Scottish Government’s Legislative Programme
Resumed debate.
Good morning. The first item of business is a continuation of the debate on the Scottish Government’s legislative programme.
09:15
In opening today, I first offer my apologies to members for not being able to stay for the whole debate due to ministerial engagements in the course of the day.
After the First Minister’s statement yesterday, few could be left in any doubt that Scotland’s economic recovery is at the heart of our programme for government. That is as it must be. Recovery is self-evidently critical to Scotland’s success and is the route to improving the lives of millions of our people.
The measures that the First Minister set out have a very practical edge. They are about economic success through jobs for the people of Scotland. Capital investment, improving access to finance and restoring business and consumer confidence are all central to attracting new businesses to Scotland and supporting the businesses that are already here—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.
I want to talk about a particular group of Scots. As we look forward to the next five years, we must pay particular attention to our young people. That is why we are committed to opportunities for all—a place in education and training for all 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in a job, an apprenticeship or education. The economic downturn has meant that we cannot but take the issue seriously and do something about it. Despite the constraints placed on us by decisions taken outside Scotland, we will act decisively to provide our youngsters with an opportunity to overcome the barriers that they face. We must offer a range of high-quality provision that is underpinned by the personal and financial support that young people need to succeed. That is why we have maintained our position on higher education tuition fees, despite the scale of that undertaking, and why we are committed to delivering 25,000 modern apprenticeship opportunities a year during the parliamentary session.
The Government understands the value to Scotland both culturally and economically of a new generation of Scots who feel confident about their own culture and its value to the wider world. For that reason, I would prefer not to embarrass the Opposition parties’ education spokespeople—unless they want to raise the issue themselves—by reminding members of the hysterical response with which they recently greeted my announcement on Scottish studies in schools. I am actively working to ensure that a strand of Scottish studies is embedded in the educational experience of all our young people. I am prepared to assume that Ken Macintosh does not now regard it as corrupting the young for them to be taught about Keir Hardie, and at least Murdo Fraser seems to be fully signed up to the idea of introducing a module on the Scottish Conservatives into higher history. Therefore, I trust that cross-party support will now abound.
Yesterday, the First Minister spoke about our goal of ensuring that there is an inclusive education system that improves life chances for all. That is why our commitment to delivering free higher education is more than just a policy position for this Government: it is an example of how we have connected with the values of the people of Scotland and prioritised their ambition. Our belief in the people of Scotland means that we will continue to put decision making into their hands. That is exemplified by our approach to reform and the reorganisation of many other areas of public life, not least health services. The focus in the programme for government on early detection and patient-centred care places the individual at the centre of their own health service. Putting the individual at the centre of the design and implementation of the services on which they rely in all spheres is critical to the successful delivery of public services in modern Scotland.
It must be said that, at a time when another Government is cutting Scotland’s resources by £1.3 billion, it is essential that we focus on delivering better outcomes from the resources that we have. That is why we will take forward significant programmes of reform in critical parts of Scotland’s public services, such as police and fire services and post-16 education.
Members should be in no doubt that we believe that Scotland could do much more if the levers of economic power in Scotland had handles in Scotland. That is why other parties may rest assured that this Government will ensure that the people of Scotland decide their own constitutional future. For now, however, we will make sure that the economic argument for independence is put to the people of Scotland. We will make it firmly and we already make it with increasingly good reason for confidence. We understand that delivering on our current programme will be critical in making that case—a case that we offer today to the chamber and to the people of Scotland.
I call Elaine Murray, to be followed by Alex Johnstone.
09:21
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Excuse me, I have a mint in my mouth—I did not realise that I was about to be called. [Laughter.]
In the area of rural affairs, climate change and the environment—which is covered by the committee on which I sit—a couple of bills were mentioned in the First Minister’s statement yesterday. It is no surprise that an agricultural holdings bill is imminent, as it will complete business to do with succession by grandchildren and issues around rent reviews and appeals to the Scottish Land Court that could not be dealt with by regulation in the previous session of Parliament. However, tenant farmers may be disappointed that there is no commitment to consolidation of the legislation on agricultural holdings.
The First Minister also mentioned an aquaculture and fisheries bill to deal with aquaculture, wild fish and sea fisheries. We know that there are significant areas of conflict between those sectors. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that fin-fish aquaculture can continue to expand in rivers that are important for wild stock, at least not with the current containment methods. Fin-fish aquaculture needs to be controlled in those areas in order to protect wild fisheries, which are also important to Scotland’s economy. There are rumours—I do not know how substantiated they are—that, although much of the aquaculture industry in Scotland is Norwegian owned, the protection for wild fish in Scotland is not the same as it is in Norway. I hope that that issue may be looked at in discussing the bill.
However, despite the First Minister’s mention of a bill in his speech yesterday, the document that supports the statement, “Renewing Scotland: The Government’s Programme for Scotland 2011-2012”, speaks of
“developing consultation proposals with a view to legislation”
rather than the introduction of a bill. Maybe that could be clarified.
A water bill, which was promised last year but not introduced, has also resurfaced with a commitment to making Scotland a “Hydro-Nation”—although I am not quite sure what that actually means. Of course it is vital that Scottish Water plays a full role in economic growth, and that is not only about the potential for hydro or other renewable forms of power generation: there are other possibilities for Scottish Water to become involved as an economic tool. However, Scottish Water is a public agency and has a biodiversity duty. Its role as a tool of economic growth should not be at the expense of its role as a major environmental asset.
On renewables, let me say that I am little concerned about the rush for offshore wind. It rather reminds me of the dash for onshore wind, which we all indulged in but which has had consequences that have been deleterious to other parts of the economy. We do not need to put all our faith in silver bullets such as offshore wind or carbon capture and storage and assume that they will meet all our economic and climate obligations. Offshore renewables have impacts on our communities, on other industries such as fishing and on wildlife and habitats. Let us not make some of the mistakes that we have made with onshore wind. Other methods of climate mitigation such as energy efficiency, reduction in consumption, alternative forms of transport and improved communications are essential to achieving our climate change targets, and they must not be secondary to the shibboleth that is offshore wind.
Some bills, such as the referendum bill, are conspicuous by their absence. There is no mention, for example, of a sustainable procurement bill—despite the SNP’s manifesto promise of a clear legislative programme for procurement decisions to support the greater use of social and environmental benefits. Prior to the election, the First Minister claimed that that could deliver savings of more than £400 million over three years. If the current framework is not sufficiently clear to enable that, should not the bill have been a priority? Many stakeholders with interests in environmental and social benefits to communities are disappointed that nothing is planned this year. I am not suggesting that everything in the manifesto should be done in the first year, but I would have thought that that bill would be a priority.
The SNP also made promises on allotments. As we know, waiting lists for allotments are increasing, and there was a commitment to bring allotments legislation up to date to allow for the sale of surplus produce and to extend the availability of land for allotment use. This may seem a fairly minor point, but there is significant interest in allotments and in people growing their own food. That can contribute considerably to people’s understanding of healthy eating, and it can be very useful in educating children about where their food comes from. I also believe that it can play a significant role in tackling obesity.
Of course the legislative programme includes secondary as well as primary legislation, and I would like to comment on the zero waste regulations. I support the principles behind some of the suggestions. Secondary legislation is likely to be introduced to require source segregation and separate collection of specified waste materials, to prohibit recombining separately collected waste and to ban using recyclable materials in energy-from-waste facilities. In principle, all of that is great, but there will be a tremendous headache for some local authorities such as Dumfries and Galloway Council. The council is five years into a 25-year contract with Shanks, which sorts waste mechanically at an Ecodeco plant and recycles materials. It also uses combustible materials, such as paper and plastics, to produce solid recovered fuel. The private finance initiative agreement was signed off by Mr Lochhead’s predecessor and was an acceptable method of reducing waste going to landfill at that time.
You must wind up now, Ms Murray.
A number of local authorities may have problems with the regulations—which they undertook in good faith. When—
Ms Murray, you really need to wind up.
Can we look at—
I call Alex Johnstone.
09:27
In the First Minister’s statement, there was at least a commitment to growing the economy of Scotland. I welcome that. As we all know, some people in this chamber do not believe that economic growth is a worthy aim. We must continue to pursue economic growth, but we are missing opportunities here in Scotland today.
In the north-east of Scotland, there is a labour shortage and the potential for growth. However opportunities are being held back. For example, our local authorities are underfunded. The SNP manifesto pledges to introduce a new funding floor to ensure that no local authority receives less than 85 per cent of the Scottish average for revenue support. That is a welcome step forward. However, I believe that the figure of 85 per cent will, in effect, cost nothing to implement, as no local authority falls below that level. Meanwhile, Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council will not receive enough to sustain the level of investment that they require. Conservatives believe that the funding formula should be reviewed and that adequate resources should be made available across Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
Indeed. As long as it is quick.
It will be very quick—and I thank the member for taking the intervention.
Is the member aware that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities discussed the distribution of local government finance and that all parties agreed that stability was required more than radical change? That included the Conservative group.
I am aware that turkeys will never vote for Christmas. When a minority is at a disadvantage, those who continue to benefit from the current arrangements will be happy to continue with them. However, the greatest opportunities for economic growth in Scotland exist in the north-east, and those opportunities are being undermined by a number of elements—including inadequate funding for local government.
However, let me move on to another issue in the north-east. It is an issue on which I agree once more with the position taken by the Government and it concerns the infrastructural developments that are required in the north-east, in particular the Aberdeen western peripheral route. That project is an essential part of the economic development of the north-east and the whole of Scotland. It will help to create the additional jobs that will be available as part of the region’s economic expansion. However, the project is being held back at the moment by a group that is—I believe—maliciously pursuing legal action to the last possible degree in order to prevent a development that is universally popular outwith the tiny minority who believe, largely for environmental reasons, that the project should be stopped. We need to do all that we can to ensure that the road is built as soon as possible, thereby cutting the cost to the public purse, locally and nationally. I encourage the Government to take any action that it can to ensure that the process is shortened.
Another thing that appeared in the First Minister’s statement yesterday was a commitment to a bill on agricultural holdings to
“encourage landlords to increase the availability of farming tenancies and support new blood to enter farming.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; c 1373.]
Unfortunately, that is a road that we have trod many times. Parliament has tried to sort out that problem but has failed to do so. The most recent occasion was a long process, including extremely long negotiations through the NFU Scotland. The process resulted in an agreement about what we wanted to achieve, but by the time it emerged at the end of the parliamentary process, we had legislation that did not do what it set out to achieve.
In order to get more land available for new tenancies in farming, we must strike a balance between giving confidence to the farming industry to invest in tenanted farming arrangements and giving confidence to landowners to make land available. Every attempt that we have had so far has failed to strike that balance. On this occasion, the Government must take the opportunity to provide landowners with the necessary guarantees that will give them the confidence to make land available in years to come. That will be the test of the success of the legislation. If the Government makes the same compromises as its predecessor, the outcome will not provide new land for new entrants to the farming industry.
Housing had a remarkably short mention in the First Minister’s statement; so short, in fact, that it is hardly worth mentioning. Although £400 million has been allocated to housing, I take the view that that is little in the way of new money; it is just a rehash of previous announcements and money that had already been committed. The Government’s record on housing is a disgrace. Private sector house building is less than half of what it was in 2007-08 and private sector starts are at their lowest level for more than 30 years. Given the SNP Government’s failure to finance housing association construction adequately, it is little wonder that that area has had a significant cut.
