will have no opposition or minority voice. One third of places will be reserved for chambers of commerce and other business representatives. Where will the social justice voice in regional transport planning be?
What about the one decision that is necessary for strategic development of our bus services in towns—the decision to re-regulate bus services? That is another lost opportunity in the forthcoming bill. Just as there has been a failure even to mention the community right of appeal in planning, so there has been a failure to mention planning to reduce the need for travel. Also absent from the proposals are out-of-town centralised supermarkets and hospitals—which we have just heard about—and other centralised developments, as well as local procurement to regenerate local communities and measures to reduce food miles travelled. Transport policy must address the real need: social inclusion to create better communities and a better environment for Scotland.
Instead, we have an admission that, despite all the fine words, we are—I quote the white paper again—
"also spending more on … roads",
as in the M74, the M8, the M80, the M77, a second Kincardine bridge and the Aberdeen peripheral route. That is a spaghetti-junction solution throughout Scotland. Those unwieldy ribbons of new roads will produce worse congestion year on year, as have the roads that were built in the past. The failed road-building dream goes on and on and, under the legislative programme, so will our present traffic chaos and Scotland's second-rate public transport system.
Finally, the First Minister yesterday completely failed to mention climate change, which is accepted scientific reality—we have seen some of its results this summer. We must prepare for and take action against climate change and, most important, we must take action to reduce its causes. I heard nothing of that in the First Minister's statement and that is another missed opportunity.
I am happy to speak in the debate and to welcome the Executive's continued commitment to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. I welcome especially the First Minister's personal commitment to decent, law-abiding Scots that we will do everything that we can to ensure that they have the right to live in peace and quiet in their own neighbourhoods, free from the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour, and that they should be able to raise their families in communities that allow young people to grow and thrive and not communities that drag them into drug and alcohol abuse and deprive them of any chances in life.
Antisocial behaviour and crime now make up the largest proportion of problems that I deal with at my surgery, so it is tremendously important to me that the Executive and the First Minister continue to prioritise those issues year after year by introducing legislation that contributes to the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour and by ensuring that the increasing armoury that is available to the police, local authorities and other agencies is properly resourced and effectively used.
Yesterday, Tommy Sheridan accused the First Minister of using empty rhetoric about crime and referred to crime that relates to drug abuse. I have found the Executive's actions on drug-related crime and antisocial behaviour to be neither empty nor rhetorical. It is a bit rich of Mr Sheridan to accuse anyone of employing empty rhetoric.
In my constituency, I can see that the impact of initiatives and legislation from the Scottish Executive is already starting to be felt. During a visit to the Hilltown area of Dundee, the First Minister heard for himself how the £850,000 that the Scottish Executive gave to fund community-based antisocial behaviour initiatives is being spent effectively on community wardens. Although those wardens have been in operation only for a short period, they are already starting to make local residents feel safer, both in their homes and on the streets. That is not empty rhetoric.
The First Minister also used his visit to announce that Dundee would be the location for a pilot of community reparation orders. The announcement was warmly welcomed by many people who for years have been asking for that type of disposal for crimes that are antisocial and anti-community. My constituents feel that it is entirely appropriate that offenders should be made to do work that will enhance communities and start to compensate for the damage, both physical and psychological, that they have caused. That is not empty rhetoric.
Electronic tagging of persistent young offenders under the age of 16 has also been welcomed by hard-pressed communities in my constituency. It is possible that the measure would apply to only 10 children each year in Dundee, but those children are causing a disproportionate amount of chaos in relation to their small numbers and very tender years. I assure everyone both inside and outside the chamber who did not support the initiative that measures that will contain those children, limit the opportunities for them to get into trouble and give the hard-pressed communities that have had to tolerate them some relief have been warmly welcomed throughout Dundee. I am sure that the measures will also be welcomed throughout the rest of Scotland. I do not believe that the legislation that is in progress or the future legislation that has been announced is empty rhetoric.
I welcome the Tenements (Scotland) Bill, which will complement the additional powers that local authorities already have at their disposal and will help them to force private owners and landlords to face up to their responsibilities to the areas in which their properties are located.
I welcome the proposed licensing bill, which will ensure that the unscrupulous minority who are involved in the sale of alcohol and are more concerned with profit than with people are not allowed to peddle the misery of alcohol abuse and its related problems to individuals and communities. The bill will also ensure that communities have a say and that people who sell alcohol are forced to do so in a responsible way.
