Scottish Executive's Programme
Resumed debate.
The next item of business is the continuation of the debate on the First Minister's statement on the programme of the Scottish Executive.
I concentrate today on the main concerns about the Scottish health service, namely service reconfiguration and waiting times, as well as on our proposed legislative measures. However, I begin by emphasising that health improvement will be intensified in the coming months, including action on smoking in public places, and that the quality improvements that we have made in health care—through national standards, new treatments and managed clinical networks—will be built upon and extended.
Those developments have already meant significant reductions in premature mortality from the big killer diseases. Since 1999 there has been a 6 per cent reduction in the deaths of people aged under 75 from cancer, a 14 per cent reduction in deaths from stroke and a 23 per cent reduction in deaths from coronary heart disease. One of the consequences of those and other changes is that many more people are now living with chronic illness and require support from primary and community care. That is where the new community health partnerships are so important, as they will ensure that front-line staff plan and provide an increasing amount of care in community settings. However, people do not just want more care in community settings; they want local hospitals to have a continuing role as well. I understand and support that desire, but it has to be satisfied in a way that is consistent with safe, high-quality care and with the new working time regulations.
Will the minister take an intervention?
In a minute—I want to say a little bit more first.
We need to recognise that health care is a complex process that requires the highest standards of risk management and safety and that, in some cases, there will be more specialisation to maintain quality and to ensure that professionals can practise safely with the right blend of skills and teamwork. That said, I will look at the proposals of all the health boards that come to me to ensure that the maximum amount of care that can safely be kept local is kept local.
I thank the minister for that very positive comment.
The clearest evidence that health boards are paying only lip service to regional planning, even though the minister asked them to be attentive to it, is provided by what is going on in NHS Argyll and Clyde. It takes two and a half hours to get to the hospital in Paisley and five hospitals in Glasgow are bypassed en route. Will the minister therefore reject proposals that do not demonstrate regional planning and are clearly not in the interests of patients?
I agree entirely with Jackie Baillie on regional planning, on which the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 contains provisions.
On several occasions, I have made it clear that, in planning changes, boards will be required to co-operate with one other. I showed that to be the case earlier this year, in my response to the maternity proposals of NHS Argyll and Clyde—I returned its proposals and told it to do some more work with Greater Glasgow NHS Board. Patients do not recognise health board boundaries; boards must work across those boundaries. A few weeks ago, I had a meeting with the chief executives of NHS Argyll and Clyde and Greater Glasgow NHS Board to make that clear and another meeting between those two chief executives and officials in my department is being held tomorrow.
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
In a minute—I want to make a bit more progress, because I think that I have only six minutes for my speech, more than half of which has gone and I have still to deal with waiting.
I believe that we need a strong national context for such work and that is why I set up an expert group to work on a national framework for service change and improvement. A key part of the framework exercise will be to engage the public in what is a crucial debate. I understand why calls are being made for a complete moratorium on change while that group does its work, but that would overlook some issues of clinical safety that cannot be postponed in such a way.
Yesterday, David McLetchie said that we had given up on the health service, but I assure him and his colleagues that we will never give up on the health service, which they did a long time ago. We are determined to drive through the change and reforms that are needed to give Scotland a modern, 21st century health service; to offer choice that will allow patients to access the high-quality services that suit their needs when they need them; and to ensure that services are truly patient centred—both in the relationship between professionals and patients and in ensuring that patient experience drives the process of change and modernisation.
Will Malcolm Chisholm give way?
I have one minute and 30 seconds left and I must deal with waiting and legislation, so I am going to have difficulties.
Waiting matters to patients and that is why it matters to me. I have been the first to recognise that there is a great deal more to do, especially in relation to out-patient waiting. That is why we have embarked on the most systematic redesign programme that there has ever been in Scotland to deal with that problem. It will lead to a maximum six-month wait for out-patient clinics by the end of next year alongside a maximum six-month wait for in-patients. We are making steady progress on our commitment on that and, this year, the lowest numbers ever are waiting more than six months for in-patient treatment. I am determined to achieve further reductions in waiting times once we have reached the six-month targets and I will set out our plans in more detail in the next few weeks.
This session, we will also be introducing further legislation in support of our efforts to modernise and reform health services in Scotland and to strengthen the role of patients and the public. A key purpose of the legislation will be to enable the introduction of free eye and dental checks for all before 2007. That significant preventive health and access measure will ensure that any problems that require attention are detected and treated early.
The legislation will also modernise our arrangements for the authorisation of post-mortems to ensure that the wishes of individuals, parents and families are fully respected and that they have a greater sense of control.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
We will also update the arrangements for organ and tissue donation and transplantation to ensure that the views of individuals and those closest to them are respected. The update is designed to increase confidence in those arrangements and increase the availability of organs for transplant.
We will also introduce provisions to support the modernisation of dental and pharmacy services. Time constraints prevent my going into more detail on those provisions.
Our policy is designed to support the promotion of health and the modernisation and improvement of health services in Scotland. It is based on the needs and experience of patients. It will be driven forward and coordinated from the centre so that there is a national context for change. The real leaders of change, however, are the thousands of front-line staff who work in the health service. I want to end by thanking them and pledging to support them in every way I can.
I will begin by welcoming the forthcoming health bill, which will include measures to provide a better legal framework for organ and tissue donation and transplant. As the First Minister said yesterday, it is vital that families are treated with respect and that their loved ones are treated with dignity. Along with many members in the chamber, I have been involved in too many constituency cases in which that has not been the case. Moves to ensure those changes are all to the good.
I also noted that the First Minister referred to payments to people with hepatitis C who had contracted the disease from blood or blood products. Although that is welcome, I state yet again the SNP's belief that those payments are inadequate. I also want to make the minister aware that many people continue to wait for payments from the Skipton fund. That is despite the fact that its website includes a pledge that payments will be made within three weeks. I know of one individual who has not received a single penny as yet and is about to be made bankrupt. I hope that the minister is willing to intervene on behalf of the individual concerned. If so, I would be happy to pass on his details.
I also welcome the legislation to introduce free eye and dental checks, which is yet another long-standing SNP policy. However, I want to inject a note of caution: it is all very well to introduce free dental checks, but that will mean nothing if people cannot access a dentist in order to get the free check-up in the first place. If the measure is to be worth while, we must solve the crisis in dental services across Scotland.
Yesterday, the First Minister said that over the coming weeks the Minister for Health and Community Care would outline the action that he intends to take to reduce waiting times. I got a real sense of déjà vu when he said that. How many more times are we going to hear the same promises of action only to have them followed by a complete failure to deliver?
The Parliament has some real challenges to respond to in respect of the health service. The SNP is often accused of wanting to solve problems by throwing money at them. We acknowledge that by 2005-06 a record £8.6 billion will have been put into the health service. The question is, what is the return on that investment? Surely a commitment on performance should have been on the table. My colleague Christine Grahame received answers to parliamentary questions and highlighted that in 1999 when the Executive came to power 13,000 people were waiting more than six months for a first out-patient appointment with a consultant. By 2004, that number had soared to nearly 30,000—an increase of 129 per cent.
Minister, we need to see the public services deliver and you have to drive a harder bargain, whether that be over consultant contracts or general practitioner contracts, both of which gave good deals for doctors. I agree that change was necessary to tackle problems of recruitment and retention, but sometimes it seems awful like a one-way deal. I think that it is fair to say that the new GP contract was railroaded through the Parliament and that it is creating more problems than it is solving. There are real concerns in many communities about the delivery of basic out-of-hours cover. We need to drive a harder bargain on behalf of the patient and the public. Unfortunately, you, so far, have failed to do so.
We must challenge the accepted wisdom of the royal colleges, which state that only through specialisation can we deliver improvement in health services. Is that really true when there is a lack of generalists being trained, which puts our district general hospitals at risk? I do not think so. We know that clinicians want to work in big specialist centres, but we also know that the public want their health services delivered closer to where they live. We need to redress the balance in order for the public's voice to be heard.
I have spoken about investment in health. We had an opportunity to showcase what devolution could do for public services. Instead, to quote a leading broadsheet newspaper from this week, Scotland is
"in revolt over its vanishing hospitals".
The public are at a loss to understand why their health services are being cut when there is a record level of spending on health services. It is not just members on this side of the chamber who are saying that. As Nicola Sturgeon mentioned, members of the Labour group from throughout Scotland have been raising real concerns.
The centralisation of health services is taking place without any clear national strategy to direct unelected local health boards. For the Executive to talk about some future national plan that may or may not arise is frankly not good enough. Too many hospitals will have closed without reference to one another or to a national picture. That laissez-faire approach cannot be allowed to continue.
My thoughts on maternity services are well known. I wish to explore Shona Robison's thinking. Would she concede—and I am thinking outside the box here—that if we take neurosurgery, for example, there might possibly be a case for overall centralisation with just one centre of excellence for the whole of Scotland, and that people requiring that sort of surgery or treatment would not in fact mind the travelling? I stress that that is totally different from maternity services or other equivalent things.
Jamie Stone raises a valid point, and that is the debate that we need to have, so that we can decide what levels of service are appropriate across Scotland. The problem at the moment is that things are happening in an ad hoc and piecemeal way, without any reference to a national picture of where we think hospital services—whether they be consultant-led maternity services or neurosurgery—are best based. We must have that debate. If we do not, we will end up with a picture that no one wants.
We must take responsibility. We are in a new Parliament, and we need some new politics and new thinking. You will have the SNP's co-operation on that. We know that there will be difficult decisions to make, but we, as a Parliament, have to take responsibility. The Minister for Health and Community Care has to meet that challenge and has to take that on board. If you are willing to take that on board, health minister, I will support you in that.
The people you saw in the public galleries today represent just the tip of the iceberg of the public's feeling about their local health services. The public have put us here to do a job. They have put us here with trust to look after their interests. If we fail them over the health service, we will have failed to live up to their expectations of the Parliament.
I remind members that, when they use the word "you" in the chamber, they are in fact addressing me, not the minister.
Yesterday, Jack McConnell said:
"We are here to help people to realise their ambitions, their hopes and their dreams."—[Official Report, 7 September 2004; c 9871.]
We on the Conservative benches agree totally with that sentiment, but we need more than fine phrases; we need action to make fair access to health care a right for all Scots. Yesterday, of the 178 mini-paragraphs of his speech, the First Minister used just eight to talk about health. That seems typical of the past five years of an Executive that has presided over a stagnating health service, in which morale has gone. We need to uplift the ideas of those within the service. Through the Parliament, we need to prepare ourselves to give our people a national health service that is fit for the 21st century.