The flagship policy of having a national housing trust is faltering, having failed to win the confidence of the vast majority of local authorities and of the private sector. That leaves the housing minister pinning his hopes on councils removing empty home discounts on council tax. However, the devil is in the detail. If we look at the sums, we see that if all local authorities scrap all discounts, £30 million could be raised. It seems that the Government is now resorting to counting other people’s chickens before they are hatched.
I remind members that speeches are to be kept to a strict six minutes, unless interventions are taken, in which case the Presiding Officers will try to compensate members for their time.
09:34
I thought that I had heard everything in the debate, but then I heard a Conservative lecturing the SNP on social house building. That really is everything.
I want to talk about the education content of the programme for government. Education is a personal interest of mine, and there is a lot in here that is extremely bold, including the language teaching programme. In curriculum for excellence, there is a recognition that some of the greatest changes can be undertaken without the use of legislation.
As the minister commented, a great deal of hot air has been expended over Scottish studies. Yesterday I was a guest at the launch of a course on Scottish education, culture and literature, which was held at a south Asian women’s charity in my constituency. As I introduced the programme, I made the point that in many ways the course provided a better introduction to Scotland than many Scots had had through their education system for many years. The people at Nari Kallyan Shangho had realised that if they were to know more about Scotland they would need a course to be taught. They got funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund—they navigated that difficult path—and now they are celebrating Scottish music, literature and singing, all of which we were treated to yesterday.
On the way to the launch, my staff and I compared notes on our qualifications and managed to put together quite a good background in German studies, finding that in history, English and geography we had managed to learn about Bismarck, Brecht and Bonn. However, we had no such experience of Scottish studies in the education system. I am glad that the issue is at last being addressed, because we cannot learn more about the world and place our country in context unless we know more about our country in the first place.
Until a few months ago, I taught in schools in Scotland. The member should visit some schools in Scotland so that he can learn about the vast array of Scottish topics that are covered at primary and secondary level. He needs to get out more.
I am looking forward to making several visits to schools in my constituency, which are teaching various things. I note in particular that higher history now includes a compulsory Scottish element for the first time, courtesy of a decision of my party’s Administration.
There are a few issues to do with education. The maintenance of the education maintenance allowance makes us the envy of the United Kingdom, as does the retention of free education.
I want to take issue with points that were made in yesterday’s debate. It is rare that I say this, but I have a great deal of sympathy with what Annabel Goldie said about parenting skills. In a spirit of co-operation, I say that I am glad that she raised the issue. However, the only reason that she gave for the problem was the lack of parenting skills, which is a bit of a circular argument.
There is a major problem with early-years parenting in this country, which needs to be addressed. I hope that it will be dealt with quite well by the proposed children’s services bill. We have to look deep into the reasons behind the parenting crisis. For most people, there is no deeper instinct than the instinct to care for one’s offspring. When that breaks down, it is the result of economic pressures or wider pressures to do with a lack of hope and a lack of opportunity—and in most of the worst cases, the presence of no shortage of alcohol.
I take issue with Ken Macintosh, who said yesterday that education is entirely devolved. He is right if we are talking about how the money is divided up and how the budgets and systems are administered. However, he delivered what, in essence, was a wish list—a series of “I wants”—which was based on an unlimited budget and financial powers that the Scottish Parliament does not have. I share many of his aspirations, but unless there is realism from the Labour Party about the Parliament’s ability to fund such aspirations, there will be no constructive discussion on the topic.
On the proposals on children’s rights, as of 2009 194 of the 196 members of the United Nations had signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—of course, incorporating the convention into a country’s law means going a lot further. It is interesting that the two UN members that had not signed up to the convention, of their own volition, were Somalia and the United States. The rights in the convention are widely recognised. That is important, because we live in a society in which, according to the Scottish Youth Parliament, 64 per cent of young people feel that they are viewed negatively or very negatively—the proportion rises to 80 per cent in relation to the portrayal of young people in the media. The United Nations Children’s Fund—UNICEF—reported in 2007 that child wellbeing in the UK is the lowest in the developed world.
The Government’s proposals in that regard and the opportunities for all guarantee for 16 to 19-year-olds show that the Government puts young people at the heart of its programme and its aspirations. I am grateful for and I welcome that. I look forward to the debates on the issues that relate to young people.
09:40
I want to take a few seconds to congratulate the communications and media team on the new sound system in the chamber. I certainly feel the benefit of its improved quality, and I think that we should acknowledge the work that the communications and media team has done over the recess.
I also want to take the unusual step of congratulating Alex Johnstone. I might not do it too often, but in this instance I will congratulate him on bringing the issue of the AWPR to the attention of the chamber. It is an essential part of economic recovery in Scotland and will benefit the whole of Scotland, once it goes ahead. However, I take issue with Alex Johnstone on housing. Perhaps he has forgotten that £1.7 billion was invested in the housing programme, which led to just over 27,000 houses being built over the past parliamentary period. In this session, there is a commitment to continue the housing build, with 6,000 affordable houses being built every year for the next five years, and 5,000 council houses being built. That is to be welcomed rather than scorned. It is one way of trying to tackle the homelessness problem that we face. Figures that were released in August showed that we have more than 23,000 empty homes. That is one of the reasons why the minister is introducing a bill that will give councils the ability to levy a charge on those empty homes. I look forward to councils taking advantage of that. It will certainly generate some income—a sum of £30 million is being projected.
I welcome the fact that councils have stepped up to the mark with regard to identifying homelessness in their areas. At the moment, on average, 88 per cent of those who are homeless are given priority listing. In my area, Aberdeenshire, that figure is slightly above the average, at 89.5 per cent. We must achieve something beyond that, however, and that will involve the provision of housing for homeless people, which is something that I think this Government will take seriously. I hope that the chamber will endorse that and the progress that we make.
The issue of economic recovery is essential to the legislative programme. The north-east of Scotland is leading the way in that regard. I congratulate Alex Johnstone—after saying that I would not do it too often, I have just done it again—on raising the issue. The other day, I was at the Offshore Europe conference in Aberdeen. I spoke to representatives of the oil industry there and it was evident that they are aware that there is a skills shortage in Scotland at the moment. They are doing everything that they can to plug the gap: there are internships; there is the graduate programme; there are apprenticeships and so on. The north-east of Scotland is leading the way. I congratulate the oil sector, and Oil and Gas UK in particular, on moving ahead with that.
I welcome the fact that the renewable energy industry in the north-east of Scotland is leading the way. Offshore wind is certainly one of the ways in which we can move forward. I welcome the fact that Westhill in Aberdeen has become the renewables capital of Europe.
This morning, I heard Chief Constable Colin McKerracher referring to the proposal for a single police force, something that he does not advocate at all. I was surprised that the chief constable feels that the proposal would impact on local policing in the community. In my short term as an MSP, my contact with the police has been through the local constable, the local sergeant and the local inspector, all of whom, I believe, are at the heart of community policing—I do not think that the political and strategic role of the chief constable is. Perhaps Chief Constable McKerracher does not have his finger on the pulse with regard to what is going on politically. I received a letter from him just last month—addressed to the MSP for Aberdeenshire West, Mike Rumbles.
I congratulate the Government on taking forward initiatives for our young people. That is at the heart of where we are going, and it is the future for Scotland. Addressing the need for an education and skills training programme for young people is the way forward for the country.
We all look forward to a better, brighter, fairer Scotland, and I believe that the legislative programme that the First Minister set out yesterday is the way forward, especially given the economic constraints that we face. I put my full trust in John Swinney to ensure that the programme goes through on budget.
I thank Dennis Robertson for his remarks about the sound system. I will ensure that those who were responsible for its installation know what he said about it.
09:46
We live in interesting times. For the first time in our history, we have a majority Parliament with the power to reshape our country, to create change and to be bold and radical for the Scottish people.
Although I will touch briefly on the two health and social care bills, I will spend some time on the opportunities that have been lost in the legislative programme—opportunities to be bold and radical for the Scottish people.
I turn first to alcohol pricing. I recognise that it is entirely legitimate for the SNP to return to the issue and, given the majority in the chamber, it is clear that the measure will be passed. We will engage with the process and will continue to question, as you would expect us to do, the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing as a single measure to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse. We want to engage positively on a range of other measures that we believe will contribute to tackling alcohol abuse in our country. I am clear, as I am sure that all members in the chamber are, that minimum unit pricing is not a silver bullet. I am keen that what comes before the chamber is an alcohol bill and not a minimum unit pricing bill that will be drawn so tightly and so narrowly defined that it does not allow a range of other measures to be included. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy will listen to the call.
On self-directed support, I welcome that extension of direct payments. Enabling individuals requiring care to be in control of their budgets and in control and empowered about how their care is delivered is the right thing to do. I encourage the Government and the cabinet secretary to look beyond the bill being about social care budgets controlled by local authorities, to extend it to the interface between social care and healthcare and to look at how much wider the bill could be drawn in the interests of those receiving the care.
Although I welcome the opportunity to debate these matters—and we will scrutinise them closely—opportunities have been missed. What about the bold measures that could have been brought forward to deliver the better integration of health and social care? There is agreement around the chamber on these issues that require our pressing concern. No one can have missed the problems with care of the elderly that came before this chamber and were debated before the summer recess. At the Elsie Inglis care home—not a stone’s throw from this Parliament—two residents died, six were hospitalised and the home was subsequently closed. Southern Cross, with 96 care homes across Scotland and thousands of residents, went to the wall. Over the summer, we found that the quality of care was questioned, there was uncertainty for families, charges for older people’s services and for care services more generally went up, and wider concerns were expressed about whether the current system of care is as good as it can be, as well as concerns about inspection.
In that context I wanted to see legislation to better integrate health and social care. I also wanted to see measures to improve the standards of care with statutory underpinning, to give the care regulator enhanced powers so that requirements placed on homes that are failing in some regard are quickly enforced and that where closure of homes is necessary, it is quicker than the current process of requiring a sheriff’s ruling. I wanted to see measures to enhance financial scrutiny of care providers, so that we do not drift into a Southern Cross situation again, and measures to enable the regulator to inspect the commissioning process.
Quality lies behind all that. Quality is not gained by a race to the bottom in tendering for social care; the Quarriers staff strike demonstrates that. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government is not taking action on quality. Quality means investing in staff and their training. I ask the cabinet secretary why residential childcare workers were required to register by 2009 and need as a minimum to be qualified to Scottish vocational qualification level 3, whereas equivalent support workers who deal with older people in adult care homes require to be qualified only to SVQ level 2 and do not require to register until 2015. I implore her to correct that anomaly and make lifting those standards a hallmark of the Parliament.
We need changes to the inspection system. I understand that risk-based assessment is considered to be more proportionate, but it is insufficient. The first complaint about the Elsie Inglis home was made in November 2010. A complaint was made to the City of Edinburgh Council on 25 March, and it took from then until 20 April for somebody from the care regulator to inspect the home. It then took until 15 May to close the home. If we had acted more quickly, could any of the deaths have been avoided?
In the ministerial statement next week, which I am looking forward to, the cabinet secretary should make a stand. If we believe in improving standards and the quality of care, she should reverse the cuts to the care regulator’s staffing and budget. A year before the new care regulator was born, the predecessor organisations had 360 posts. Now, that number is 289, which means a loss of some 70 posts. If anybody is in any doubt about the nature of those posts, I say that seven or eight were administrators and that the rest were front-line inspectors.
Let us not be in denial about the budget.
You must start winding up, Ms Baillie.