The proposals that the First Minister presented yesterday, which have been outlined in more detail by the Minister for Justice, and the Executive's commitment to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour will be warmly welcomed throughout Scotland. People whose lives are literally being ruined by crime and antisocial behaviour come to my surgery all the time. For too long, they have felt that the emphasis has been on helping the criminal and the perpetrator. I agree with them. Not before time, the Executive is starting to prioritise the individuals and communities that have been the victims of crime and antisocial behaviour. Not before time, the Executive is calling time on the unscrupulous profiteers, neds and thugs who are devastating the communities that we represent. That is a message that I am more than happy to take back to the people whom I represent in Dundee; I assure members that they are more than happy to hear it.
Today I will address one important strand of justice that is often overlooked: environmental justice.
Before coming into the new Parliament building on Monday morning, a couple of other MSPs and I visited a protest in Strathbungo on the south side of Glasgow. Locals from the area were forced to take to the streets in an effort to prevent a brutal, violent attack on their community. Unfortunately, that attack could not be prevented by the use of an antisocial behaviour order, because the perpetrator was Network Rail.
A couple of weeks beforehand, residents living near the rail line in the area were sent a note by Network Rail telling them that hundreds of trees would be removed from the side of the track. The community was left with absolutely no way of fighting the measure. It could not get any information. What Network Rail intended to do can be described only loosely as a plan, as the company did not require planning permission in order to rip the trees from the ground—despite the fact that the land in question is at the foot of the residents' gardens—because it owns and controls that land.
To paint a picture of the situation there, I should point out that the trees provide a natural barrier between the community and the railway line, as the MSPs who were present at the protest will recognise. The area, which is a local conservation area, is outstandingly beautiful and offers a home for many species of wildlife. However, none of that was considered and the area is now under attack because of one stroke of the pen. The fact that we in this brave, bold, new Parliament have absolutely no means of intervening to stop the attack on that community seems unbelievable, but sadly it is true.
When the local people asked Network Rail for information on the environmental impact studies, they were told that studies had been undertaken but were not given access to any of that information. Where was the freedom of information in that?
Over the past couple of days, large amounts of trees have been removed. The residents are meeting daily and I congratulate them on their courage and on the way in which they are working together as a community. After all, they are simply doing the very thing that we in Parliament have been asking communities to do. The residents have been trying their hardest to achieve some environmental justice. That phrase has been bandied about the Parliament for years now, but the example that I have given shows that communities are no more empowered now than they were when the First Minister stood in his wellies and hardhat in a landfill site and promised that there would be environmental justice.
It seems that Network Rail is neither a Government body nor a private company, which means that the faceless, unelected individuals at the top can make decisions that have a huge impact on communities and on the wider environment without prior consultation or discussion. How can we ever hope to deliver environmental justice in such conditions? The Parliament should hang its head in shame over this case.
That said, why should Glasgow—or, for that matter, anywhere else in Scotland—expect environmental justice when the city is constantly under environmental attack? A couple of weeks ago, a study concluded that walking around Glasgow city centre had the same effect on people as smoking about 40 cigarettes a day. While we are all up in arms about the cigarette problem, we should also be up in arms about Glasgow's unacceptable pollution levels. After all, everyone of every age is vulnerable to those fumes.
Too many members cite the construction of the M74 northern extension as a way of dealing with pollution in and around Glasgow. However, that notion is poisonous and inaccurate. In fact, new motorways create more car use and therefore more pollution. That is not my invention; it forms part of the findings of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report. Moreover, new motorways have a negative effect on the local economy. Again, that is not my invention, but a finding of yet another SACTRA report.
We are waiting for a report back on the inquiry into the M74 northern extension and I am worried that thousands of people in and around Glasgow are about to find out what the good people of Strathbungo are now finding out: that they do not count, that their opinion is not valuable and that they do not deserve to be consulted or to have any environmental justice.
I say to everyone in the chamber, in the media and in Scotland at large who over the years has complained about the ever-escalating price of the Scottish Parliament building that, when the M74 northern extension was started, it was supposed to cost £170 million. When the project was made a little bit smaller, the price went up to £250 million. As we await the result of the report that I mentioned, it is now estimated that the M74 northern extension will cost £1 billion.
Does the member agree that the M77 extension from Malletsheugh to the Kingston bridge in Glasgow has meant great environmental improvements for those who live in the south-west of the city?
I return to the findings of the SACTRA report. New motorways mean new traffic, which means that we need still more new motorways. We just make the problem bigger and better.