Everywhere we go in Scotland, protests are afoot. It does not matter what the service is: people everywhere are up in arms. It might be about the removal of maternity or accident and emergency services or the closure of specialist beds, for example at Glasgow Homeopathic hospital. The Parliament is being lobbied on a daily basis by patients, staff and carers. Your own members, minister—sorry, Presiding Officer—members of the minister's own party are raising the same issue. We in the Parliament all recognise that those are major concerns for the people of Scotland. What we really want is to hear what the Executive plans to do to attract and retain the key NHS staff of whom we seem to be so dramatically short.
Yesterday, Ken Macintosh said that we need to be bold and adventurous. I think that that should especially be the case in the health arena. The centralisation bandwagon is presided over by the Minister for Health and Community Care, who has the power to make a difference but appears not to want to use it. The national health service is now more centrally controlled and more bureaucratic than ever before in its history, and the minister has again said that central control will be to the fore. Patently, that has not worked. I would like to know from where the 2 per cent of savings in health, about which the First Minister spoke yesterday, will come. In the spirit of enlightenment that I hope we will share in this chamber, I suggest to the minister that he starts off with the overburdening administration and bureaucracy of the health service—he would save more than 2 per cent there.
We have had a run-in of seven years to the reduction in junior doctors' hours and yet the Executive appears to have been caught napping, for want of another word. There is no obvious sign that preparations were made for that situation. A change to consultants' hours is coming—again, that does not appear to be prepared for.
That leads me to the next crisis that is approaching—the abject failure to prepare for health boards becoming responsible for out-of-hours care. It does not matter whether I quote surveys that I have done or listen to my colleagues, we all have the same problem—people in rural areas, and in particular medics in rural areas, are concerned for their communities. It is all very well to have a theoretical out-of-hours service, but what about the principle that it should be based on the time that it takes to see a medic in an emergency? Whatever the skills of the paramedics, they are merely transient people on the journey. NHS 24 is not a substitute for a doctor and the Scottish Ambulance Service is concerned about the pressures that will likely be put on it. The minister talked about that earlier, during question time.
I do not argue about a reduction in GP hours to make the quality of life better for them or to attract new members to the profession, but the minister appears to have totally forgotten the need of health boards to prepare. The messages that I am getting indicate that the health boards did not have quality time. Perhaps the minister or somebody else will tell us how long ago health boards were instructed to prepare for out-of-hours care so that decent programmes could be introduced with the correct resources and the correct manpower to be able to deliver them.
I agree with Shona Robison that it is good to look at tissue donations, transplants and better support for the victims of hep C from blood products, and I look forward to seeing the vulnerable adults legislation. However, too many genuine issues are left tucked under the carpet.
The minister has hardly spoken about where all the extra money has gone since 1999. The health service has not delivered more care since 1999, despite the investment. Where did the money go? What went wrong? Who is accountable for all that? What about care in the community? There has been no mention of carers, today or yesterday, and nothing about the crisis in the nursing and care home sector, where homes are closing on a daily basis, as we hear in the press, simply because the agreement that they thought they had for cost recovery has not been implemented. Ministers appear not to want to deal with that.
Everybody knows about the difficulties in dental care. Where are the thousands of nurses that we were promised in the previous parliamentary session? I have not had an answer to that from the minister.
There has been no mention of genuine patient choice; lip service has been paid to patient choice. There has been no mention of encouraging the use of extra capacity from the independent sector, which has assisted in turning the corner on waiting times in England, or of the efficiency savings from foundation hospitals and diagnostic treatment centres. If those measures are working in England, why do we not have a debate about them in this Parliament?
What about how we deliver general care in the community? Waiting two years for an electric wheelchair is a nonsense.
I would love to be here when the ministers come clean on all those issues because it is time that we went over the refuse of the past five years under the Scottish Executive to pick out what went wrong in the health service and to address that collectively, so that we can make it better and make it fit. We will continue to offer solutions and alternatives focused on patient need, patient choice, value for money and freedom for all health professionals to deliver professional care to the patients so that they do not have to waste their time on petty bureaucracy, which is a classic from this current coalition. It is time for the Executive to apologise for the past five years and to work with us to deliver health care for Scotland.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats have three key objectives for health policy in Scotland during this parliamentary session. The first is to transform the health of the people of Scotland by promoting healthier lifestyles and measures to prevent ill health. Secondly, we wish to see the unacceptably long waiting times for everyone who uses our national health service cut. Thirdly, we want to improve and expand local health care.
Earlier intervention and regular screening are essential if we are to achieve our first objective and promote a healthier Scotland. The Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment to introduce free eye and dental checks for all is an essential part of that programme. As the Deputy First Minister outlined yesterday, the Liberal Democrat focus on health promotion is being delivered. The legislative framework to allow free eye and dental checks for all is to be contained in the health service (miscellaneous provisions) (Scotland) bill, which will enable the delivery of that commitment by 2006. It is important to remind everyone why such a commitment is necessary. Under the current regulations there is far too much confusion about who is entitled to free eye and dental checks. A poll that was published this week shows that more than 70 per cent of parents have never taken their children for an eye check and have no intention of doing so. In part, they are put off by the impression that such tests cost too much, and the same problem applies when we consider children's oral health. If we want to ensure that there is a step change in the state of the nation's eye and dental health, we must ensure that everyone understands that those checks, which are preventive measures, will be free for all those who want them, regardless of their financial situation. Only then will we see real improvement across the piece.
As I said, our second objective is to cut the unacceptably long waiting times for everyone who uses our national health service. The number of patients who wait more than six months for in-patient or day-patient treatment has fallen from more than 8,500 last December to 6,000 in June this year and is almost 4,000 lower than it was in the same period last year. I get more than a little fed up with people who regularly talk down our national health service. Specifically, I get fed up with those who continue to give the impression that waiting times have gone up for everyone, which is simply not true. Earlier this year, Malcolm Chisholm said:
"The reality is that if you need urgent NHS treatment you will get it right away. More than half of hospital patients are treated immediately and never join a list. And of those who do, half are seen within one month and nearly three-quarters within three months."
That is why the Executive's aim to ensure that no one waits more than six months for treatment by the end of next year is on target to be achieved.
I wonder how many constituents Mike Rumbles has seen who have complained about the time that they have had to wait to get treatment.
That is exactly the point that I am making. Shona Robison does not seem to understand that the Executive is taking action to reduce the long waiting times. The point is not how many people are on a list—quite frankly, my constituents are not interested in how many other people are on waiting lists. What interests my constituents is what is happening in relation to their treatment, and their waiting times are being reduced—that is a fact. I hope that the Executive will not stop there but will maintain the momentum to reduce overlong waiting times even further.
The third priority of the Liberal Democrats is to improve and expand local health care. As the Auditor General for Scotland made clear, many more patients are being treated successfully in local health centres and general practitioners' surgeries—that has to be a good thing. However, there are major challenges ahead for the national health service in Scotland. Will the Executive take the necessary action to ban smoking in enclosed public places? That is a major question. I sincerely hope that the Executive will do that, as such a ban is the single most important step that we could take to improve the health of the nation. I am proud that the Scottish Liberal Democrats have taken the lead in that campaign.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have given way already.
Will the Executive take the necessary action to improve the dental health of the nation with targeted measures or will it take the easier option of allowing health boards to fluoridate the water supply? I do not believe that mass medication of the water supply is the way to go.
Finally, while I am mentioning the health boards, there is no doubt that there is a feeling out there among the general public—the people whom we represent—that the health boards are not responding as well as they could to the people they serve. Is the direct election of health board members the solution to that problem? I am not sure that it is, but radical change is certainly necessary.
In conclusion, much has been achieved in implementing our objectives to create an improved national health service focused on health promotion and well-being. However, much more needs to be done and the Executive must not shrink from taking the necessary action to improve our health record. It must continue to drive down waiting times for treatment, it must continue its focus on health promotion by implementing free eye and dental checks for all and it must take the single most important measure to tackle ill health in Scotland and legislate to ban smoking in enclosed public places.
On behalf of my constituents in Dunfermline East, I join others in expressing sympathy and condolences to the people of Russia, who are suffering grievously following the horrors of the terrorist attack in Beslan. With other members of the Parliament, I visited Russia just three years ago and made good friends there. Their terror strikes us deeply at this moment.
The words that I believe will echo throughout the ages—they always resonate with me—are, "All we ask is a chance to serve." Those were some of the last words that our nation's revered John Smith said the night before he died. Each of us in this chamber is surely privileged that we have asked for and been given the chance to serve our people. To do that in this amazing building is almost unbelievably wonderful. John Smith and Donald Dewar faithfully and selflessly served our Scottish people and I am truly sad that they cannot be here with us today. This building is symbolic. Scots have fought for hundreds of years to regain a Scottish Parliament. John and Donald and many other Scottish heroes championed the cause of returning a Parliament to our folks in Scotland. This home for the Parliament is a testament to the endurance and courage of all who fought not just for the right to have our say, but for a permanent place in which to say it and to make a difference for the people whom we serve.
The First Minister's speech set out the priorities for the Scottish Executive and majored on our being a confident Scotland. He outlined 12 new bills that will respond to many of the concerns that I have to address on behalf of my constituents in Dunfermline East. I am especially glad that among those bills will be one that contains measures to address the concern that parents in my constituency have raised with me about protecting young people from the paedophiles who are grooming children over the internet. We are modernising family law to ensure that children's best interests come first. The fact that we are focusing on children—the flowers of our future—is paramount in our work.
Our people are confident about our achievements. The people of Scotland have a vision of what they want to see in their future and I believe that Scotland is confident that it can deliver a nation that is growing in prosperity and enriching further our reputation for being a caring society. The pride and confidence of the Scottish people is palpable as each year of devolution moves forward.
Our First Minister has set out the pathway for dramatic change in Scotland. He emphasised the message over and again about our being a confident Scotland and I believe that every one of us in the chamber must echo that message and bring it home to our people in Scotland. He spoke yesterday about the new transport legislation, which for the first time will deliver co-ordinated policy in Scotland. He also spoke about delivering the commitment for free bus passes to all parts of Scotland. My pensioners in the villages of Benarty, Lochgelly, Cowdenbeath, Crossgates, North Queensferry, Inverkeithing, Dalgety Bay and Aberdour simply cannot wait for the day when the free bus pass takes them on a journey to far-flung parts of Scotland. The freedom to roam in their well-earned retirement is precious and the benefit that that freedom brings both to the individual and society is immeasurable. I know that, for such people, that change cannot come soon enough. Their mental health was greatly improved when Fife's Labour administration first introduced its policy of free bus passes decades ago.