From 2011-12 to 2014-15, the budget will decrease by 27 per cent. If the cabinet secretary is serious about the care of older people in Scotland, she must restore the staffing and budget so that we have a robust system of regulation.
09:52
As would be expected, I welcome the Government’s programme for our nation for 2011-12, which is against a backdrop—a canvas—of savage cuts in public spending and capital investment that is not of our making. That is not so much our own water as our own oil being thrown in our face.
The programme demonstrates competency, realism and the intent to make Scotland better, even when we are confronted by such circumstances. It gives us the opportunity to be leaner, fitter, even more efficient and ready to grasp the opportunities that will be our nation’s—and our nation’s alone—to decide on without interference in the near future.
I am not normally given to quoting or agreeing with Tory leaders, but Disraeli said:
“There can be no economy where there is no efficiency.”
In Edinburgh 140 years ago—almost to the day—he said:
“Change is inevitable in a progressive country. Change is constant.”
We now have an opportunity to continue to embrace, secure and reinforce our social contract with the people of Scotland. That will inevitably mean a change in structures as we know them. We will continue the reform and better use of our public services and provide a more targeted focus to our revenue spending yet still protect our elderly, develop and train our young, succour the sick, fast-track our small businesses and social enterprises and create the energy-driven and environmentally friendly society that we all seek. Opportunity, change and efficiency will all be achieved in the development of our capital base and the optimum use of our existing and proposed working assets.
Despite Mr Johnstone’s protestations, that is why it has been right to invest in a new housing programme, which will create 15,000 jobs across the country. That is why it is right to introduce legislation to ensure that our housing stock is used more effectively and is fully employed. That is why it is right to consult rigorously on the proposal to enable councils to apply an additional council tax levy on long-term empty properties, as Dennis Robertson said. That is why it is right to strengthen the system of land registration in Scotland to support the objective of underpinning the economy and the economic determination of our most significant asset. I hope that that will also lead to more openness from the large retail and commercial companies that bank land. If the land does not yet belong to the people, at least we will know to whom it does belong.
As I have mentioned the need for structural change and targeted revenue spend, it would be remiss of me to finish without briefly addressing the need to restructure our home security services—the police service and the fire brigade, but particularly the former. Only the unwitting would suggest that the current police structure and its governance, which was conceived 40 or so years ago, is now fit for purpose. The current distribution of police personnel, in which there are 8,417 officers in Strathclyde, 875 in central Scotland and only 508 in Dumfries and Galloway, is redolent of a bygone age. We have eight police boards, which are largely unaccountable and probably undemocratic, with eight chief constables, eight administration departments, eight human resources departments and eight payroll departments, plus many other departments. That does not reflect the spending need in this age of technology, nor does it provide the efficiency that is required for today’s crime management.
We need a single police force that is consistent in its national practice, but which is commanded locally and is democratically accountable, and in which front-line services are protected. I point out to the Lib Dems that nobody in their right mind would prejudice the recent remarkable reduction in crime statistics. We want a force that has greater backroom efficiency and optimum flexibility for officer disposition. We can mobilise 250 officers to assist in sorting out England’s riots, so there is no reason why we cannot build into the structure the efficiency or flexibility to allow local officers to be moved around Scotland to support major events and to deal with particular crime issues—that can be done now.
I have talked about opportunity, change and efficiency. As Jackie Baillie said, now is the time to be bold. Let us grasp the opportunity, change and efficiency that the programme introduces.
09:57
I speak as a proud member of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. Despite what Mr Macmillan might have termed “a little local difficulty”, I hope that I and others after me will continue to do so for many years to come. Being just a few years younger than the First Minister, I have grown up in the full glare of his career and a witness to hyperbole’s greatest hits, such as his 1990s refrain of “Free in ’93”. However, in all the years, I have never doubted his belief in his desire to deliver separation from the United Kingdom.
I listened with care to the First Minister yesterday, just as I did in the hours and days after the remarkable achievement of his party’s Scottish election result. I did so with trepidation, for in 40 years of constitutional debate, the position of all the unionist parties has been consistent: we have said in response to SNP demands for independence that, were the SNP to secure a majority of the seats in a national election, it would have the right to negotiate with Westminster for an independent Scotland.
Yesterday, the First Minister said that, in the election, voters understood the SNP belief in separation and did not fear it. So on 6 May and in the wake of the majority that was secured, I was astonished that there was no demand for independence. Instead, with the cheers of his supporters echoing at his back, the First Minister marched to London not to demand independence, but with a list of demands not one of which was independence. As lain Gray and others said yesterday, the First Minister has the majority to secure the referendum that, only a year ago, he was still promising was imminent. History might well record that he missed his moment. We can only conclude that the First Minister prefers the certainty of his present office to the fear of an early rejection in a separatist referendum.
How can delay be in Scotland’s interests? With the Scotland Bill about to become an act, why spend years debating demands that, if the First Minister is correct in his belief, will prove irrelevant anyway? It would be far better for him to fulfil the commitments that he made to Scotland on entering Government four years ago and to ask the big question: do Scots wish to renew the 300-year-old union with the United Kingdom or do they wish to separate from it? There is no excuse for further delay.
Will the member give way?
Well, there are 25 SNP members and only six of us speaking. I do not know whether interventions follow the same ratio, but please go ahead.
Was the member not paying attention to the First Minister when, during the election campaign, he said that he would bring the referendum on independence forward in the second half of the term?
I was paying attention to the First Minister when, after being elected the first time, he said that the independence referendum was imminent. How can one have faith in anything he says from one election to the next on this subject? The fact of the matter is that he has the ability but he is not taking the opportunity.
Yesterday the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee heard from the project director for the new Forth crossing, David Climie, who confirmed to us that, perversely, the general economic downturn has underpinned the significant reduction in the anticipated cost of delivering this new crossing over the original working estimates. Indeed the situation may improve further. With the project set to commence as inflation is set to fall, there may be a further dividend to come. With the release of several hundreds of millions of pounds that were to be committed to transport, even in the wake of overall capital expenditure reductions, it is unacceptable that the Government intends to divert that capital funding away from transport and into flashy populist expenditure elsewhere.
Given that the justification for abandoning or delaying some projects in the strategic transport projects review was the anticipated expenditure on the Forth crossing, that is inexcusable. With Glaswegians and those in central Scotland—and perhaps even Mr Harvie—marvelling at the immediate and obvious benefits that have been brought by the completion of the new M74 and the M80, how much more could have been achieved by the sensible reinvestment of the anticipated Forth crossing savings in other transport capital projects? For example, there is the M77 hard shoulder running project between junctions 1 and 4, which together with the Monkton joint venture park-and-ride—previously postponed for the want of just £5 million—would offer an express bus transport corridor. If we were prepared to invest £2.1 billion in one transport project on the Forth, we should also be prepared to invest the dividend that has been realised from the tendering process to improve our transport infrastructure throughout the rest of Scotland. The government must explain to the rest of Scotland why it has not done that.
Finally, I want to say something personal about the subject that I shadowed for much of the last parliamentary session: public health. From the first, I welcomed the Government’s intention to focus on alcohol when Kenny MacAskill initially led for the Administration on the issue. Like others, I believed that we were right to be sceptical about the minimum pricing of alcohol. Regrettably, as the passage of the Alcohol (Scotland) Bill reached its conclusion, the debate seemed to lose sight of the issues involved and became more strident and partisan on all sides.
However, since the minimum pricing proposals fell, I—like others, I imagine—have spoken to accident and emergency consultants and staff, nurses, the police, those who have suffered from alcohol abuse in all its manifestations, and voters. It is certainly true that there is no compelling evidence that such a policy will make the crucial difference required. My colleagues are right to continue to make this point and to call for further evidence and, in that respect, I agree with the line that Mary Scanlon and Murdo Fraser took with the cabinet secretary yesterday. On reflection, though, it is also true that sceptics once argued that there was no evidence that council house tenants would wish to take advantage of Conservative right-to-buy legislation in the 1980s—and the cabinet secretary will acknowledge how wrong those sceptics were.
So although I am instinctively against regulation, l find myself now reluctantly agreeing with lain Duncan Smith, who has publicly backed alcohol minimum pricing. I believe that we should respect the united and clear view of the health community, the police and the wider Scottish public and back the government’s policy—with two clear conditions. First, the bill must contain the sunset clause that Nicola Sturgeon previously offered and, secondly, the Government must work with the alcohol retailers to ensure that the windfall profits that arise are not exclusively absorbed but that we take the opportunity to secure vital new voluntary funding—and I emphasise the need for voluntary agreement—for abstinence programmes.
I will be interested to learn in due course how the cabinet secretary intends to proceed and whether she will exercise the Government’s majority regardless or seek to secure broader co-operation.
10:04
A bold and positive vision for the year ahead has been presented to us. It focuses on jobs in our urban and rural economies, it is rooted in innovation and it is based on the competent governance that Alex Salmond and our SNP team have delivered over the past four years. I am looking forward to the next five.
The programme for government demonstrates an understanding of the valuable contribution made by our marine and rural industries, which are of great interest to my constituents and the committee that I have the honour of convening.
Our food and drink industry alone is worth £10 billion and our marine industry contributes more than £3.5 billion—that is excluding oil and gas.
There are industries that we need to grow in Scotland—industries that can secure our economic recovery and promote jobs. Yes, Scotland reaps a rich reward from our seas and there are those in my constituency who want to expand operations on our sea bed to generate even more revenue from our marine sector and make the most of our renewables revolution. Indeed, offshore wind is but the next stage.
Organisations such as the Scrabster Harbour Trust in my constituency have the sustainable development of our marine industry at their heart. Those are the kind of enterprises that we need in Scotland, but they are repeatedly stopped by the stealth tax collectors in that feudal relic called the Crown Estate Commissioners.
I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government is to develop a national marine plan to protect marine areas that need protecting and will help to develop and expand marine businesses where we can. Until we can shake off the unnecessary burdens from the CEC, the Scottish Government must do what it can to support our marine industries.
I also welcome the announcement of the Scottish Government’s agricultural holdings bill. As convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I will work to make sure that the legislation provides the best possible deal for tenant farmers, widens access to farmland and streamlines inheritance guidelines. There is a clear case for investigating the calls by many parties for an absolute right to buy for tenant farmers, because they are the bedrock of our farming industry and it is our responsibility to ensure that they receive a fair deal and fair access to land.
Will the member give way?
I say to Mr Johnstone that the loss of tenanted land in the past 10 years has damaged the industry’s potential and we need to attract new blood to farming and agriculture, but we cannot do that unless there are substantially more acres available.
Does the member accept that the only way that private landowners will make new land available for new tenancies is if they believe that they will get a fair deal in that tenancy arrangement? Any additional rights given to tenants in that arrangement will simply make it impossible for landowners to make land available.
I am very interested in those arguments, which will be played out in the committee. I note that Scottish Land & Estates opposed the Forestry Commission Scotland’s making starter units available. I wonder why it wants to restrict access to tenanted farming.
I see in this majority Government a Government that is focused on jobs and access to opportunity for all. There is a golden opportunity to implement real and impacting land reform, which many members of our committee want to look at in detail before we proceed. I look forward to working with Richard Lochhead and my MSP colleagues from all parties to make sure that the agricultural holdings bill is as strong as it possibly can be.