Anyone in the chamber who complained about the cost of the M74 northern extension should get behind me now and join me in condemning the wasteful and short-sighted construction of the motorway before the report reaches the Parliament. After all, we have power over that matter, but have never used it.
If the money is to be invested in transport, it should be invested in clean, green, sustainable transport that will address all the population's needs. As Chris Ballance has pointed out, we are not all car users—indeed, not all of us want to use cars. Please keep Network Rail out of the question because its performance during the past few weeks shows clearly that it cannot be trusted in terms of democracy, openness or justice. My question to the Executive is: can the Parliament be trusted in terms of openness, democracy and environmental justice?
I welcome the opportunity to speak for the first time in this Parliament building and to contribute to our ambition for one Scotland.
By its nature, this debate is diverse, so I will highlight several issues of importance to my constituents—I am not sure that trees will feature. The strength of the economy is a central issue, but it must be harnessed and given purpose by our social goals. There has been debate about the purpose of enterprise. For some, there have been signals that enterprise agencies are in the business of creating wealth but not in the business of social justice—the wealth is created and then we have to hope for the best that benefit will follow. However, history tells us that we cannot leave that to chance.
There is a good example of that in my constituency. There will be massive private sector development, possibly creating 3,000 jobs, partly as a result of the construction of the M77. We have brought together the private sector developer, the unions and all the relevant agencies to consider how such a development, which will have a huge impact on the nature of the area, can be harnessed to create economic opportunities for local people. Reflecting on that, I will highlight some issues in relation to enterprise and enterprise education.
In passing, I should say that it is a novelty to see the private sector investing in public sector education given that, thus far, all the traffic in that area has been in the other direction, with public sector subsidies to private sector education. I am certainly looking forward to scrutinising the proposed charities bill and hearing what justification there can possibly be for the continuation of that charitable subsidy.
On enterprise education, we should not allow the commitment of money to our local schools to give the power to determine what is going on in the curriculum. We also have to demand that serious consideration be given to co-operative enterprise, given our commitment to a co-operative development agency and our understanding that co-operative approaches can support economic growth and deliver on social goals.
In our discussions on enterprise, we have to be much more challenging about what is deemed to be acceptable and enterprising. For example, we know how dangerous the construction industry is; part of that danger is caused by the way in which the industry is organised and how work is subcontracted down. We must challenge those who define as entrepreneurial risk the consequences that are borne by the people who are working at the bottom in that industry.
I welcome the fact that long-term unemployment in my constituency has fallen sharply, but there is still a problem with wage disparities. In my constituency, wages consistently lag behind the national level. We must ensure that measures are taken so that economic benefit is enjoyed evenly throughout our constituencies and that we find ways of bringing high-quality jobs into constituencies such as mine.
Given that I represent a disadvantaged constituency such as Pollok in a city that has to deal with serious disadvantage, it would be remiss of me not to challenge everyone in the chamber to acknowledge the importance and cost of a real commitment to one Scotland. Our Scotland is fractured by inequality; that is one of the hardest debates into which we must now drill. We share a general aspiration to encourage healthy eating, to challenge our drink culture and to tackle smoking and the use of illegal drugs. Those general aspirations, when matched by money, can have an effect.
However, we also must grasp the stark reality that, even though our young people throughout Scotland experiment with drugs, a disproportionate number of the poor and disadvantaged die. Throughout Scotland there are smokers, but it is the poor and disadvantaged who resist the health messages. While we debate access to local health services, it is the citizens in Glasgow who, despite having close geographical access to sophisticated services, feature most prominently among those who are the least healthy and who die youngest.
At some point, we will have to talk more about health and education in their context and not just about the particulars of those services. We will have to consider unsafe communities, fractured families, poor job opportunities and the structural problems that face a city such as Glasgow. We will have to confront the reality that general spend will not, of itself, be enough. We will have to look at the balance of how we direct our money and how we get real value for that money.
In taking ownership of the notion of one Scotland, everyone in the Parliament will have to understand that it is inevitable that there will be a discussion about moving from simply making general provision for everyone in the hope that it will trickle down to the poor and disadvantaged towards targeting and focusing on the experiences of the poor and disadvantaged and examining how those can sometimes be reinforced. I welcome the opportunity to continue in the new Parliament building the debate that we started in our old home about how to put social justice at the centre of the Executive's economic programme. I look forward to playing a part in developing that agenda through legislation in the coming days.
There will be a brief suspension of this meeting of Parliament until 12 noon.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—