Although confidence was the theme of the First Minister's speech, he also majored on two other themes—protection and prevention from harm for our people. Families in every town and village will welcome the emphasis on protecting our children and our nation's health. In common with every other member in the chamber, I am concerned about the nation's health. If "protection" is the key word in family law, "prevention" is the key word in the shaping of policy for the future of the health service.
The First Minister has said that a ban on smoking in public places has worked in the Republic of Ireland; Scotland, too, will address that issue. He also said that we need to prevent other causes of ill health and to work with professionals, some of whom are already giving prescriptions for gyms rather than drugs. I hope that we listen to the message that one of my London colleagues gave, which is that Paris has more swimming pools than the whole of the United Kingdom put together. I hope that we will see a massive expansion of swimming pool provision throughout Scotland for those who are elderly and have mobility issues. I also want other diseases to be prevented, such as the silent disease, osteoporosis. Fractures cost the NHS in Scotland £200 million annually and the NHS in the UK £1.7 billion annually.
I know that our Scottish Executive is measuring up to the challenges ahead and to the test of our party in Scotland. Our Scottish Labour Party
"is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
Of course it is the case that after five years of the Liberal Democrats and Labour being in power the health service is in crisis. We can tell that it is in crisis because the Minister for Health and Community Care is looking terribly isolated in the chamber—other ministers have quit the scene.
I am grateful to The Herald for running its latest debate on health. I will quote from a letter to the paper, entitled "Price of progress", in which a parent describes how, 20 years ago, their son complained of abdominal pain, which turned out to be a twisted intestine—within 20 minutes, the son had been operated on. The parent states that, because of the lack today of an accident and emergency department nearby,
"If my son had suffered his stomach ache today, 20 years and Lord knows how many millions of pounds later, he would be dead. That is progress."
That is the touchstone for the health service, which is failing Scotland's public all over.
On waiting times, which have been referred to, the Minister for Health and Community Care pledged that no patient would wait more than 26 weeks for their first out-patient consultant appointment and that he would achieve that by December 2005. Those are worthy words, but there is no prospect whatever of the minister succeeding, because in five years the number of people waiting more than six months has risen from 13,000 to 30,000. In certain specialties, the situation is even more disgraceful. In neurosurgery, there has been a 1,722 per cent increase in the number waiting. In cardiology, the increase has been 793 per cent and, in respiratory medicine, the increase has been 723 per cent.
My first point is a detail but, for the sake of clarity, I should point out that the figures are not the numbers on a waiting list, because one of the difficulties is that there are no waiting lists, although we are dealing with that problem. The issue is the number of people treated who have been waiting longer than that, which is clearly different.
I have been open about the problem of out-patient waiting. I identified it as the biggest single problem in the health service in my first year in office, which is why the key work of the centre for change and innovation is the most comprehensive redesign programme ever for out-patient clinics in Scotland, as I said in my speech. That process is now under way, which is why we saw a little progress last year, and it is because of that radical programme that we will meet our target by the end of next year.
I do not know what crystal ball the minister is looking into, but what he says is not based on historical evidence. If he will forgive me for saying so, he was not open in his answer, because in order to secure those figures I had to go to the Scottish Parliament information centre. The figures were not provided in the normal manner by being published in the written answers report.
Christine Grahame and many members know that long written answers routinely go to SPICe. The situation is nothing to do with the particular question.
I will accept that with a certain grace. I still think that it is interesting that when an answer is not—how shall we put it?—convenient, it quite often comes in the form of a letter or a long answer placed in SPICe. However, we will pass on, because the information is now in the public domain.
Let us consider what is happening in reconfiguring—to use the coalition's language—the delivery of NHS services throughout Scotland. The national framework team that is considering the matter will not report until March 2005, which is an absolute nonsense. Any dog in the street or child in primary 1 would say that to report after services have been closed down throughout Scotland is a waste of time, space and money and an insult to the public, who are being asked to take part in the consultation. The minister cannot simply dump the issue at the door of the health boards because he does not have a national framework in place to deal with the matter. Why the minister persists in not imposing a moratorium on the closure of services in the meantime is a mystery to me when doing so might just save his political career.
Will the member take an intervention?
Can I get on? I have taken a lot of interventions, but I will let Duncan McNeil in in a moment, if he reminds me.
The minister says that he will take into account
"health inequalities and other social factors"
in carrying out the national planning exercise. He also says, with regard to rural services, that he will look into
"the implications for patients who have to travel to distant sites".
Although Mr Rumbles apparently has a contented electorate who have no problems in accessing the NHS, my electorate in the Borders have problems. Several kidney dialysis patients in the Borders have to make round trips of 100 miles several times a week for dialysis treatment. Those people are unwell when they start and they are a lot more unwell when they come back. I do not know how the minister is taking that into account now, let alone in the restructuring.
Does the member agree that we need an honest debate on the challenges that we face? She mentioned The Herald, but does she agree with that newspaper that her new leader, Mr Salmond, is avoiding the real issue by refusing
"to give unmitigated support for the maintenance of local hospital services"?
The point that I am making is that it is nonsense to have a survey into restructuring the NHS Scotland-wide while services are closing at the same time. Of course specific specialties may have to be nationally centred, but we are not even debating or deciding on that. Duncan McNeil knows that from his own neck of the woods. In the meantime, the minister, or whoever is summing up, should say that we will have a moratorium until the framework team's report is issued. That would be a satisfactory starting point.
The minister is simply firefighting—he firefights here, he firefights there. In many respects, he reminds me of Callaghan, who came back to the UK from his holidays in the middle of the winter of discontent and said, "Crisis? What crisis?" Well, Mr Chisholm, there is a crisis. I see that the Minister for Finance and Public Services has come to support the minister—that is very kind of him. The first thing to do to stop the crisis is to have a moratorium on service closures until the national framework strategy has been delivered.
Before I call Alasdair Morrison, I point out to members that he will speak in Gaelic. Headphones have been inserted into each console for the purposes of the simultaneous interpretation and members should ensure that the channel is set to 1.
Oifigeir Riaghlaidh, tha mi uabhasach toilichte a bhith a' gabhail pàirt san deasbad seo, agus tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil e iomchaidh gum bi mi a' labhairt mo chiad bhriathran san togalach seo nam chiad chànan.
Anns an togalach ùr dhealasach seo an-dè, mhìnich am Prìomh Mhinistear, Seac MacConaill, cuid de na nithean a bhios sinn a' deasbad an seo anns na bliadhnaichean a tha romhainn. Anns an t-seann Phàrlamaid, chuir sinn an cèill laghan cudthromach. Bidh cuimhne phearsanta aig gach ball air an t-seann dhachaigh aig mullach na sràide, ach dhòmhsa, mar Ghaidheal, is e Achd Ath-leasachadh an Fhearainn (Alba) 2003 a' phrìomh chuimhne a bhios agam.
I would like to take part in the debate and I think that it would be suitable for my first words in our new permanent home to be in my first language.
Yesterday, Jack McConnell outlined the details of a legislative journey that will greatly benefit people in every corner of Scotland. In our previous home, we delivered some significant legislation. I am sure that every member has fond memories of our old home at the other end of the Royal Mile.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that what Mr Morrison is saying is very interesting—or at least as interesting as what he normally has to say—but we are not getting an interpretation.
Yes we are.
I would rather that members let me deal with the point of order. I am not getting anything, either, but I am quite happy to listen to Mr Morrison speak in his native Gaelic and wait until the simultaneous interpretation comes through. Those of you who have sound will doubtless enjoy the speech in English and Gaelic simultaneously.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We can hear the simultaneous interpretation.
I gathered that from the earlier intervention, but can we please get on with the speeches?
Cha tuigeadh Mgr Aitken ciall ann an cànan sam bith gun luaidh air Gàidhlig no ann am Beurla.
Mar a thuirt mi, bidh iomadach cuimhne againn air an t-seann dhachaigh aig mullach na sràide, ach dhòmhsa, mar Ghaidheal, is e Achd Ath-leasachadh an Fhearainn a bhios na phrìomh chuimhne.
Thairis air an dà latha a chaidh seachad, tha mòran bhall air a bhith ag ràdh gur e na bhios a' tachairt am broinn na Pàrlamaid an rud as cudthromaiche, agus chan e an cumadh no an dath a tha air na ballachan. Shuas an rathad, dhearbh am pàrtaidh Làbarach agus a' cho-bhanntachd gum b' urrainn dhuinn laghan matha a chur an cèill ged nach robh lùchairt Pàrlamaid spaideil againn. Choilion sinn rudeigin a bha na amas aig Keir Hardie, agus chì mi am ministear a thug am bile sin troimhe—Ailean MacUilleim—san t-seòmar an-diugh. Tha buaidh achd an fhearainn follaiseach ann an iomadach ceàrnaidh air a' Ghaidhealtachd. An-diugh fhèin san sgìre Phàrlamaid agam, ann an Uibhist a Deas, an Eirisgeigh, am Beinn na Faoghla, an sgìre na Pàirc ann an Leòdhas, agus cuideachd ann an Nis agus am Barabhas, tha daoine a' cleachdadh achd an fhearainn airson cruth is cumadh ùr a thoirt air am beatha fhèin agus air na cothroman a bhios aig a' chloinn aca—cothroman nach b' urrainn an sinnsearachd fiù 's smaoineachadh mun deidhinn.
Tha suaicheantas Gàidhlig air duilleig-aghaidh pàipear-naidheachd Gaidhealach, pàipear beag an Eilein Sgitheanaich—faclan a bha air an cleachdadh aig na Land Leaguers. Is iad na faclan "An Tìr, an Cànan 's na Daoine". Tha mi air iomradh a thoirt mu thràth air ceist an fhearainn, is tha mi a-nis a' tionndadh gu cànan. Bha mi toilichte dha-rìribh cluinntinn a' Phrìomh Mhinisteir a' cur a thaic agus cumhachd an Riaghaltais aige air cùlaibh na neamhnaid prìseil as e mo chiad chànan. Tha sinn air ceuman mòra a ghabhail às leth a' chànain o chionn seachd bliadhna. Bha mòran air taobh a-staigh a' phàrtaidh Làbaraich a' strì às leth na Gàidhlig thairis air iomadach bliadhna nuair nach robh e fasanta sin a dhèanamh. An-diugh, sa Phàrlamaid seo agus ann an Westminster, tha suidheachadh againn a tha cus cus nas fàbharaich. Aig a' Mhòd Nàiseanta Rìoghail san Òban an-uiridh, dh'fhoillsich am Prìomh Mhinistear is ministear na Gàidhlig, Peadar Peacock, a' chiad dreachd de Bhile na Gàidhlig (Alba), agus chaidh fàilte bhlàth a chur air.