This Government, more than any other in history, is committed to tackling climate change. Scotland has a strong record of delivering on climate change and I am pleased to see further measures to help us meet our climate change targets. Our zero waste targets are ambitious but wholly achievable. By 2025 we aim to recycle 70 per cent of our waste, but we are only just beginning to catch up with the rest of Europe. Community-run organisations, such as Golspie Recycling and Environmental Action Network in my constituency, are leading the way by showing a better record of delivery than the local council, which is adopting policies of mixed waste, which can blight the example that has been set. There must be a proper relationship between local councils and the voluntary sector in order that such organisations’ excellence is not lost. Sustainability and waste management go together.
In the opening part of my speech, I talked about the innovation element of the Government’s programme. The development of a junior climate challenge fund is one such innovative proposal. Young people in their teens see the environment as one of the most important parts of how they focus on the world. The bigger politics comes later, but the immediate effect that the environment has on young people’s lives means that they can take part in the junior climate challenge fund. In the past few years, the major climate challenge fund has supported 130 projects all over the country.
The reform of the emergency services has been hotly debated in my constituency. The blue light services have to serve huge areas. I welcome the First Minister’s announcement that we will make savings, but we know that policing is always something that is delivered on the ground, locally, to protect small communities and I believe that the proposals will do just that.
The SNP’s positive vision for Scotland makes me proud to stand with this Government and support the proposals that it has made this week. We must be bold in facing up to our problems and exploring our many opportunities. I look forward to bold Government under the SNP.
10:10
Kevin Stewart (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
I share my colleague Rob Gibson’s positive vision of Scotland’s future, although it is clear that others in the chamber do not.
Mr Carlaw was trying to stamp his authority on the Tory leadership campaign today—more than anything else he is a proud Scottish Conservative and Unionist—but I share Murdo Fraser’s view. The Scottish Conservative Party should think about changing its name. He has called for action and a new centre-right party in Scotland. I therefore suggest that the party should call itself the “Centre Right Action Party”. That acronym is already often used to describe the Government in Westminster. That is a good option and I hope that the Conservatives will consider it.
I agree with some of what Alex Johnstone said, much of which was reiterated by Dennis Robertson, but I will make one correction to Mr Johnstone’s speech. He said that no local authority fell below the 85 per cent average in respect of funding, but two local authorities do so: Aberdeen City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council. The 85 per cent funding level that was guaranteed in the SNP manifesto would have seen Aberdeen get an extra £4.1 million this year. I look forward to that being introduced in the next financial year.
When will that begin? Will it be in the next budget? Will it start at the beginning of the next financial year?
If Mr Johnstone had paid attention to the Press and Journal after the Minister for Local Government and Planning’s recent visit to Aberdeen, he would have known that she said that it will begin in the next financial year. That will be very welcome in the city of Aberdeen.
I am curious about where the money will come from. I am not questioning Aberdeen’s case for it, but would his colleague Derek Mackay in Renfrewshire perhaps contribute from Renfrewshire Council’s budget?
The Minister for Local Government and Planning also said that there would be no effect on any other local authorities. That is welcome throughout the country.
Economic growth has featured in many speeches. We need to move Scotland forward and I agree with Alex Johnstone about the contribution of north-east Scotland in driving our economy forward. There have been many welcome announcements this week on the back of the Offshore Europe conference. Energetica has moved forward, with some £350 million already committed, and there has been a new development of economic land at Dyce Drive in the past few weeks. Those developments are vital.
As Mr Johnstone and Dennis Robertson stated, the Aberdeen western peripheral route is also vital. I am glad that the Minister for Housing and Transport is in his seat in the chamber now, because I know that he shares my frustration at the situation that we find ourselves in, whereby a small minority of people are blocking north-east Scotland’s economic future. I believe that we require the holy trinity—as Callum McCaig, the leader of Aberdeen City Council called it—of the Aberdeen western peripheral route, improvements to the Haudagain roundabout and the third Don crossing to ensure that we can retain our vibrancy. It seems, however, that that small minority may win through. I hope that the minister will do everything within his power to ensure that we are able to move those projects forward.
Beyond that, we need to examine the law as a whole. I have no problem with people objecting to projects—it is their democratic right to do so—but it is disgraceful when a small minority blocks what the majority wants. Certain parties who are involved in the blockage have become, in my opinion, professional nimbys who will do everything possible to stop every project. That is not good enough.
With £1.2 trillion-worth of reserves left in the North Sea, we need to ensure that Aberdeen continues to drive the economy of not only the north-east of Scotland or Scotland as a whole, but the United Kingdom. That is where Alex Johnstone and I disagree, because I believe that that £1.2 trillion should be invested to secure a better future for the nation of Scotland and that is why I cannot wait for the independence referendum.
10:16
As others have done, I am tempted to dwell on some of the measures that were glaringly absent from the programme for government that the First Minister announced yesterday. The lack of a late call-up for the cherished referendum on separating Scotland from the rest of the UK must surely have caused a dull sense of anticlimax to wash over at least some of the former idealists and firebrands on the SNP back benches, including Mr Stewart.
However, the wanton discarding of the rash promise to deliver a bill on high hedges seemed to arouse most excitement in the chamber late yesterday. Members will not be surprised that, as I am the MSP for Orkney, that issue does not cause my mailbag to overflow. Indeed, any hedge in my constituency that does not have the sense to keep its head below the garden wall deserves everything that is coming to it.
I could not help but notice that Fergus Ewing was happy to promise members that his successor as minister with responsibility for community safety, Roseanna Cunningham, would be delighted to honour his earlier commitment to legislate on the issue. Crofting, anti-sectarianism and now high hedges—one is left wondering what Ms Cunningham did to offend the leadership of her party.
As Marco Biagi did, I will to focus my remarks on some aspects of the Government’s programme that relate to education and which will affect our children and young people.
As I said back in June during a debate that I thought was genuinely useful, the challenges that the Government—indeed, the Parliament—faces in education are considerable. However, if we are to restore excellence to our education system, provide the skills that our economy needs and secure the wider social benefits that education delivers, those challenges must be addressed. I accept that a number of the measures that the First Minister set out yesterday offer hope that we are moving in the right direction.
I applaud the Government’s commitment to a futures fund to invest in early intervention measures, which mirrors a similar commitment in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. If it is properly resourced and targeted, the proposed early years change fund will be able to make a real difference, although it will also require effective co-ordination and even integration of services.
I look forward to seeing the details of that in due course, as well as those on improving the speed and quality of decision making for looked-after children. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning can be assured of my support in seeking to ensure that those initiatives are as effective as possible.
I was interested to note the proposal to establish a task force to ensure that the whole public sector prioritises spending on early years. I am sure that my colleagues on the Education and Culture Committee will be keen to explore that measure further with ministers in the months ahead.
Likewise, the Government will have my support, and that of my party, in taking forward proposals for a rights of children and young people bill. It is an opportunity to deliver real and meaningful improvements in the lives of children and young people in Scotland, as well as to send a strong signal about their importance to the society that we want to create. Again, I look forward to seeing the detail of what is envisaged and to working constructively with ministers to achieve objectives that, I think, command unanimous support in the Parliament.
In their attempts to develop a better learner journey to equip people with the right skills to enter and stay in work, ministers can count on the Liberal Democrats’ support. I welcome the commitment to publish a pre-legislative paper on post-16 education as a necessary first step towards getting that right.
However, the Government’s programme goes on to state that ministers
“will guarantee all 16-19 year olds a place in post-16 learning”.
It is hard to find fault with the sentiment, but it is also hard not to feel that it is the sort of guarantee that has got the Government and, indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning into difficulties in the past.
Alongside that particular guarantee in the programme for government appears a restatement of the commitment to free higher education. Leaving aside the fact that in recent days that promise will have rung a little bit hollow, particularly for any students at the University of Edinburgh, we still await more detail on how ministers will achieve the objective. As the Government does, we believe that the quality and international competitiveness of our universities can be enhanced while we also improve access, without the need to go down the route of charging tuition fees. However, there is a debate to be had about the level of funding that that will require, and it is not a debate without real and tangible consequences—as we see from the news of cuts to staff and courses across our universities.
In the consultation that was held earlier this year, we were promised in May a Scottish solution with implementation due for the academic year 2012-13. Although I appreciate that there are still a number of variables and unknowns, if the timetable has now shifted, it would be helpful to know when we might expect that solution to emerge.
On the Government’s approach to schools, we will continue to support the roll-out of curriculum for excellence, but ministers must acknowledge that genuine concerns remain. There is uncertainty about what is to happen and by when, which is prompting fears that many of those who are going through the secondary system at the moment might suffer as a consequence. That cannot be allowed to happen. The education secretary will be aware of that possibility and he needs to address it. It is also an area in which the Education and Culture Committee is likely to maintain a keen interest.
On the question of teacher employment, I note the bold statement in the Government’s document that it claims to have
“delivered record low class sizes across Scotland”.
Having inherited falling school rolls and record numbers of teachers, ministers still managed to lose around 3,000 teachers during their previous term of office. I suggest that that is nothing to shout about. Indeed, Mr Russell even confessed to having sleepless nights over that particular failure. The latest General Teaching Council for Scotland figures show that a mere one in five probationer teachers has secured reliable full-time employment, but the education secretary has promised that young teachers who are coming through will be guaranteed not just probation but a job. That is a characteristically bold pledge, to which he will be held to account, not least in terms of the impact on others within the teaching profession.
As I said during the debate in June, there is considerable scope for the Government to work constructively with the other parties to deliver the improvements in our education system that we all want, and in the way in which we meet the demands of our children and young people. At the same time, during the past four years, we saw too many promises being either discarded or redefined. There can be no excuse for similar failures this time round.
10:22
Yesterday and today we have heard a comprehensive debate on a wide-ranging programme of legislation and Government action, the impact of which will be felt in many areas of Scottish society. First, however, I commend my colleague Fiona McLeod for a thoughtful and insightful look into how self-directed support could and should work. I especially welcome the proposed bill that will enshrine that right in law.
Colleagues will not be surprised that I am going to focus my remarks on the proposed rights of children and young people bill. I have been banging on about this subject for many years—I confess that before someone else does it for me. For a long time, I have pursued the enshrining of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Scots law. That measure was adopted as official SNP policy in 2008 in a motion that was proposed by me and supported by our conference, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government has now made it part of its legislative programme for the coming years.
Enshrining in law a duty for ministers to consider children’s rights when they make decisions will be a historic step. It will place children and young people at the heart of everything that the Government does and it will solemnise our commitment to securing and protecting the wellbeing of every child in Scotland. As Angela Constance, the Minister for Children and Young People, has recently been quoted as saying, happy and well-adjusted bairns are a good thing for Scotland.
My initial motivation for wishing the UNCRC into Scots law was the detention of asylum-seeking families and children at Dungavel. That practice seemed to me to be a clear breach of several articles of the UNCRC, not least article 22, which states that a refugee has the right to special protection and help. I cannot let it go unmentioned that that issue is still entirely relevant. Although children are no longer being detained at Dungavel, families and children are still being detained and moved to detention centres in England, and we hear that a new family detention centre is planned. That is a flagrant abandonment of the UK coalition parties’ promise when they took power. Maybe Liam McArthur will join me in seeking that his friends in Westminster keep that promise.
Of course, the UNCRC applies not only to refugee children but to every child and young person, regardless of their circumstances. The vast majority of the world’s nations have ratified the UNCRC, but by enshrining it in our domestic law the Scottish Government will go a step further and is demonstrating international leadership in protecting the rights of children in all areas of their lives.