Mr Aitken would not understand sense in any language.
As I said, we will always remember the old home at the other end of the Royal Mile and, as a Gael, I found the passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to be a legislative highlight.
Over the past two days, many members have said that what is important about any Parliament is not its architectural intricacies, but what happens within its walls. Up the road, the Labour Party and its coalition partner demonstrated that we could pass much-needed legislation in what was a limited and, at times, inadequate parliamentary campus. We delivered on what was an aspiration since the days of Keir Hardie. The impact of the land reform legislation has been significant. Today, many communities in my constituency, in South Uist, Benbecula and Eriskay and in Park, Lochs, Ness and Barvas in Lewis, are using the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to shape for themselves and for their children better lives and greater opportunities—opportunities and life chances that their forebears could only dream about.
Written in Gaelic on the masthead of one of the newspapers in the Highlands, the West Highland Free Press, are words borrowed from the slogan used by the land leaguers in the 1800s and the beginning of the 20th century: "The land, the language, the people". I have already mentioned the land and our legislation's positive impact in that regard. For obvious reasons, I was delighted to hear the First Minister again reaffirm his Administration's commitment to what is a national jewel, the Gaelic language. Since 1997, great strides have been taken to support Gaelic. Many in the Labour movement championed the cause of Gaelic when it was unfashionable to do so. Today, in this forum and at Westminster, there is a more favourable and receptive atmosphere. At the historic 100th Royal National Mòd in Oban, the minister with responsibility for Gaelic, Peter Peacock, unveiled the first draft of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. It was universally welcomed.
Mòran taing airson mo leigeil a-staigh. Bhon a tha Alasdair Moireasdan a' bruidhinn air a' Mhòd agus air taic airson Gàidhlig, tha mi airson cantainn gun robh a' chiad sreath den bhile Ghàidhlig a thàinig thugainn gu math lag. Cha robh duine a' faicinn mòran ann a bha a' dol a dhèanamh adhartas mòr dhan Ghàidhlig. Is e am prìomh rud a tha a dhìth air saoghal na Gàidhlig foghlam tro mheadhan a' chànain, gu h-àraidh anns na h-àrd-sgoiltean, agus barrachd cuideachadh airson luchd-teagaisg a tha deònach a bhith ag obair ann am foghlam Gàidhlig agus a bhith ga teagasg. Tha mi a' tuigsinn gu bheil 30 luchd-teagaisg a dhìth oirnn a h-uile bliadhna ann am foghlam Gàidhlig. A bheil Alasdair Moireasdan den bheachd gu bheil am bile Gàidhlig, san ìre aig a bheil e an-diugh, mar a tha e a' dol a bhith air a stèidheachadh ann an lagh an-dràsta, a' dol a dhèanamh feum dhan Ghàidhlig? An cum e Gàidhlig beò anns na bliadhnaichean a tha air thoiseach oirnn?
I remember the Mòd and the contribution to Gaelic. People could not see much in the first part of the draft bill that would do much for Gaelic. The main thing that the bill lacked was anything about education through the medium of Gaelic, especially in high schools, or about training for teachers who were willing to teach through the medium of Gaelic. I understand that, every year, there are 30 teachers fewer than we need for teaching through the medium of Gaelic. If we want to keep Gaelic alive, we need to make changes to the draft bill.
I will compensate you for the time that it took to make that intervention, Mr Morrison.
Bheir mi freagairt ghoirid, agus is e sin gu bheil am bile a' dol a dhèanamh feum ach, mar a tha fios aig a h-uile ball, tha a h-uile bile a tha a' tighinn fa choinneamh na Pàrlamaid ag atharrachadh gu mòr bhon latha a thèid fhoillseachadh gus an latha mu dheireadh a thèid e troimhe. An-dè fhèin, thuirt am ministear, Peadar Peacock, gun robh e ag èisteachd ris na tagraidhean a tha daoine air a bhith a' dèanamh bho chaidh am bile fhoillseachadh o chionn bliadhna.
Tha e do-dhèante dhòmhsa smaoineachadh no bruidhinn air an iomairt airson bile na Gàidhlig gun chuimhneachadh is innse a dhèanamh air caraid a chaill sinn nas tràithe air a' bhliadhna seo. Bho chionn 40 bliadhna, na phàiste ann an gàirdeanan a phàrantan, dh'fhàg e baile Karachi airson Alba. Na ghille òg agus na dhuine a' fàs suas anns a' bhaile air an robh e air leth measail—baile Ghlaschu—bha e a' siubhal gu sona eadar dà chultar. Nas anmoiche na bheatha, chaidh e a dh'ionnsaigh an treas cultar. Is e a' Ghàidhlig agus a' Ghaidhealtachd rudan a bheò-ghlac Ali Abbasi. Abair eisimpleir math den fheallsanachd "Aon Alba. Iomadach Cultar". Cha robh Ali Abbasi dìreach a' faicinn Gàidhlig mar an ceathramh chànan aige no mar rud fuar—bha i a' toirt dha sealladh eile air an t-saoghal mhòr. Bha e sona ga bruidhinn agus bha e sona nar measg.
Is e am Prìomh Mhinistear an aon fhear as urrainn ceartas a dhèanamh air an strì a rinn Ali mus deach am bile fhoillseachadh an-uiridh. As t-fhoghar seo chaidh, bha e air leth moiteil agus am brath-naidheachd na dhòrn anns an deach ainmeachadh mar am fear a bhiodh a' cur leughadh leabhraichean fa chomhair sgoilearan Gàidhlig. Is e fìor ghaisgeach a bha ann, agus cha robh eagal sam bith aige air a dhol am bad dhaoine a bhiodh a' cur sìos air a' Ghàidhlig—chuireadh e às an leth sa mhionaid gun robh iad ri gràin-chinnidh. Airson iomadach bliadhna, bidh teaghlach agus cuideachd Ali Abbasi ga chaoidh. Bidh iad ga ionndrainn mar mhac, mar bhràthair, mar uncle. Bidh àite sònraichte aige ann an iomadach cridhe, ach am measg luchd-labhairt na Gàidhlig ann an Alba bidh e air a chuimhneachadh mar Ali Abbasi, caraid nan Gaidheal—Ali Abbasi, sàr charaid nan Gaidheal.
Nuair a thig e chun a' bhòt mu dheireadh airson a' bhile, tha mi cinnteach gun dèan sinn mar a rinn sinn airson nan daoine a bha fo sgàil nan uachdaran suarach gràineil ro fhada agus gun cuir sinn tron Phàrlamaid achd cànain às am biodh Ali Abbasi nach maireann moiteil.
A short answer is to say that the bill will benefit Gaelic and that, when the bill is next revealed, it will look very different from how it looked previously. Peter Peacock and others have been working on it since it was first unveiled.
It is impossible for me to talk about the efforts to secure the bill without reflecting on and paying tribute to the contribution of a friend who passed away earlier this summer. Forty years ago, as a babe in his parents' arms, he left Karachi and came with his family to settle in Scotland. He moved very happily between two cultures and then embraced a third—Gaeldom and our language were his passion. What a good example of "One Scotland. Many Cultures." Ali Abbasi was not just learning the language; he looked on it as another means of communication. Gaelic gave Ali another window on the world and the language gave him a sense of contentment and solace. He was at home.
The First Minister is the one man in the Parliament who can do justice to Ali's constant lobbying in the run-up to the announcement of the proposed Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. Last autumn, Ali proudly clutched the official Government press release in which the First Minister announced his appointment as Scotland's first Gaelic reading champion. He was a great champion, indeed. He never shirked from saying the unpopular or battling with people whom he described as racist—those few Scots who routinely dismiss Gaelic and any support for it through precarious times. Today and for many years to come, the Abbasi household will mourn the loss of a son, brother and uncle. Ali Abbasi will have a special place in many hearts. In the Highlands and Gaelic Scotland he is, quite simply, the friend of the Gael.
I have every confidence that, when it comes to the final vote on the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, we will pass the bill—as we have passed historic legislation that has unshackled communities from the grasp of rapacious landowners—and that we will do the Gaelic world justice. I have every confidence that the proposed legislation will pass any test that the late Ali Abbasi would have thought appropriate.
I am glad that John Farquhar Munro behaved himself during the simultaneous interpretation that we have just heard, because I remember an incident that took place when we first used the facility four years ago, when he apparently made a remark in Gaelic that was not fed down the line but caused a fit of giggles between the two girls who were responsible for the interpretation. I have never had that explained to me.
I will address the issues that fall largely within the remit of the Environment and Rural Development Committee. The programme for government this year will include the passage of the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament—the process will start tomorrow. On the Conservative benches, we welcome the steps that the Executive is taking to open up competition in the water industry through the bill. Retail competition for business will help. However, we lament the decision to stop far short of introducing the real choice and efficiency that is needed for the water industry in Scotland.
The Executive argues that allowing retail competition for households would force a change to the current system, in which local authorities bill domestic customers for their water and sewerage charges. That would mean that water charges would no longer reflect the customer's ability to pay. Although we strongly agree that it is important to ensure that people who require water services are able to access them, regardless of whether they can afford to pay, we have a significant problem with the suggestion in the bill that we should institutionalise the fact that those who can pay should pay more in order that those who cannot pay should not pay. That would effectively make water services the basis for a system of taxation. That is nothing new—we have been going down that road for some time—but I lament the fact that, although the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill might have offered us an opportunity to bring that approach to an end or at least to reverse the trend, it unfortunately seeks to do exactly the opposite.
A couple of other issues fall broadly within the environment remit. I call again for the provision of strategic guidelines for the erection of wind turbines in Scotland. I am a realist and I know that wind turbines on land will play an important part in the future generation of electricity in Scotland. However, I am concerned about the situation that the Executive has got us into. A target has been set to achieve a high level of electricity production from renewable sources on a timescale that means that the only mature technology available is the only choice for the companies that seek to achieve the target.
Is the member aware that, in many countries around the globe, a huge amount of the renewable energy resource is provided by the sun, through solar power, solar heating and so on? We are now making that happen in Scotland, too, so his doom and gloom is inappropriate in this debate.
I am absolutely aware of that, but because only a limited mature technology is available in Scotland, we have seen a rush for one technology. There is a need for strategic guidelines, which have not been adequately defined by the Executive. That is what is causing disruption in many of our rural communities, especially where the scenery is likely to be damaged in the long term.
I sometimes find it hard to work out who is speaking on behalf of whom in the chamber. At the start of the debate yesterday, a Liberal Democrat opened and the first speech delivered by a Labour member was John Home Robertson's. I do not know whether he was speaking for himself or for the Labour Party, but he once again did something for which I applaud him: he spoke about the importance of nuclear energy to the economy of Scotland.
We Conservatives want to ensure that Scotland's growth continues. For that to happen, we have to guarantee that, when a factory opens its doors and switches on its power plants, it will be supplied with electricity. We are not suggesting that that electricity should necessarily be cheap or plentiful; we are saying that supplies should be adequate and affordable. If that means that we have to consider the replacement of nuclear capacity in Scotland, we must make that decision and grasp that nettle. I do not know whether John Home Robertson's speech yesterday was a measure of the intent of the Labour Party to move down that road, but it is time that we had that discussion. Conservative members are prepared to grasp the nettle if that is what is necessary to ensure long-term growth and the long-term creation of jobs in Scotland.
My final point relates to the common agricultural policy reform process that we went through earlier this year. The minister's decision to create a national beef envelope—and to exploit it in order to transfer funds from one group in the beef industry to another—is one that I cannot accept and will continue to regret. I accept that it is necessary for support to be channelled towards those who keep cattle in the north and west and the more marginal Highland areas of Scotland. However, doing that through the national beef envelope—whereby a significant proportion of the support for farmers and beef producers in the east of Scotland has been redirected to support those in other areas—is redistributive and has been badly received by beef producers in the east and north-east of Scotland. Today, one man asked me to demand the resignation of the minister. I will not be so rash, but I ask the minister to take the opportunity to reconsider the measure before it is passed into law.
Like Alex Johnstone, my interest is in the green thread of the Executive's programme. The most obviously environmental legislation that is coming up is the strategic environmental assessment bill. I have a sense of déjà vu: as a district councillor, I was able to have a protocol adopted across my council, which required every report to the council or to any of its committees to have a section headed "Environmental Implications", whether or not the writer of the report perceived there to be any. Often the heading was followed by the word "None". However, the protocol was surprisingly effective in focusing attention on, and in flushing out, potential environmental impacts and having such a section in the report enabled elected members to challenge officers when possible impacts had been overlooked or not considered. After a few such challenges, every officer and every department was much more alert to potential environmental impacts in matters that, at first glance, had had none.
I hope that we deliver strategic environmental assessments that are properly inclusive of the citizen and which are transparent, accessible and enforceable. I expect confidently that the requirement for strategic environmental assessments will be just as effective as the old Gordon District Council protocol.
Tomorrow, the Environment and Rural Development Committee begins taking evidence on the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill. It will be an interesting and intricate bill that will continue to protect water services from the privatisation route that the voters of Strathclyde rejected so unequivocally all those years ago. There are some tricky issues around who pays for water services and how, and the committee will have a number of nettles to grasp in the weeks ahead.
I move on to affordable housing. A house should be whole-life affordable, especially for people on low incomes. Investment in a house that is properly designed, properly built and properly insulated and which has efficient heating and lighting can provide a warm home for a tiny outlay of running costs. Are we sure that we are doing all that we can to ensure that social housing meets such standards? Is best value defined in ways that make spending to save possible and attractive?
Planning has a role to play, as well. The way in which individual houses are laid out in a scheme can either maximise benefits from solar gain and shelter or it can ignore them, and layout can provide for pedestrians and cyclists or ignore them. There is a lot of available expertise that should be used on those matters. The other plea that I make on planning is that there should be a continual effort to ensure effective enforcement of planning conditions. Too many communities are blighted and too often serious pollution is caused by businesses or individuals that flout planning conditions, apparently with impunity. That simply is not good enough.
The Executive has made economic growth a priority. We want more jobs, and there are many opportunities for green jobs. We squandered a lot of the economic benefit of developing wind power and we watched as Denmark profited. Even so, it is still the case that an orderly progression of new wind farms would create the stable and steady demand that would support Scottish manufacturers and allow them to take on or keep on a skilled work force.
Our scientists and engineers are in the vanguard of wave and tidal power. Installations such as the European Marine Energy Centre Ltd in Orkney will play a part in keeping the benefits of that developing technology at home—but only a part. Government support, both monetary and in providing an encouraging fiscal environment with long-term stability, and private venture capital are also crucial elements. A small company in my constituency is beavering away at developing hydrogen applications, but with very little interest or support from Government here. I am told that that is in marked contrast to what the company has found in Japan.
On transport, an efficient and complete infrastructure, good public transport and better rail services are all possible and desirable. We can and will work for those.
Infrastructure includes broadband—an essential tool in today's world—which is proportionately much more important in a rural setting. Why has it been rolled out backwards, as I would describe it? If we want to think big, what about creating a fibre-optic network instead of just using the existing copper wire? Broadband can facilitate home working, and someone working one day a week from home instead of driving to work contributes a 20 per cent reduction in the pollution and congestion they cause.
We have talked a lot yesterday and today about new legislation, but we should reserve time to follow up on legislation that we have already passed. What progress has been made on river basin plans? How effective are the provisions in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004? How are our national parks developing? What are the national waste plan and area waste plans achieving?
I do not add my voice to the chorus that says that we should raise our game. The Scottish Parliament has done an enormous amount of good work to date—much of it work that would not have been done if there had not been a Scottish Parliament. I look forward to continuing a good game on a wonderful new pitch.
There is a joke about a Westminster colleague who dreamed that he was making a speech in the House of Commons and woke up to find that he actually was making a speech in the House of Commons. In a way, I feel a little bit like that MP because I cannot quite believe that we are here now. I have to ask myself a question similar to that which philosophy students used to have to answer: how do I know that I am not dreaming that I am in this wonderful building?
The building is a terrific and magnificent edifice. Whether it represents value for money will be for future generations to judge, as will whether or not it has remained fit for purpose in 50, 100 or 200 years' time. However, the building is much more than just a physical presence at the bottom of the Royal Mile; it is a statement of the Scottish Parliament's permanency. The individuals who inhabit the building will change, but Scotland's Parliament is here to stay and those who hoped to destroy devolution by attacking the building will have to move on. I hope that they, too, will raise their game.
The Executive once considered the merits of an Edinburgh biennale being held in the not-too-distant future, not only to celebrate this architectural triumph, but to focus the eyes of the world on the flourishing of Scottish architecture and culture in recent years. Scottish architecture is a success story that does not receive sufficient attention. It may be difficult for the ministers who are present to answer, but I would be grateful if ministers advised us whether that proposal remains under active consideration.
There is much to welcome in the Executive's legislative programme and its wider policy framework, and the way in which those build on the Parliament's achievements of the past five years. One of the most common issues that my constituents bring to my attention is housing. That is not directly a health matter, but we know that poor housing is a major factor in ill health. Fortunately, actions that the Executive and the Parliament have taken in the past five years have begun to have an impact. In my constituency, I have seen excellent social housing developments in various communities, which not only provide much needed good-quality housing for rent; some that I have visited are of extremely high-quality design and finish. They, too, are examples of excellence in Scottish architecture.
However, housing need remains a huge issue in terms of the number of houses that are required—many of my constituents have lived in inadequate accommodation for far too long—and in terms of the necessity to regenerate areas where the housing type is inappropriate and has encouraged social problems. I very much welcome the First Minister's commitment to increase investment further and to provide more homes for rent and for low-cost ownership, because as house prices rise in my area and other parts of the country, first-time buyers and people who are on lower incomes are beginning to experience difficulty in purchasing properties.
Many private landlords are good landlords but, sadly, some are far from that. I am well aware of constituents who live in absolutely appalling conditions in private lets—that happens in urban and rural communities. The poor condition of some housing in rural areas can be less visible than it is in urban areas. It can also be difficult for tenants to move out of substandard accommodation, because few alternatives are available in their vicinity. I have spoken with constituents who are frightened to ask environmental health services into their private lets because they will have nowhere else to go, other than perhaps a car.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I am running out of time.
Demographic change—other members have referred to it—is a significant issue in my constituency. Unlike many rural areas, we probably have an increasingly aging profile. I do not suggest that that in itself is a problem and I certainly understand why older people may wish to retire to beautiful areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, but we have a problem in recruiting a number of key workers such as carers, nurses, radiographers, audiologists, podiatrists and dentists. I had a wee wry smile about free dental checks, because I fear that some of my constituents will have no teeth left to check by 2007. We also have shortages of some medical consultants.
The answer to that is not to force young people to stay, study and work in the places they come from. New experiences through studying and working in other parts of the world and other parts of the country can be invaluable in developing people's experience and skills. However, we need to attract people back when they have gained those experiences and we need to attract new people to our country—especially to regions that have demographic problems.
That will not happen if politicians or the media continually carp, moan and talk down our country or its regions. Nobody will want to come here if we keep on telling people how awful it is. Unfortunately, some of my local media run stories every week that tell people how dreadful Dumfries and Galloway is. If I were a young professional looking for a job in Dumfries and Galloway, I would be far too frightened to go there.
All of us have a responsibility to develop policies and to change Scotland for the better. I say to the Opposition that it is entitled to put forward an alternative to the Executive's programme, but it should not simply moan about the state of the nation without offering practical alternatives. That will not be good enough in the future.
I am pleased to welcome the Executive's programme for the coming year. I look forward to future developments and to all of us playing a constructive and focused part in them.
Just before the referendum on devolution, Canon Kenyon Wright addressed a meeting of the Motherwell District Chamber of Commerce. He painted a euphoric picture of a consensual Parliament that would appear in Scotland. I have not yet run into that consensual Parliament. However, I have found that there are many good people in the Parliament who want to do good for the country. At times, we see them staggering under the load of their portfolios. One of them, Malcolm Chisholm, has just left the chamber. In his absence, I say that he is succeeding in making Scotland a healthier nation. People will be aghast at that thought, but in my lifetime the life expectancy of a working man has risen from 49 years to 78 years. That is the only measure that one can use to judge the failure or success of any health service.
There is an awful lot of work to be done. Today we listened to people from the Glasgow homeopathic hospital. Radical thinking is required in this chamber. The issue of health should be taken out of the political arena, as we are dealing with a crisis. The electorate—the people outside this chamber—should see the Government acting in a sensible and consensual way and attacking the problem of poor health, rather than approaching it as a yah-boo football game in which people can gain petty points by saying "His waiting list is longer than mine," and other such rubbish.
There are problems, which we can solve if we all pull together. However, it is up to the Executive to invite every other party—whether it be Tommy Sheridan's party, the SNP, the Conservatives, the Greens or the independents—to make a contribution. We must proceed in a consensual manner. As was mentioned yesterday on the Lesley Riddoch programme, if we miss this opportunity, the people out there will treat this place with total contempt. Let us rise above the sort of politics that I have described and lift our sights. We can do it, but only with greater consensus. Let's go for it.