The rights of children and young people bill will legislate for our moral obligation to take every action that we can to ensure that every Scottish child is happy and healthy and that they are able to fulfil their full potential and make their voices heard. All of us in the chamber know well that there are far too many children in Scotland for whom those rights are all but absent from their day-to-day life experience. The bill, along with the great work that our Commissioner for Children and Young People does, will give us and them a legal basis for pursuing and protecting those rights. That is not just an airy-fairy aspiration, but the concrete foundation for the better Scotland that we want to achieve.
If failures in care, understanding or respect with regard to a child are left unaddressed, they can lead to the problems in adulthood that are the source of so many of the social ills that we are trying to tackle in Scotland today. A rights-based approach is an excellent basis for understanding how to shape Government actions and public services to support children in having the best start in life.
The rights of children and young people bill will not stand on its own, so I look forward to finding out more about the children’s services bill that will follow later. Those two pieces of legislation together could help to bring about a revolution in the way in which Scotland’s public services are shaped around, and respond to, the needs of children and families.
Jenny Marra stated yesterday that we need action on early years. I could not agree with her more. The early years change fund, the national parenting strategy and the opportunities for all initiative—to name just a few—are real actions by the Scottish Government. They form a child and young person centred philosophy that will not only help to insulate young Scots from the impact of Westminster’s ill-conceived public cuts agenda—and, in some cases, Westminster’s ill-conceived language when they describe children—but build a better Scotland, a proud Scotland and a visionary nation for them to inherit.
10:27
I am very excited by the Government’s programme for Scotland and I am excited to know that I am in a Parliament that will bring forward the referendum on independence. When the bill on that is introduced, I look forward to all the unionists voting for it to give the people of Scotland their chance, given what I have heard over the past two days. The programme for Government is positive and ambitious for Scotland, but I have heard a great deal of contradictory comment about it over the past two days. However, the programme will deliver a fairer, greener, safer and stronger Scotland.
The Government will introduce 16 bills. I have heard the Opposition’s contradictory comments about that. They say that there are too many bills, then they say that there are too few. They said that they were the wrong bills, then Iain Gray apologised for saying that they were the wrong bills. We heard that we talk too much about independence, then that we talk too little about independence. The Opposition must make up its mind.
The Labour Party’s slogan is “Just do more”; whatever the subject is, just do more. It was most eloquently put by Richard Baker, who said that we should do more for 16 to 19-year-olds. So, a guarantee that 100 per cent of 16 to 19-year-olds will have an opportunity to learn is apparently not good enough.
However, what was the big omission according to the unionist parties? There was a grand coalition, as Liam McArthur said, between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party that it was the omission of legislation on high hedges, because hedges are growing too high. Incidentally, the hedges were growing under the Labour Party as well as under this Administration.
I am happy to advise the member and, indeed, all members in the chamber that, following discussions with the Government and the clerks, I will introduce a member’s bill on high hedges.
There we go: another manifesto commitment being delivered by this Administration. So, now we have cross-party consensus that the Government’s programme is going in the right direction.
How we behave with a majority in the Parliament is important. I listened closely to Iain Gray, who said that we should not be unfettered and that we are no longer constrained by being in a minority. The way in which this Administration is behaving is completely different from how I have seen the Labour Party behave when it has had a majority in chambers throughout Scotland. Our behaviour will reflect positive ambition for the country.
I have heard Michael McMahon and Jackie Baillie say that we need more legislation—rafts of new local government legislation. Surely at this time, with the tough spending commitments that we have, we should focus our energies on working together on outcomes. In many respects, new local government legislation is not necessary. Our energies should be focused on outcomes, working together, sharing services and integration. New legislation is not necessarily required to progress that agenda.
Is the member denying that he wishes to avoid an opportunity to raise standards for older people and to seek legislative underpinning that would give that force?
I am sure that that matter will be considered through the parliamentary process. My point is that, with the regulations, budgets and spending commitments in place, quality can be improved. New legislation is not necessarily required. If the member thinks that there is legislation that is not required in the Government’s programme, she should address that.
We will do what is right and necessary, and I am enthused by the attention and focus on preventative spend and the work on early years. It was Lord George Foulkes who said that the SNP Government was doing popular things, and he was probably right. It turns out that the Administration was very popular, but the Administration also has a track record of doing what is right. Young people do not have a vote, and those in the earliest years will not have a vote for some time to come, but the focus on early intervention and the early years is necessary and right. As I said, I am enthused by what the Government has proposed in that area.
We have a First Minister who is talking up Scotland and building the nation’s confidence. What do we have from the UK Government? Our Lib Dem ministers Moore and Alexander—Scotland’s answer to the Chuckle Brothers—whom we are supposed to take seriously on the economic strategy for Scotland.
I am excited and enthused because we have a programme that will deliver jobs and capital investment, opportunities for all, new housing, free education and minimum pricing. It will tackle bigotry and that will deliver public sector reform, self-directed support, rights for children and young people, freedom of information and a renewed police service and fire service. That is, indeed, ambitious and exciting.
10:32
I welcome some of the legislative programme that was announced yesterday, and agree that we desperately need to create real job opportunities for our young people. I will watch with interest to see how the Government intends to protect higher education and develop apprenticeships and training. As a teacher, I support the continuation of the EMA and I support the bill on the rights of children and young people. I am also thrilled to bits that we have an emerging grand coalition on hedges. However, I have concerns about much of the supporting document that outlines the programme for 2011-12. I have read it, and it seems to be vague and full of ambiguity.
The First Minister, some of his council leaders and his health secretary keep claiming that there will be no compulsory redundancies in the public sector. His education secretary tried that approach in the college sector only to be forced to admit soon after the election that he could not deliver it. We all know people who are being or have been made redundant. If a person’s job as a nurse, housing officer or classroom assistant, say, is deemed by their employer to be surplus to requirements, but they do not want to leave and the only option for them is be ushered out of the door with a severance package with no option of remaining in the job, that is a compulsory redundancy situation in anybody’s book.
Hundreds of jobs have already gone in my local authority in West Lothian. Some 400 nurses are to go in NHS Lothian, and jobs are going in police support, the fire service and, indeed, throughout the public sector. If the First Minister is genuine about a no compulsory redundancies policy across the public sector, let this Parliament legislate for it. While he is at it, he could introduce legislation on a living wage for the public sector. Let it be written into contracts given to the private sector, too. We should start in this very building. It is a disgrace that some of the contracted staff who work here every day, such as contract cleaning staff, are being paid below the living wage and do not get any more than statutory sick pay when they are off ill. We do not need new powers to do that; we just need to make the right political choice.
I am intrigued. I understand the direction that the member wants to go in, but will he tell me where in the Scotland Act 1998 it states that it is possible to introduce legislation on compulsory redundancy and wage levels?
I am sure that we will debate that when the Scotland Bill comes before us.
Poverty is mentioned of course, but reading the programme I do not get any sense of how the Scottish Government intends to tackle what is without doubt Scotland’s greatest shame.
On capital investment, only two of 23 major transport projects are to be taken forward, with most of the money being blown on the Forth crossing. I have not seen any proposals to detail how the much-demanded additional borrowing powers might be used. Where is the commitment to developing progressive local taxation? If the council tax is to be frozen, let us freeze it for those on the lowest incomes but introduce a progressive element with those at the top paying more. That would give councils such as Edinburgh’s SNP-Lib Dem coalition no excuse—
Will the member take an intervention?
Sit down.
It would give it no excuse for its billion-pound privatisation sell-off.
I hear repeated time and again that renewables will “reindustrialise Scotland”—a soundbite if ever I have heard one. Who is to benefit from the renewables schemes that are being developed? A national renewables fund soliciting private sector investment in renewables might be laudable, but I think that we are missing a trick. There may be environmental benefit, but what is the social benefit? We need profits to be retained and reinvested in our country, not repatriated to boardrooms in Madrid, Paris and Bonn.
The First Minister wants increased borrowing powers for this Parliament. I support that wish, but he also wants to use those powers to cut corporation tax. Yesterday, he spoke of voodoo economics. I am not sure whether they practise voodoo in Ireland, but I personally prefer Germanic common sense, where corporation tax levels allow investment in jobs and the economy rather than allow the catastrophe that has befallen our brothers and sisters across the Irish Sea.
If the finance secretary was beating a path to the Treasury to demand powers to tackle tax evasion and to collect the billions that go uncollected, I would cheer him to the echo, but no—he wants powers that will suck hundreds of millions out of the economy while he crosses his fingers behind his back and gambles with our future.
What about the proposals for Scottish Water? Apparently, legislative proposals for water will ensure that
“Scottish Water is structured to enable it to deliver its full potential.”
I really hope that the Government does not mean by that that a change of ownership will result. A public interest company is just another form of privatisation, and Scottish people will see that.
We hear that the programme comes against a background of savage Tory cuts. I agree, but it is not good enough to replicate some of the Tories’ policies and then blame them for all that is bad while trying to take credit for anything that is deemed to be good. The Scottish Government already has many powers at its disposal. If it is genuine about consensus, let us build a social democratic consensus against the decline of our public services and in favour of strong, thriving communities.
10:39
I remind Neil Findlay that the savage Tory cuts that he referred to are simply savage Labour cuts rebranded with a Tory rosette on them after the last election. Political amnesia will not wash with the Scottish people. It is all right to be sanctimonious, but members have to know their facts in this chamber.
Will the member give way?
Perhaps we could have a fact now.
If that logic were to be continued, the cuts that are being imposed here are savage SNP cuts.
Only one of the two of us is working out logic just now, and Mr Findlay is certainly not him. We get a block grant—that is what we want to change and that is what he stands in the way of. I am delighted that the First Minister in his statement on our programme for government saw that big picture, even if Mr Findlay did not.
It was important that the First Minister made a unified case across the chamber for more powers for this Parliament while keeping central the bigger picture of our preferred option of independence—more powers to grow our economy and to reinvest that wealth for the betterment of all Scottish people. I caution people who would go only part of the way towards more powers for Scotland—the Calman generation, if you will—that having the financial powers to grow our economy, even in a very limited way, without the ability to collect the wealth that would flow in the face of a shrinking block grant would lead to financial ruin. There is no point in our having the powers to grow the economy unless we can collect the wealth that we generate. All that we would have would be a shrinking block grant and debt to pay off as a result. So, let us be careful when we consider the powers that Scotland should have and let us ensure that we get them right.
The big picture is important to our day-to-day lives—we have only to look at housing to see that, as we heard earlier. As a member of the Government, of course I want to talk about our successes in housing. I want to mention the £1.7 billion that was spent on affordable housing between 2008 and 2011. I want to talk about the right-to-buy restrictions that have helped, about the national housing trust and about the £100 million that has been spent on the more than 3,000 council houses that have been built under this SNP Administration compared to the six that were built under the previous Labour-Lib Dem Administration.
I also want to talk about progress. I want to talk about the council tax levy on empty homes and the potential £30 million that that could raise for local authorities besides having the benefit of bringing more homes into use for affordable housing. I want to talk about independence and more powers for Scotland. If we had the borrowing powers, we would not be just tinkering at the edges of affordable housing but would deal with our social housing problem fully. We cannot do that without those full powers.
Let us look at what borrowing powers can do. When we saw the front loading of capital investment for housing in this country, we also saw an 11 per cent fall in construction unemployment at a time when the level of unemployment was rising in England. That kind of investment works, but it is sustainable only with the real powers of an independent Parliament. People who tell me that independence does not matter to the people of Scotland should tell that to the plumbers, the sparkies, the brickies, the joiners and the labourers whom we put into work using the powers that we have. They should tell that to the people who are currently on the dole queue whom we could put back to work if we had independence for this country. That is what the big picture is all about. Our day-to-day programme is important, although we are delivering with one hand tied behind our back.