I have been unable to call six back benchers, which I regret. However, I will take a note of their names.
John Swinburne finished with a note of consensus. I am reminded of the First Minister's opening comments yesterday on the absolute horror and tragedy of Beslan in Russia. He said that it should remind all of us of the importance of democracy in enabling us to discuss, to debate, to disagree and to move forward in a peaceful fashion. However, when dealing with some of the difficulties that face areas of Scottish life such as the health service, we are in danger of ignoring the democratic wishes that are expressed at election times.
I ask the Minister for Health and Community Care, in particular, to examine the reason for the save Stobhill campaign that delivered Jean Turner to the Parliament. In 2003, Jean Turner stood on a very clear programme: to save Stobhill hospital. There was no other part to Jean's programme. She said quite clearly that she wanted to fight on a single issue, which was to save a hospital. It is very difficult for someone to win a first-past-the-post contest on a single issue, and when they do not have a political party or any other machinery backing them. However, Jean Turner won in a previously safe Labour seat. The truth is that the Parliament has ignored the democratically expressed wishes of that community because, regardless of that election victory, the closure of Stobhill as a general hospital has not only proceeded, but has accelerated.
What the Minister for Health and Community Care needs to consider is that, if we live in a genuine democracy in which we are concerned about the disengagement of more and more citizens or about the fact that barely half the Scottish electorate are even bothering to use their vote, people in an area such as Strathkelvin and Bearsden who use their vote to buck the political trend deserve to be listened to. That is why I ask him to re-examine and reconsider any decision he makes about supporting Stobhill's closure.
I was also struck by the First Minister's comments about a smoking ban. I hope that we quickly introduce a proposal to ban smoking in public places. However, I was interested to hear the First Minister say that he was not convinced about the arguments for a ban until he visited Ireland and saw this pro-health measure with his own eyes; discussing the ban with those who implemented it has changed his mind.
I challenge the First Minister to make the same type of visit to Finland to discuss universal healthy free school meals with people who put that measure at the heart of their health programme. The First Minister is not convinced that such meals will lead to an improvement in dietary health across Scotland. However, if he visits Finland, he will speak to health ministers and others who will tell him that the measure was at the very core of the transformation of the Finnish health record. Although that country used to have a worse record than us in coronary heart disease and other dietary health-related illnesses, it is now top of the health league table.
People sometimes wonder where the millions that are being poured into our health service and the billions that are being deployed to try to address health problems are going. I will tell you where some of it is going: it is going into the pockets of the members of the private finance initiatives and public-private partnership consortiums to ensure that the Royal Bank of Scotland and others can own vital resources such as our hospitals. Instead of frittering public money away into the pockets of those private profiteers, we should be investing money from public sources. For example, we need to open our eyes to the fact that we have £10 billion in local authority pension funds in Scotland. Is it beyond the wit of this Parliament to be able to unlock that £10 billion for investment in public sector projects while guaranteeing a rate of return to those pension funds to allow them to meet their future liabilities? We require that type of thinking in this Parliament if we really are going to be up to the mark.
This is a grand landmark building. Indeed, it is far too grand and far too much of a landmark to remain a parish council. It has to become the seat of a new independent Scotland. [Applause.]
Before I call Mark Ballard, I remind the gallery that is not appropriate to applaud.
We have spent two days discussing a legislative programme that contains a range of proposals—many of which are welcome—that we must properly scrutinise and discuss in Parliament. However, listening to the speeches today and yesterday, there is a general feeling that there is incoherence and contradiction in the Executive's agenda. Perhaps there is a lack of a new vision to match our new building. I will come to the contradictions later.
I am not saying that there have not been any big visions expressed in the debate. There has been the vision of sustainability that my colleague Shiona Baird outlined, as well as the vision of safe, healthy and sustainable development in food, which my colleague Mark Ruskell outlined. In the non-partisan spirit of the new politics, I say that I was taken with what Susan Deacon had to say about whether we have the Government systems that can carry out the Parliament's and Scotland's shared vision of participation and consultation.
I believe—Susan Deacon expressed this very well—that we have to reform our public services and Government systems, but not to abolish them as the Tories still seem to be saying. Parliament has made great progress in making public service delivery more community oriented, but we have now to take the next step and make it more community led. That would be a bold new vision for this new building. I thank Susan Deacon for that.
What of the legislative programme? To my mind, the centrepiece of the Executive's environmental programme for the coming year is strategic environmental assessment. After doing the absolute minimum that is required to meet the European Union requirements, and with organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds doubting that the statutory instrument that was introduced the day before the deadline did even that, the Executive is now proposing a proper bill for strategic environmental assessment. As Nora Radcliffe pointed out from her experiences, such requirements have a positive impact because they focus on the environmental impact.
I welcome assessment of the strategic impact on the environment of all new Executive programmes, plans and—I thank the Executive for this—strategies. Those assessments must be properly monitored and carried out independently, and we will scrutinise the detail of the bill to make sure that it will achieve that.
Jackie Baillie and others outlined how the needs of communities should also be a yardstick for measuring progress. I argue that the impact on communities and on the environment—the sustainable development agenda—should be the yardstick for the Executive's and the Parliament's progress, rather than the one-dimensional agenda of gross domestic product growth. That would be a powerful and positive new vision for the Parliament.
There is a contradiction between growth in GDP and the needs of communities and the environment, which is an example of the lack of coherence of which I spoke earlier. The First Minister and the Executive are trying and failing to be all things to all people. Ministers talk the talk of sustainability and environmental justice while other departments are actively undermining the sustainability of Scotland. Coming to terms with climate change and many other pressing environmental issues will force the Executive radically to alter many of its policies.
However, it is not just the Executive that cannot manage to form a joined-up policy on the environment. The SNP is wedded to the idea that North sea oil revenues can bankroll an independent Scotland. However, an independent future for Scotland cannot be built on a volatile oil market and the declining resource that is North sea oil. We expect fossil fuel-based economics from George W Bush, but I thought that the SNP was rather smarter than that. Why do the SNP and the Executive allow their transport policies continually to undermine efforts to tackle greenhouse gases, as my colleague Chris Ballance outlined? If the Executive is serious about supporting waste minimisation and waste reduction—
Will the member take an intervention?
I want to finish my sentence.
I would like the Executive to take up the idea of one of its back benchers for a plastic-bag levy; I am very disappointed that such a proposal is not included in the Executive's programme.
Your intervention must be short, Miss Boyack.
My point is about transport. The Executive has more than doubled the amount of money that it is putting into transport and 75 per cent of that expenditure will be on public transport. The idea that climate change is being ignored is just not true. We are not going far enough, but that is partly because we need to change a culture. Surely the Greens would be better off working with us than constantly dismissing the facts.
Miss Boyack, you need to finish now.
I have been at public meetings at which Greens have said that they were in favour of road improvements on safety grounds. Safety was the only reason why the roads in question received such improvements.
I was not criticising the Executive; I was pointing out the contradictions between what the Executive says and what actually happens. I welcome new money for new railways, just as I welcome walking and cycling plans. My concern is about the way in which that is undermined by the Executive's continuing promotion of new road development. As Chris Ballance said, the spending of up to £1 billion on the M74 undermines all the good work that I recognise that the Executive is doing.
You must finish now.
If the Executive is really serious about that issue and many others, it needs to have something stronger—we must have policies for social and environmental justice. That is the new vision that we need.
It is a pleasure to be speaking for the first time in our wonderful new Parliament building, which is everything that I expected of it and more.
Congratulations and thanks go from me—and, I hope, others who were supportively critical—to the people who had the vision and the drive to get us here. They also go to those contractors, craftsmen and Parliament staff who have worked their socks off to make that vision a reality. They include many people such as the young man whom I met in the lift this morning, who has worked 86 of the past 90 days to help to get us here. I thank all of them.
The only complaint that I have heard so far came from my researcher, who said that a pillar was blocking his view. Unfortunately, proposals to improve views for researchers are not included in the Executive's legislative programme, but they are one of the few things missing from a comprehensive and ambitious set of proposals that has Scotland's economic future and well-being at heart; besides, such proposals would not be a priority anyway.
Yesterday the First Minister outlined his vision for Scotland. He talked of a land of ambition and opportunity that embodies Labour's values of fairness, solidarity, tolerance and respect—values that have underpinned everything that the coalition did in the first parliamentary session and everything that it has done to date in the current session.
The Executive's programme contains a great deal and covers a wide range of subjects. It seems to have been drawn up in such a way that the objectives of every proposed bill complement the Executive's overall objectives of prosperity, social inclusion and environmental protection. That is in stark contrast to the Opposition parties, which take their own narrow agendas, fit their proposals around them and either do not know or do not care what those proposals will cost or what impact they will have on other areas of government.
Many Labour members have spoken of the need for real and funded partnership to achieve the correct climate for economic growth. Marilyn Livingstone referred to the success of the Fife community safety partnership in tackling a huge swathe of issues to do with community safety. I support her call, and that of others, for realistic funding for Fife constabulary to help us to achieve our objectives.
Other members, such as Des McNulty, have referred to the need to build confidence by ensuring that communities have a democratic voice and a genuine sense of choice when they participate with us in many of our partnerships. Cathie Craigie was one of many members who referred to the need for training and, indeed, retraining, especially in areas in which unemployment and deprivation remain high, such as old mining towns or other areas that have been decimated by the loss of heavy industry; Methil in central Fife is such an example. Community learning partnerships will play an increasingly important role in ensuring that training and skills develop in those areas, enabling employers and local people to create and sustain employment.
Richard Baker highlighted the work that is being done to streamline higher and further education funding and to achieve a long-term solution to funding and other issues. The work of Glenrothes College and Fife College along with the universities in my area is just what is needed to ensure continued skills development.
Over the past five years, the Executive has demonstrated that the best way to progress is through partnership. It has worked with the national Government to get the best deal for Scotland and has introduced parallel laws where appropriate. The Executive has also worked with the private sector to provide much-needed services—public initiatives using private money and expertise in partnership for the greater good and different departments working together to solve the same problem but from a different angle.
We would have none of that if any of the Opposition parties were in power. With the Tories, it is private without the public—business or bust—and so long as the fat cats have money, it does not matter about anything else; with the SNP, it is Scotland without the UK—a country with no defence, money or future, but that would be okay because we could blame the English; and with the SSP, it is all hail the socialist republic of Tommyland in which everyone is equal and free to live without the threat of ever making any money, being prosperous or having anything because the Government has spent the lot.
I will not even start on the Greens. They are our only nationally elected pressure group but they could not balance their conflicting priorities if the lives of their compost-guzzling worms depended on it.
Is that the member's definition of raising her game?
It is not my definition of raising my game—I will come to that.
Labour and the coalition are raising their game, but the Opposition parties have demonstrated clearly that for them it is the same old game at the same old level. The legislative programme is ambitious in its objectives and inclusive in its scope. It does not simply ask the questions, "What are we going to do about health, education or crime?" but asks "How can we make Scotland a better place for everyone, improve the lot of our young people and, at the same time, safeguard the environment, improve our communities and make Scotland a more prosperous and successful country?"
We will do that by taking a joined-up approach to government and by realising that it is possible to have the conditions for economic growth only if we improve health, communities, social justice and the environment. My colleagues Jackie Baillie and Johann Lamont pointed that out this morning. That is the only way to make our country great: a country of ambition; a country of opportunity. We need collectively to talk Scotland up. We can be supportively critical but ensure that the opportunities are developed and that they are there to be grasped. I commend the proposals to the chamber.
The one recurrent theme that has run throughout the debate—indeed, Christine May has just referred to it—has been the word "ambition". It has become apparent that some Executive ministers are resentful that they have been accused of a lack of ambition. Let me offer them some words of comfort: nobody seriously doubts that they have the ambition to create a better Scotland. The real difficulty, and the difference between us, is how it should be created.
Let me make it quite clear that we will seek to co-operate on a number of facets of the Executive's legislative programme, although we will do so with the caveat that we will seek to amend the programme to make it work better—I am sure that that is only to be expected. No right-minded person could possibly object to legislation that increases the protection of children and other vulnerable sections of society. I am thinking of the legislation that seeks to inhibit the abhorrent practice of female circumcision. We will also look with considerable interest at the provisions of the proposed housing bill.
We support measures that will increase public confidence in charitable giving and the proposed charity law bill might make such a provision. As ever, we flag up the caveat that the Executive must legislate with a light touch; it should not interfere too much in the operation of the voluntary sector.
As ever, the Executive's failure has been a lack of specifics, in particular in relation to the economy. Frankly, Scotland is lacking in competitiveness. We have to take measures to increase the level of competitiveness, not only to grow our economy but to safeguard existing jobs. When we have the totally unacceptable situation of Scottish business rates being 7 per cent higher than business rates down south and Scottish business—sometimes quite small enterprises—being confronted with water charges that have increased by 500 per cent, serious questions have to be asked about the Executive's ability to deliver a more competitive Scotland.
Last week's launch of "The Framework for Economic Development in Scotland"—the FEDS 2 document—was rather depressing. It was a plaintive call on the Executive's part for business to sharpen up its act. At the same time, the Executive is forcing businesses to compete on highly unlevel playing fields.
Would the member care to elucidate the Tories' policies? I remember that, when Michael Howard was in office, the Tories' boom-and-bust policies led to interest rates being at 15 per cent for a whole year, to 1 million households being in negative equity, to 100,000 families losing their homes and to 3 million people being unemployed. Would the member like to elaborate on that?
The member might not be aware of it, but I remind her that the Labour Party has been in Government for some seven years now. We are confronted with the situation that exists today. I am not optimistic about what will pertain in the future—perhaps the member should address herself to that. When the Executive is prepared to do something about business rates, water charges and the burgeoning public sector, I will be prepared to listen to Helen Eadie.
Despite the First Minister's statement, and indeed what Mr Finnie said on television last night, members will be totally confused about the Executive's attitude towards our education system. There seems to be an acceptance that the status quo is not satisfactory, yet there is no cogent, coherent plan for how the Executive will improve matters. That is typical of the Executive's approach. May I respectfully suggest—I trust that Mrs Eadie is listening—that, until parents are allowed more input into their children's education and until real choices are permitted on curricula, matters are not going to progress.
Perhaps most worrying of all is the lack of information on how the Executive proposes to combat the fact that universities down south will be able to charge top-up fees and the effect that that will have on the research that our universities are able to conduct.
As I listened to Cathy Jamieson this morning, I had a sense of foreboding. Even under her and Hugh Henry's stewardship, the possibility of being murdered in one's bed is remote. However, the probability of having one's life disrupted by housebreaking, vandalism and disorder is very high. Cathy Jamieson's concern about the high recidivism rate of those who have been in custody is likely to draw her along the route of reducing the number of people in custody. Perhaps she should note that there is a very high reoffending rate among those who have done community service. We will, by all means, look constructively and coherently at the measures that the Executive proposes, but if the Minister for Justice comes forward with the soft, soft approach that she has demonstrated in the past, we will reject it. We cannot continue along the lines of fines that are frequently unpaid, community service that is, in many cases, not done, and so-called diversions from prosecution that simply do not work.
There is a very real loss of confidence in the justice system, with a growing confidence on the part of offenders that they can continue to offend with impunity and that nothing will happen. That is the nub of the problem with the Executive's justice policy.
Perhaps the most depressing contribution that the Executive has made is in the health service. Is it not bizarre that a 42 per cent increase in funding has not brought about an improved health service? That is appalling and shocking. The fact that the Executive seems quite content to continue on the same old basis and with the same old ethos, knowing that the service will not get any better, almost defies description.
As we end the debate in this august new chamber, many of us might feel, to paraphrase a Neil Diamond song, that—except for the place and a few other changes—the story is the same.
I should say at the outset that I am mystified by the psychology of Christine May who, as I understand it, is Irish born. I wonder whether her comments about independence would apply to the country of her birth and whether they would be received in a positive manner when she visits Ireland on holiday. It is interesting that she applies a different standard to the country where she now lives and where she represents constituents.
In his statement yesterday, the First Minister listed the five bills that we have brought down the High Street with us, which are scheduled to finish their parliamentary progress in the coming year. Included in that list was the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill that is moving into stage 1 at committee. Of course we all want to see an improvement in the quality of Scotland's drinking water and sewerage efficiency. However, of greater concern to Scotland is the burgeoning water bureaucracy, complete with bonuses and all. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development, who has yet to speak, could make a start by merging the water industry commissioner's office with the water quality regulator's office and allowing the current consultation on Scottish Water to effect real change to that organisation.
I have dealt with some of the issues concerning the legislation, but more important is what has not been addressed. As my colleagues John Swinney and Alex Neil said, there is a pressing need to confront the development embargoes that are in place throughout Scotland, including in my constituency, which are caused by the constraints that are imposed by lack of sewerage capacity.
Although the blanket embargo that Scottish Water placed on Perth has been lifted—I thank Ross Finnie for his assistance—there are still nearly 1,300 potential open-market house sites and more than 250 sites that are earmarked specifically for affordable housing that cannot be developed because of drainage constraints. That is in one constituency only. By the time that we multiply the numbers throughout Scotland, we see that lack of infrastructure seriously impedes development. It is not enough to talk about dealing with the problem at some vague time in the future, as indicated by the Deputy First Minister yesterday morning. Scotland needs more affordable housing now and we cannot allow a development deadlock to put the hems on that ambition. There is not much point in talking about economic development when lack of infrastructure is such an obstacle to that development.
I am conscious that Ross Finnie has yet to speak, so I hope that he will address some wider rural affairs issues such as the lack of a decent rural public transport network. The Deputy First Minister said that about two thirds of all transport money was spent on public transport, but huge parts of Scotland must be wondering where that money has gone. The centralisation of health services, which we have heard discussed in detail, is a particular problem in rural areas and I hope that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development will at least refer to that.
In a broader environmental sense, it would be useful if the minister would also say whether he will have any input into the on-going search for nuclear waste dumping opportunities and the Ministry of Defence plans to break up nuclear submarines, as they might affect Coulport. Those are environmental issues that will affect Scotland in the near future.
I presume that renewable energy, which has been mentioned, is a matter for the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and his colleague the Deputy First Minister. There is an urgent need to widen the renewable energy base across a variety of sectors instead of focusing only on onshore wind farms. Before we rush to nuclear power—as was suggested again by John Home Robertson—with all its long-term implications, could we at least look at widening the potential for alternative sources of energy? We also need clearer planning guidance at all levels and I ask the minister to comment on that. We need to address the point that was raised by Alex Neil about the effect of the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements on costs for alternative energy suppliers in Scotland. Those arrangements will have a big impact, which needs to be addressed.
The draft Gaelic language bill was, at one and the same time, a welcome if long overdue development, but also a bit of a disappointment. The First Minister spoke at length yesterday about how this was to be a year in which the Executive focused on young people and he claimed that it was vital to ensure that Gaelic not only survives but thrives. However, John Farquhar Munro's concerns are well founded. If, when the bill is published, the Executive has not responded positively to the overwhelming demand that was voiced during the consultation period for a right to Gaelic-medium education to be written into the bill, it can expect to find that disappointment being expressed a lot more vocally by many who, up to now, might have given it the benefit of the doubt.
Public services are a big issue throughout Scotland and health is the biggest public services issue. I noted David McLetchie's comment yesterday morning on the size of government. He said that he would return it to the level it was at in 1999, but he did not elucidate exactly what he meant by that. I am sorry that he did not give us more specifics, because I would like to know who he would sack and how that would affect the national health service, particularly given the Conservatives' record on the health service.
Yesterday, the First Minister spoke about the planned health bill, but we have not heard much about that this afternoon. I have little confidence, following his performance at First Minister's question time this afternoon—sorry, I mean yesterday afternoon. No, was it today? I am getting so carried away that I cannot even remember what day it is. I have little confidence that anything that comes from the Executive this year will be good news for the groups throughout the country that are campaigning hard to retain essential services in their local areas. That is the biggest issue in the current health service debate, but it has reached national prominence only now that it affects Labour constituencies. Those of us who have been fighting on that issue in the Parliament for years are glad to have the belated support of Labour MSPs, but it is a pity that they were not there rather earlier. It seems that Labour MSPs want to act out the role of staunch defenders in their local patches but they keep schtum when they are involved in debates in Parliament. They should have taken up the cross-party group opportunity that was offered to them, but God forbid that they might find common cause with members from other parties or, worse yet, realise that the problems that are being faced and the issues that are being raised in their constituencies are not isolated examples after all but are replicated throughout the country.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in her last minute.
The role of those back benchers in local health campaigns is symbolic of the way in which the Executive works: talking a good game and delivering nothing.
In the past two days, people have talked about the new Parliament building. In this building we are surrounded by concrete, but in the Executive's programme there is nothing concrete about affordable housing; there is nothing concrete to alleviate poverty and its effects; there is nothing concrete to ensure business growth and, through that, employment opportunities; and there is nothing concrete to ensure faster and more efficient delivery of health services to the whole of Scotland. We have heard a few promises, but mostly we have heard vague, recycled generalities. A fitting verdict on the Executive's programme might be: nae vision, just a lot of déjà vu.