Another aspect of the programme before us is care for the elderly and other vulnerable groups. Jackie Baillie talked about regulation of care homes. None of us would ever make light of the tragedy that happened at the Elsie Inglis care home or, indeed, of the financial meltdown that happened at Southern Cross Healthcare. We should try to find a consensual way in which to pursue those issues. There is a strong need to analyse the financial assumptions that underpin private sector nursing homes. There is also a strong need for a presumption that care homes will continue to operate irrespective of those financial assumptions, whereby the state or the voluntary sector steps in to ensure that the care is still delivered.
However, there is a real danger that, if we try to regulate on that, we will impinge on reserved issues relating to trading and other matters. When a business goes belly-up, the banks will have the first call on its assets unless we can change that. We must consider the overlapping reserved issues and we cannot act with one hand tied behind our back: even if Jackie Baillie is nodding to say that we could, we could not.
Fiona McLeod spoke yesterday about the proposed bill on self-directed support, which I very much welcome. There will be challenges in it and some local authorities will have to consider how to disaggregate some provision—certainly, the ones that have been more reluctant to deliver self-directed support. If a local authority provides a service in someone’s home for three hours a week but that person tells the local authority that they want to opt out of that service and the local authority has hundreds of care workers who are the default providers of that care, self-directed support can be seen as being threatening to local authorities that do not go in the right direction. However, they should see it as an opportunity to deliver for the people who most need that care. I heard Fiona McLeod’s speech yesterday and I know that she has direct experience of that. I hope that we can come together as a Parliament on that proposed bill on self-directed support.
I also hope that we will continue to come together as a Parliament to tackle the scourge of sectarianism. Politicians cannot legislate to end sectarianism, but neither can we stick our heads in the sand. I do not know whether the bill that is going through Parliament will transform Scotland by tackling the scourge of sectarianism. What I do know, though, is that it is not enough not to try. For too long, Parliament has buried its head in the sand. I hope that we come together to sort that. The recent jury judgment for a high-profile case points to the way in which we have to change cultural attitudes—and not just west of Scotland cultural attitudes. I thank you for your patience, Presiding Officer.
I turn to the winding up speeches. At this stage of the debate, I am in the happy position of having a couple of minutes in hand, so if members feel inclined to take interventions we can give a little bit extra for that.
10:45
It has been a long and worthwhile debate. As many have commented, it has also been a rather momentous debate in the history of the Scottish Parliament—a first legislative programme from a majority governing party. Scotland has gained an interesting insight into the type of Government that it can expect to endure for the next five years.
Given the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill and the proposals for a single police force, if this debate is anything to go by, Scotland can expect a Government that will carry on regardless, that will bash ahead with its plans, with scant regard for other people’s views, and that will simply bulldoze its way through reasoned opposition. We can expect a Government that, as Annabel Goldie pointed out yesterday, is relentlessly hostile to anyone who dares to speak out against it.
SNP members would do well to pay heed to Christine Grahame’s contribution yesterday, when she urged members of committees to
“get into the mindset that they are their own masters and that they require to demonstrate robust independence ... in the interests of good government”—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; c 1405.]
and, particularly, “good law”.
Two years ago, Tavish Scott warned of the SNP’s creeping centralisation and its ever-increasing habit of nationalising the policy while localising the blame. At the time, the SNP denied that it had a centralising agenda and said that the idea that it wanted to create a single national police force was “complete fiction”. Even today, in its programme for government, it claims that it
“will reform our public services with a decisive shift towards ... greater collaboration, partnership working, transparency”.
Really? What we are actually seeing is a power grab from local government—a divorce that will sever the existing strong partnership working. By pressing ahead with plans for a single national police force and a single national fire service in contradiction to its claims, in spite of a lack of evidence, in the face of concerted, sustained and detailed opposition at a local and national level, the Government is showing just how little it cares to listen to anyone but itself.
I find it amazing—almost incomprehensible in fact—that the First Minister can stand up with a straight face and state:
“After detailed consideration of all the evidence, we are persuaded”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; c 1375.]
All the evidence? The Government has not even produced a credible business case. The outline business case for police reform, on which the SNP seems to be hanging its hat, is described by COSLA quite succinctly as
“frankly incompetent, misleading and undeserving of the title outline business case.”
The Government suggests that it has given “detailed consideration” to the evidence. If that is the kind of evidence that the SNP relies on, perhaps it would not be too far from the mark to suggest that it is incompetent.
The SNP continues to claim that it has to make decisions such as those because of the cuts from Westminster. The Scottish Government’s budget this year was almost £35 billion. A devolved Government is elected to make choices. This Government is choosing to dismantle a good, responsive, local police and fire service. It is choosing to do that against the combined wisdom of police chiefs, fire officers, local authorities, and pretty much everyone else whom it has asked.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
It is choosing to do that on the basis of unsubstantiated savings. It is all very well listening to the SNP’s “bobbies not boundaries” soundbites, but the facts are as follows. A single national police force will put police jobs at risk. It will mean more political interference and less local responsiveness. A single national fire service could result in up to 1,500 firefighters losing their jobs. It will put our vital rural fire stations and retained firefighters under serious threat.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
The Government is still determined to push through its ill-judged and unworkable bill on offensive behaviour at football. While I applaud the First Minister for relenting—just a little bit—and giving the Justice Committee more time to consider the bill in detail, I still fear that we are rushing through a law to tackle a problem that we have not fully scoped out. The more evidence that we hear, the more I am convinced that bill’s approach is not the solution. The Liberal Democrats want to work with the Government and all parties to find a solution. However, I cannot help but feel that we would be more successful if we were able to start at the beginning, rather than two stops from the end.
I do not want to give the impression that we are objecting to some of the Government’s plans for opposition’s sake. Where we agree with the Government, we will be glad to support its legislation. Of course, where we disagree, we will do our best to work constructively to make it better.
Jenny Marra did well to remind the Government of its climate change responsibilities, and we will take a keen interest in progress. We will support the Government’s bill to introduce minimum pricing on alcohol, and we were pleased to hear the Government’s proposals to provide more opportunities for our young people when they leave school. We will be happy to work with the Government to ensure that Scotland does not have a lost generation.
We want greater investment in science. Scotland has a proud reputation in science and research and we want the funding to be in place to ensure that that reputation continues to grow.
I agree with Lewis Macdonald, who highlighted the Government’s poor stewardship of infrastructure projects for the north-east. The Government must redouble its efforts to ensure that we get the transport projects that we need in the north-east.
I am glad that infrastructure in the north-east has been mentioned again. Do all members of Alison McInnes’s party support the Aberdeen western peripheral route, changes at Haudagain and, of course, the third Don crossing? There are mixed messages and I believe that some members of her party are members of Road Sense, which is the organisation that is holding up the WPR.
The member knows that my party has been supportive of, and that I as a former chair of the north east of Scotland transport partnership have championed the case for, the AWPR and the north-east. The intervention was a piece of nonsense, really.
Alex Salmond began the debate with a claim that people who oppose independence can be characterised as dependent, negative, cautious, pessimistic and of limited ambition. He could not be more wrong. I, for one, find it distasteful that the First Minister questions my commitment to Scotland. We believe that Scotland can be great, has much to be proud of and has a bright future. We think that Scotland offers unique investment opportunities and possesses resources that will enable us to take a leading role as a green energy producer. We think that we are blessed with responsive local emergency services and bright and ambitious young people who are keen to play their part in making Scotland a brighter, better place. I just happen to be certain that we can best achieve our aims and maximise our potential as part of the United Kingdom.
10:52
It is fair to say that what we heard from the First Minister yesterday was a speech by a leader of a party, not a speech by a leader of a Government. It would have been a pretty good speech if it had been delivered at SNP party conference, but as a programme for government it was highly partisan and, ultimately, poor. I am happy to say that all the Opposition leaders had more to contribute and spoke better than the First Minister did. We heard opinion being presented as fact, and we heard the First Minister accuse highly respected organisations and individuals who happen to disagree with him and his Government of practising “voodoo economics”. That set the tone for the quality of the debate. Let us not have a debate in which people who do not agree with Alex Salmond on the economic programme are accused of practising voodoo economics.
More than half the First Minister’s speech was taken up with economic issues and I want to focus on the points that he made. First, we heard the bold statement that we have to
“create the conditions that encourage growth”—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; c 1369.]
across the country. That is a bit rich, coming from a First Minister who wanted to introduce a large retailers levy. His political party wanted to introduce a tax only on retailers in Scotland. Will the party admit that that was a big mistake and that the policy would have been damaging and would have prevented economic growth?
The member might also want to ask how much consultation there was before the tax was proposed, given that that is a theme that the First Minister has been all too quick to pounce on this week.
I am happy to answer the question on behalf of the First Minister. The answer is none. There was absolutely no consultation whatever.
What about the local income tax, for which SNP members argued so passionately throughout the previous session of the Parliament? The SNP said that it could not introduce the local income tax because it did not have the numbers—the other parties had ganged up to prevent it from introducing the tax. Then, it was critical that such a tax be introduced, but now the position is that the Government will wait until the end of the parliamentary session before it thinks about doing anything about it. To be absolutely clear, I am against a local income tax; I merely point out that, now, the party that was desperate for it and blamed other parties for not allowing it does not want to go anywhere near it.
Yesterday, we heard once again complaints from the Scottish Government about what it calls the UK Government’s obsession with early deficit reduction. The position is this: the UK Government wants to abolish the deficit by the end of the parliamentary term. Anyone who says that that is too fast or too quick must have their own view on the year, after 2016, by which they think that we ought to reduce the deficit. Is the end of a parliamentary term really that early? We heard from various SNP members that there is no evidence to suggest that, if we were to slow down our efforts to reduce the deficit, the markets would respond badly or anyone would actually notice. For the record, I inform the chamber that the highly respected global rating agency, Moody’s, said on that issue:
“The stable outlook on the UK’s AAA rating is largely driven by the Government’s commitment to stabilise and eventually reverse the deterioration in its financial strength.”
We heard member after member arguing against the cut to capital investment and saying that the UK Government is forcing the Scottish Government to cut capital investment by 40 per cent. For the record, I inform members that there is no legal limit to the amount of money that the Scottish Government can transfer from revenue to capital if it wishes to do so. Governments of all stripes have not done that in recessions because it is politically more difficult to do so then. However, the SNP Government is no different in that regard: it could easily switch money from revenue to capital if it wished to do so.
Is the member seriously contending that, at a time when revenue budgets across the country are strained, we should take money from the revenue budget to fund capital rather than accessing proper borrowing powers for this Parliament?
I am pointing out the flaw in the SNP’s position. It is difficult to take money out of revenue and put it into capital, but the cut to capital investment, to which SNP members continue to emphasise their resistance, is not being pushed on the Government by the UK Government. The money is given to the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Government can decide the balance between revenue and capital. It cannot switch from capital into revenue, but I challenge any SNP member to say what the legal limit is on transferring money from revenue to capital, because there is no such limit.
It is a bit rich to hear those points about capital investment being made by a party that slowed down capital investment in Scotland long before the downturn. When the SNP took office, its ideologically driven objection to public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives slowed down capital investment remarkably.
I accept that there is no legal limit on transferring money from revenue to capital, but Gavin Brown must accept that, in terms of the fiscal sustainability of the revenue budget, we cannot just transfer, holus-bolus, huge amounts of money from revenue to capital. It might be possible to do some of that, but it is impossible to do it to a great extent, or we would end up in an unsustainable situation with regard to our revenue budget.
That is absolutely correct, so why does the SNP make such a big issue about the fact that the cut is to the capital budget as opposed to the revenue budget? The SNP has made a political decision to keep the ratio between the two budgets exactly the same as that which is used by the UK Government. Mr Crawford accepted that there is no legal limit to the amount that can be transferred.
Yesterday, following up on Alex Neil’s press release, we heard the disappointment of the SNP over broadband funding. We were told that the Government was disappointed that it did not get even more money from the UK Government to fund broadband in rural areas. However, contained in that one announcement from the UK Government was more money for broadband than was spent on broadband by the SNP Government during its entire four years in office so far. To be fair to the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive, digital broadband was a priority for it. At that point, Scotland was at least on—some would argue that it was slightly ahead of—the curve.
For four years, however, nothing happened under the SNP on digital broadband. Even when money is given by the UK Government, the SNP—which has, I repeat, done nothing, not a jot, on broadband in four years—does nothing but complain, instead of saying that the money is quite helpful and beneficial, if not as much as it would like.
Yesterday, once again, we heard boasts about how great the Scottish Investment Bank is and complaints about how slow the UK Government is in making things happen. I remind members about the Scottish Investment Bank, which was loudly heralded in April 2009, when the First Minister stood up at the Scottish Trades Union Congress conference and told us that the Government was setting up a Scottish investment bank to the tune of £150 million. A year later, at the STUC conference in April 2010, he stood up and said that the Government was setting up a Scottish investment bank to the tune of £50 million. Finally, a year later—after complaining about the slowness of other parties and Governments—the Government got the Scottish Investment Bank going.
Yesterday, we heard that the bank will apparently be all things to all people. It will fund small and medium-sized enterprises, where there is a shortfall from general banking, and make them a priority. It will make funding technology start-ups, growth companies and exporting companies all priorities—it appears to be making absolutely everything a priority, despite having extremely limited funds. Everything is a priority, therefore nothing is a priority.
We heard the usual “too fast, too deep” refrain from SNP members in the chamber yesterday. Anybody who wants to argue that must answer one simple question. If we want to increase public spending, we must either increase taxation or borrow more—there are only two ways of doing it. Anyone who argues “too fast, too deep” must explain which taxes they would raise or how many more billions—over the £120 billion we are borrowing this year—we ought to borrow.
I call Johann Lamont to wind up for the Labour Party.
11:02
I was going to ask how long I had, but I worry that people might say “Too long” so I will not encourage that refrain.
You have a generous 14 minutes.
I can see people sitting up in their seats in anticipation at the very thought of it. I am referring not only to colleagues opposite, but to those behind, who have heard me speak and will be rather concerned about the Presiding Officer’s generosity. However, I shall begin.
It is not the job of the Government to build up the self-esteem of Opposition members, but I want to say to Annabelle Ewing, who accused the Opposition of negativity, that there is a difference between being negative and disagreeing. We recognise that the SNP won the election, but it did not win the right to silence us when we do not agree with what its members say. I am all for positivity—it is the very air that I breathe. Kevin Stewart said that some people do not share his positive vision for Scotland, the implication being that we do not have a positive vision. I have a positive vision for Scotland within the United Kingdom, which my colleagues share; it is simply different from Kevin Stewart’s vision and that, in itself, does not make it wrong.
Regarding the legislative programme, I agree that one does not test the quality of a Government by the number of bills that it produces. I agree that we do not have to be always exceptionally busy with legislation, but the bills that are laid out in the legislative programme reflect the Government’s priorities. We know that it is a priority of this Government to create an independent and separate Scotland, so it is inexplicable that the referendum bill, which is prepped, consulted on, discussed and ready to go, is not part of the programme.
We were going to have the bill in January 2010 and we were going to vote on it in November 2010. The Government has been given a majority that it could not have dreamed of when it drew up its manifesto, which cautiously said that the referendum bill would be introduced in the second half of the Government’s term, so the Government can—if it wishes—bring it on. I am disturbed not by the Government separating off and not dealing with the bill, but by the fact that, while the bill is not introduced, the Government’s every action will be informed by its need to prove the value of independence. I would be concerned if the Government was not introducing the bill because it feared the Scottish people’s verdict.
I urge the need for post-legislative scrutiny, if the absence of too many bills provides the opportunity to consider the legislation that is in place. I will highlight housing. There is evidence that some housing legislation on which we agreed across the Parliament has had unintended consequences, including people having to make themselves homeless inappropriately because of a lack of supply and local authorities and housing providers being told that they cannot define sensitive lets to protect housing for older people or being prevented from addressing issues with private landlords and antisocial behaviour. I hope that the Government will consider that.
It is difficult to capture the essence and joy of the range of speeches that we have heard in the past day and a half. The cabinet secretary and I probably do not have many views in common, but we both deserve a good attendance award for being in the chamber from the beginning to the end of the debate. I urge individual ministers to reflect on and respond to the range of points that has been made to them, as it is impossible for us to reflect all those points in the remaining time.
The First Minister was right to start with the economy, and so shall I. We share his concern about the UK Government’s approach, which is to cut too fast and too deep. However, I urge the SNP to resist the temptation to blame the previous Labour Government for everything that happened in relation to the global recession. It might be tempting in party-political terms to make the case that John Mason presented, but the difficulty is that to argue that the Labour Government caused everything is to collude with the idea that the problem was caused by too much public spending and that the consequent solution must be public expenditure cuts. That is a dangerous road to take for those who oppose the coalition Government.
John Mason yesterday misrepresented his leader’s position before the crisis. As we all know—although John Mason appears not to know—Alex Salmond believed pre-crisis that bank regulation was gold plated and that an independent Scotland would have lighter-touch regulation. As the Royal Bank of Scotland went its mad way towards the brink of ruin, when it tried to buy ABN AMRO, not only did the First Minister not caution the bank to be a little less reckless, but he wrote to it to say, “Fantastic idea—let me know how I can help you with that purchase.” With the benefit of hindsight, we can all see the crisis coming and blame others, but those of us who oppose what the coalition is doing in the UK need to understand that saving the banks and Scottish jobs, as much as saving jobs across the rest of the UK, has led us to the current position.
The First Minister spoke about growth. He said that we needed
“to create the conditions that encourage growth. With growth comes work and with work come security and confidence.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; c 1369.]
Of course, it is not as simple as that. It is essential that ministers understand that creating growth does not inevitably bring with it jobs, security and confidence—achieving that is the Government’s job. In the same way as the recession impacts on some more than others, unemployment rates—particularly among the young—are much higher in constituencies such as mine than in other places in Scotland. This week, evidence has shown that the recession is disproportionately impacting on women. It is essential that the Government’s economic and social strategy tackles that unevenness and disadvantage. I urge the Government to recognise that what is required will not happen on its own or trickle down—it will require the Government to act.
The First Minister said that a policy of no compulsory redundancies creates security, but the problem is that that statement contradicts directly the experience of far too many working people across our communities. People who deliver public services are losing their jobs.
For many people who deliver public services in the voluntary and charitable sector, the threat of job losses is shaping the renegotiation of their terms and conditions. In some cases, that is leading to some of the lowest-paid workers in the country who are doing some of the most important jobs having their wages cut by 23 per cent. Quarriers has highlighted the issue, but it is not happening only in Quarriers. That is a matter for the Scottish Government because it involves public money delivering public services. Public money can create economic opportunity if the appropriate conditions are introduced. We can protect the quality of services and the workers who deliver them, which is why a procurement bill is so important, as it would set conditions for access to the public money that we spend and we could therefore have a living wage in the public and voluntary sectors.
At present, the opposite is happening: charitable organisations are cutting wages as a consequence of the contracts that are being let. Local authorities tell us that contracts are being let in that way because of the lack of funding. We cannot wish the situation away, because people are living with it. If that means that we need to consider how we fund local government, we must do so. We do not have a local income tax. Will we simply let council tax wither on the vine, or can we use our collective efforts to deliver local authority funding? We cannot step back in the way that is happening now. We know the importance of quality care and that it will be delivered if we treat care workers fairly. We are not all in this together when we have a compulsory redundancy policy that denies that people are having their salaries and wages cut in that way.
On education, too, we cannot step back from the reality of what is happening in our schools—to my children and to others. The squeeze on resources—on jotters, books and staffing—has a drip, drip impact. Saying that Scottish education is wonderful is not a substitute for protecting the quality of learning. The minister must pay close attention because, as resources are squeezed, although some families have the capacity to fill the gap, opportunities are reduced for the most disadvantaged. While we step in and fund our children’s folders and books, those who do not have that access will be denied their opportunity. We understand that, if education concentrates on the core, those who most need special interventions—whether they be children with special needs or disabilities, or vulnerable children who are not parented at home—will be denied access to education. The things that get them to school in the first place must be funded, too.
The First Minister said yesterday that higher education should be about
“the ability to succeed rather than the ability to pay.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; c 1372.]
Who could deny that? However, it is complacent to say that that has always been the principle of Scottish higher education. Historically, there was an issue of access. When I went to university—a million years ago, I admit—only 5 per cent of the university population came from a background such as mine. If the squeeze on higher education funding results in the reduction of places or steps back from the increased access to higher education, we need to consider the policy.
I have heard Labour members say that health should be protected and others say that education or police numbers should be protected. Will the member say exactly which budget should be reduced to vire towards education or health?
The member has no idea how depressing that intervention is. I am trying to make the simple point that, if the Government has a headline policy that it believes in free education but the consequence of its funding choices is a reduction in access for some of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our communities, it needs to examine the policy. We all need to examine it. We must have a plan B. We cannot have a policy that sounds good but which has serious consequences. That is the business of government. I do not know all the answers, but we need to at least ask the questions. If there is a reduction in access, the minister will need to have a plan B.
On Scottish studies, I ask the Government to think more carefully about the reality in our schools, colleges and universities. I understand why those who believe that Scotland is a colonial outpost of empire, that it has been consistently oppressed by its English partners or that it has, as the First Minister has said in the past, suffered from the “benign diktat” of Westminster claim that we have been denied an understanding of our own history and culture. That makes sense for someone who takes that perspective. The problem, however, is that it is simply not true. Forty years ago, when I was a lot younger than I am now, a fantastic history teacher at my school taught me about the clearances. It was a seminal moment for me, because it chimed with my understanding of my own family. I learned what Scottish landowners were willing to do to the people who worked the land and it has shaped my thinking since then. Indeed, the whole land question comes out of that. We were taught about the Edinburgh new town; we were taught about the role of Scotland in empire; we were taught our history.
It is also true that, at a time when—allegedly—we were being denied our culture, I learned to love Iain Crichton Smith, MacCaig and others. As a teacher, I taught Edwin Morgan, who, as members must recognise, is a significant voice in Scottish culture. I could teach Scottish culture and learn about Scottish history; these things did not happen in a silo. I also learned about Scottish movements. For example, I understood the connection between the experience of ship workers in Glasgow and those south of the border. That is our history. As a woman, I have always denied and fought against “the great men of history” approach—which, I have to say, has not actually been around for all that long—and there ought not to be a substitute “great Scots” approach to the world. We learn about all our cultures and the diversity even within the Gaelic culture, which should be celebrated not denied.
All I can ask is: does the member not accept that the many teachers, academics and experts who assembled yesterday around this issue and all of whom want to see action on it are united on the point that teaching Scottish history, for instance, does not mean ignoring its bad bits or all of our literature? It just means ensuring that every child gets to learn about these things.