This has been a quite remarkable debate, and in some ways a unique one. It is unique because of the consensus that we have enjoyed for the whole of the two days, which is exemplified by the joining of the views of Fergus Ewing and Tommy Sheridan in agreeing that this is a magnificent building. I am glad that every member feels that way, because so do I. I well remember my son—who is a young architect and who sensibly eschews any involvement in political life, having seen what it has done for his father—calling me one evening and providing the political advice that only a son can provide. He said, "You do understand that the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament is an occasion for a significant architectural statement?", and the phone went down. I think that I can safely report that this is a significant architectural statement that will add considerably to the finest of Scotland's architectural heritage.
The debate opened with a statement of some ambition. In the Executive and the coalition, we wish to create the conditions for economic growth—not unfettered growth, as the Greens suggested, but growth that recognises and lives up to the environmental imperatives, not least those of sustainable development. That ambition for growth has as its purpose to improve conditions for the individual citizens of Scotland, to bring about social justice and to close the opportunity gap.
It is not about waiting for growth to happen or the trickle-down approach; it is about taking action now to start achieving some of those conjoined objectives. Our aim is to have a Scotland of greater tolerance, fairness and respect and to make Scotland the best small country in the world.
That general ambition is the context for today's debate. The Executive is not claiming that the programme that we have presented for the next 12 months will necessarily achieve all those ambitions—in general in the Parliament, we are not in the business of quick fixes. As a Parliament, we have a duty to acknowledge that most of the issues with which we deal are highly complex and require to be delivered with care and attention to detail. We cannot promise the citizens that we will find the solution tomorrow, and we in the Executive do not claim that we can do so.
My intervention is on the complexity of government and ensuring that the Government engages properly in resolving issues on behalf of communities. There is an admirable commitment from the Government to the whole process of community planning, with our local authorities in the lead on the issue, but there is enormous frustration among local authorities that they cannot involve organisations such as Scottish Water in local community planning activities. The economic development objectives that the Government is pursuing, which we on the SNP benches support, are fatally undermined, because Scottish Water is not involved in sensible dialogue with local authorities about priorities. In the absence of such dialogue, I encourage Mr Finnie to intervene to create commonsense and joined-up government that will support development in the local authority areas of Scotland.
I will address Scottish Water, because Roseanna Cunningham has also raised issues about it and it is important.
Generally, we have all agreed that there is a need for us to have vision. We have different visions and I understand that parties' different political philosophies will give rise to different ambitions. We should not try to pretend that there will not be such differences.
Before I respond to many of the points that have been made, I will dwell on one of the environmental matters that has not been ventilated much during the debate: the Executive's commitment to improving the environment and making Scotland more sustainable. We made a commitment to that at the outset, in the partnership agreement, by stating that we wanted a Scotland that delivers sustainable development and puts environmental concerns at the heart of public policy, and to secure a greater sense of the environment right across the Executive's work. We have done quite a bit to develop that even since then. There is the imminent statement on a green jobs strategy and we have subjected the current spending review to sustainable development criteria and put it before the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland. That is a measure of how seriously we take the matter.
Of course, legislation alone cannot deliver a better environment.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I want to make a little progress.
Legislation alone cannot deliver sustainable development, but it can achieve a huge amount, which is why sustainable development and Scotland's environment feature in this legislative programme. As has been said, pride of place goes to strategic environmental assessment.
I am glad that the Greens have now checked their facts and have acknowledged that we implemented the European directive on strategic environmental assessment in good time, but the proposed environmental assessment (Scotland) bill goes far beyond that.
Will the minister take an intervention?
The member has been reading all night.
The Executive implemented the directive by a last-minute statutory instrument and is now working on producing a bill. However, given what a powerful tool we are talking about and the Executive's repeated commitment to sustainable development in the past five years, why did the Executive not get down to the work that it is doing now three years ago?
There is always the question, "Why didn't you do it before?" If we had acted three years ago, we would, I presume, have ended up by simply implementing the European directive, but that is not what the Executive is doing. We are going beyond the requirements of the directive. The only reason why we implemented the directive at this time is the time that was required to develop the broader range of measures. As Robin Harper knows, the directive requires us to subject to assessment only those policies and programmes that arise from legislation. We are going beyond that; we are encompassing them all. I would have thought that, of all the parties, the Green party would have been more gracious in accepting that proposition.
The bill will bring a range of benefits. First and foremost, it will protect the environment by ensuring that we avoid damaging it. The bill will protect the environment through the quality of decision making. Critically, at the outset, every public plan and programme will be required to have regard to the environmental implications.
Will the minister give way?
I have to make progress.
The ramifications of that are absolutely enormous, because for the first time many bodies will have to think in ways in which they have never had to think before, and they will have to consider the environment at the outset. The public will also be given far greater rights: the right to comment and to have their comments taken into account and the right to be informed of decisions. We have never operated in that way before. The bill will be a major advance in how we respond to the requirements of the environment and will embed in our thinking—across public bodies and public life—the question of sustainability.
In his conclusion, Mark Ballard made points on our commitment to SEA that the Greens have made throughout the debate. I hope that they understand that by putting the spending review to the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland the Executive is beginning to embed sustainability in all its policies. As Sarah Boyack pointed out, the fact that the Executive has the ambition of changing the whole balance of its transport expenditure, such that, by the end of the review, 75 per cent of our expenditure will be on public transport, cannot be anything other than a serious commitment to dealing with greenhouse emissions and reducing our reliance on other forms of transport.
Bill Aitken and other Conservatives were critical of our approach to the economy. In particular, Bill Aitken repeated comments made elsewhere about his view of FEDS. I am bound to say that he ought to have regard not to his personal view, but to what economic commentators of repute said about FEDS and, indeed, what the business community said about FEDS. They said that we are operating within a perfectly logical and sensible framework. Bill Aitken ought to read their comments before he makes the kind of comments that he made.
On justice, for goodness' sake, the Minister for Justice has made clear her commitment and that of the Executive to addressing the problem of reoffending. Reducing the number of people who go to prison is not about taking a soft option; it is about recognising that prison is a wholly inappropriate disposal for a large number of offences.
Many members who contributed to the debate tried to say that absolutely nothing has happened in the health service. Never once has the Minister for Health and Community Care or anybody else suggested that there are no further improvements to be made, but he pointed out clearly that the developments that the Executive has embarked upon have already produced reductions in premature mortality from the big killer diseases, with a 6 per cent reduction in deaths in under-75s from cancer, a 14 per cent reduction in deaths from stroke, and a 23 per cent reduction in deaths from coronary heart disease. Members should not paint the picture that absolutely everything has gone wrong when manifestly it has not.
As a West of Scotland MSP, what is Ross Finnie's message to the local hospital campaigners in his area?
My grouse is with NHS Argyll and Clyde. If Shona Robison has read the local paper, she will know—[Interruption.] Well, it is. It has not put its proposition to the Minister for Health and Community Care. Shona Robison and Roseanna Cunningham may laugh. I know that they want to destroy all the bodies. I am at one with the proposition that the centralisation of the services is not appropriate. I have made that point clearly and publicly.
John Swinney and Roseanna Cunningham raised Scottish Water. Let us be clear that in 1999-2000, when we embarked on the largest single investment programme in Scottish water, with £1.8 billion from the Executive, that followed a serious amount of public consultation. I deeply regret—although it is a matter of fact—that nobody, not even the local authorities, raised the issue of development constraint at that time as being a major issue. I deeply regret that, because we might have fashioned the programme slightly differently. However, we cannot suddenly switch off a commitment to improve water quality through regulation or legislation, and we cannot suddenly switch off programmes to deal with meeting the regulations on sewage. That is simply not possible.
I regret that but, as Roseanna Cunningham was gracious enough to admit, we have embarked on a programme and taken steps whereby we can try to unblock some of the development constraints. I am not for a minute suggesting that we have managed to solve all the problems, but it is true that we are now seriously engaged in trying to take that programme forward. A £1.8 billion programme, with the amount of capital that is involved, cannot suddenly be turned off and turned on once we have made the commitment.
I am grateful to the minister for giving way again. In the context of the point that he is making about a £1.8 billion investment, I urge him to recognise the fact that there are numerous constraints on development that are now affecting the economic health of different parts of Scotland. If the Government is serious about making economic growth its top priority, that requires his urgent ministerial attention to the problem. To date, he has passed the issue to Scottish Water. I urge him, as courteously as I can, to take a personal interest in resolving some of the issues that have been brought directly to him in that respect.
With respect, I am taking a personal interest, as can be seen from my comments in response to Roseanna Cunningham and my attempts to solve some of the problems that are close to Mr Swinney. However, he cannot seriously be suggesting to the regulators that, with building at £40 million a month, the need to meet the regulatory requirements should suddenly be ignored because the programme has been diverted. The issue is complex and it cannot be resolved instantly, but I am quite seized of the need to be involved in it.
On the other rural issues that Roseanna Cunningham raised, such as renewable energy, we are committed not only to going down the route of developing wind power, but to developing other forms of renewable energy. My friend the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has been clear about that, and he opened a centre for wave and tidal power in his own constituency. We also have the intermediary technology institute in Aberdeen. All those initiatives are directed to ensuring that Scotland can play its part in harnessing its wave and tidal resources—something that Scotland is uniquely qualified to do. That is a clear commitment from the Executive.
On nuclear waste dumping, as was mentioned in yesterday's debate, issues of planning and of strategic environmental assessment come into play, so both the Scottish public and the Scottish Executive have a role in determining such issues.
Let us remind ourselves of what the Executive has set out before Parliament in this debate. We have set out what we believe to be a perfectly respectable ambition on our part, and that is only part of what we seek to achieve. In our legislative programme for the coming year, we are putting before the Parliament our commitment that we will require all public plans and programmes that may have a significant environmental impact to be subject to environmental assessment.
Our legislative programme will give statutory underpinning to the whole question of integrating our transport provision. It will create single funding agencies so that we have a strategic overview of further and higher education. It will secure the status of the Gaelic language and review and modernise charity law. It will introduce free eye and dental checks, crack down on binge drinking and introduce tolerable standards for thermal insulation. It will give rights to unmarried fathers, reduce acrimony in divorce and provide safeguards for cohabiting couples. It will also outlaw the barbaric practice of sending females abroad for genital mutilation and give protection to children who are being groomed on the internet.
The legislative programme will play its part in realising our ambition and in making Scotland a more caring, more tolerant and altogether more compassionate society, and I commend it to the Parliament.