Ms Lamont, you might wish to consider winding up gradually over the next minute or so.
I did not actually say that. All I said was that the SNP’s premise that we are not taught about Scottish history or culture is simply not true.
I have not talked about public sector reform, which we support. We must look at efficiency and ensure that we protect local services. As for justice, we must ensure that victims are at the centre of our commitments and decisions.
Where we agree with this Government, we will do so. We want to contribute positively. However, people should listen to what Christine Grahame said yesterday. The Parliament must ensure that everything is scrutinised. I will not agree with all the conclusions that Parliament comes to, but if there is openness and if people can consider the issues with open minds, this legislative programme will make a difference to the lives of people in this country.
I call Nicola Sturgeon. Ms Sturgeon, you may have until 20 minutes to 12.
11:18
The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy (Nicola Sturgeon)
Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer.
When she rose to speak, Johann Lamont speculated that members would be groaning when they heard that she had 14 minutes. I imagine that that groan is about to get a lot louder when members realise that I have not only the 20 minutes I was allocated but an additional two. I now have 22 whole minutes to respond to all the many points that have been made in the debate. Interventions will be gratefully received to help me through the 22 minutes that lie ahead.
I thoroughly agree with Johann Lamont’s comment that she and I deserve an attendance award for bravely sitting through the entire debate. I have to say, particularly now that the First Minister has arrived back in the chamber, that such is the life of a deputy leader. Of course, Johann Lamont may—or may not, depending on what transpires—be leaving the life of a deputy leader behind her in the not-too-distant future and I might have someone else to keep me company through these long debates. I will leave speculating on who that might be for another occasion.
I thought that Johann Lamont’s speech was interesting, and I respect the fact that, in much of it, she was pursuing an argument. As a result, the points that I make should not be seen as an attempt to detract from what she was trying to do.
In listening to Johann Lamont’s speech, I was struck by two points. One relates to what she said about the implications of a policy of free education. I have to say that it was not clear to me from listening to her speech whether she was advocating a position of looking again at, or perhaps scrapping, the policy of free education. Perhaps she will outline that now—and in her leadership campaign.
In all seriousness, I was saying that if the current policy leads to such a funding gap that we see courses closing and improvements in access reversing, the Government will need to look at it again. I do not want to have to look at it—and it may be that there is not such a funding gap—but I am troubled that the Government might end up with a headline position but deny what is happening underneath it. Those of us who care deeply about access to education for young people, particularly disadvantaged young people, believe that that needs to be addressed.
I will leave Labour to sort out its own position on that question. Let me again make clear the Government’s position: we will secure the sustainability of our education system, but we will also protect the cherished principle that access to education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. There is no doubt about that on our part.
The second point in Johann Lamont’s speech that I think is worth mentioning briefly relates to Scottish studies, on which many members have commented over the past two days. She made one point on which I agree—indeed, she and I have attended Scottish Women’s Convention meetings in this very chamber during which the point has been made: no matter whether we are talking about Scottish, UK, European or global history, the contribution of women down the ages has often been written out, which is something that we should address. However, I really question the wisdom of Labour, the Tories or anybody else questioning the simple proposition that, as part of the curriculum, Scottish young people should be taught about our culture, our history and our traditions. I am very proud of the action that Alasdair Allan has taken to ensure that that is a core part of what our young people learn in schools.
It is a pleasure to sum up this debate, which I think has been a good one. It seems like an awful long time since the party leaders stood up to speak at 1 o’clock yesterday; nevertheless, it is appropriate that I comment on their contributions.
Iain Gray made what I think was, in part, a thoughtful speech. He certainly struck a chord with all of us who are privileged—I stress “privileged”—to hold ministerial office when he talked about the opportunities and the responsibilities of power. I assure the chamber that those of us who hold office are acutely aware of that weight of responsibility.
I also thought that Iain Gray showed a touching affection for the life and times of Alex Salmond when he produced a cutting from several years ago, from his own personal scrapbook, no doubt—Iain Gray’s personal scrapbook, that is, not Alex Salmond’s personal scrapbook.
I am online.
The First Minister should perhaps be reminded that the Deputy First Minister is speaking at this point. I am sure that I will not be heckled any more.
I resisted the temptation today to bring along a cutting about Iain Gray from 7 May 2011, when he said that by this point he would have stood down as Labour leader. That was obviously before he realised that, with the honourable exception of Johann Lamont, nobody in the Labour ranks wants to take on the job of leader. [Interruption.] Sorry, somebody mentioned Tom Harris. I am not sure that the words “honourable exception” and “Tom Harris” should be found in the same sentence, but I will leave that to one side.
I thought that Iain Gray’s speech perhaps fell down a little bit in his insistence on fighting the previous election all over again. Indeed, at one point when he was talking about the Scottish Constitutional Convention it seemed like he was fighting the campaign of six elections ago. There is an important point here, on which Labour should reflect—whether it will do so remains to be seen—which is that although Labour might like to criticise the record of the first SNP Administration, the simple fact is that when the Scottish people cast their votes in May this year, they seemed to thoroughly approve of that record, which is why they voted for us in such large numbers. It may also be why the polls continue to show rising support for this SNP Government.
Everybody in the chamber, without exception, will want me to share with them the Angus Reid poll that was published just today. It showed the SNP on 49 per cent—in Westminster voting preferences. If Labour members really do “get it”, as Iain Gray said they did yesterday, it is time for them to move on from negative carping to making a more positive contribution.
I did not agree with all the comments or all the analysis in Jackie Baillie’s speech, but at least her speech was a call for specific action. I respect her for that.
I turn now to Annabel Goldie and the Tory party, which at least has its leadership election under way—providing endless entertainment for the rest of us, even after just the first few days. Annabel Goldie has trumpeted the merits of quality over quantity. For a few moments, I thought that she was heading towards making a clarion call of “Do less, better.” I am thankful that she fell short of that vintage McConnellism. However, this is a good opportunity to assure the chamber that this Government will not choose between quantity and quality. We intend to focus on both quantity and quality.
The real and emerging problem for the Tories is the glaring contradiction appearing in its position. They cry for independence for them—but the party still sets its face against independence for Scotland. As I am sure many others did, I listened to Murdo Fraser on the radio earlier this week. He made an impassioned case for the ability of the Scottish Tories—or whatever they may be called in the future—to take different positions from their UK counterparts on reserved matters. He cited the example of the common fisheries policy. I could not have been the only person listening who wondered, “What is the point of a party being able to take a different position on a reserved matter if the party does not also want to gain the powers that would give it the ability to implement that different position?” That makes no sense whatsoever. Those are the real questions—among many others—that the Tories will have to answer.
Differences between Westminster and Holyrood seem to happen within the SNP too. When the cut in VAT was proposed by the Labour Government a couple of years ago, the SNP at Westminster voted in favour of it. However, up here, the First Minister and all his colleagues said that it was a bad idea. So, do such things not happen with the SNP as well?
The difference is that we want the decisions to be taken here in Scotland. The inconsistency in the Tories’ position is that they want to take a different position but to have no power to implement that different position. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I turn briefly to Willie Rennie. Later, I will consider a certain aspect of his contribution that I thought very positive, but I was amused by his call for the Government to spend more time spelling out the case for independence. That was just a few days after Michael Moore said that we talked about independence far too much. Who would have thought that the Liberal Democrats would ever have been caught facing two ways at the same time? That contradiction was eloquently summed up and illustrated by Derek Mackay.
Many members made good contributions to the debate—too many to mention them all. However, I will mention Annabelle Ewing, Fiona McLeod, Malcolm Chisholm, John Finnie, Chic Brodie, Marco Biagi, Jackson Carlaw—later on, I may come back to something that he said—Derek Mackay and Jackie Baillie, whom I have already mentioned. That is as it should be, because this programme is big and ambitious. There are 15 bills, and today the important addition of Mark McDonald’s member’s bill on an issue that became a dominant theme among Opposition contributions—the scourge of high hedges in Scotland—has completed the programme.
Any good legislative programme must be more than the sum of its parts. It should be about taking on the big issues in Scottish society—addressing them and facing up to them. The question that should be asked of any legislative programme is this: will it leave our country in a better position? I believe that the resounding answer to that question is yes.
If that is true, why do we have no bill on public service reform?
Kezia Dugdale knows that she is a member whom I respect greatly. Anyone looking seriously at our legislative programme knows that public service reform is at its heart. I will come back to that specific issue later.
There are four pillars to the programme. The first is an iron focus on jobs and the economy. In this economic climate, it is essential that none of us in any party loses that crucial focus. It must be more than rhetoric. Yesterday, I was slightly disappointed that, having been on the radio early in the morning, when he rightly talked about the need to put the economy at the heart of the programme, Iain Gray got 21 minutes into a 22-minute speech before he mentioned jobs or the economy.
We talk repeatedly and rightly about not allowing the economic troubles through which we are living to consign a generation of our young people to the scrapheap. That is why the opportunities for all initiative that the First Minister outlined yesterday—which will guarantee every 16 to 19-year-old a learning or training place—is so important. We owe it to our young people to secure their future. That is why the First Minister was also right to focus the Government squarely on economic recovery, using the powers that we have to boost growth.
I say to Alex Johnstone and Johann Lamont that the Government’s record on housing—providing record amounts of social housing and using accelerated capital investment to boost the economy—is incredibly good, and we are rightly proud of it.
I will bring two housing issues to the cabinet secretary’s attention. As she knows from her constituency, the ethnic minority communities in Scotland suffer from a lack of housing. Not only do they seem unable to get appropriate housing, but new developers are building small houses, which means that large families that wish to remain together do not have the opportunity to do so. I hope that she will promise to ensure that that issue is taken into account and that housing associations reflect the communities that they serve.
I thank Hanzala Malik for that question, which is extremely important. As he knows, I represent Pollokshields, where that is a particularly acute problem. Over generations, housing has not been built to accommodate larger families from ethnic minority communities. I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Transport would be happy to discuss with Mr Malik how we can further assist with that problem.
The second pillar of the programme is reforming public services. I know that Kezia Dugdale was not in the Parliament in the previous session, but we had a Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill in that session. On several occasions, Labour tried to limit the capacity of that bill to deliver change. However, I hope that there is now more consensus in the Parliament on the driving need to reform public services.
Yesterday, we set out our early intentions to move ahead with the integration of health and social care. I say to Jackie Baillie and others who commented on that measure that we will do it in a proper and considered way. It is important to get it right, so we will not do it on the back of a fag packet, as Labour did in the previous election. We will get that reform right.
More importantly, and more immediately, we set out yesterday plans to legislate for a single fire service and a single police service. Reforming our public services is essential to ensuring that they are sustainable in the current economic climate and constrained public finances. The proposals that Kenny MacAskill will set out later today will undoubtedly save money. However, Iain Gray was right to say that they are about more than that; they are about ensuring that we also improve delivery. Our proposals on the police and the fire service will improve local accountability at grass-roots level and the effective deployment of specialist resources throughout the country, and are exactly what we should do to save money and improve the quality of the service.
The third plank or pillar of the programme is about addressing the big issues in Scottish society—the fundamental issues that we all accept hold us back as a country. Alcohol misuse, which was debated throughout the previous parliamentary session, will undoubtedly be a subject of debate over the next period. It holds our country back. Members should think of the financial cost alone: £3.5 billion every year, which is £900 for every man and woman in the country. The human toll is greater still.
To Jackie Baillie and others who say that minimum pricing is not the whole answer, I say that that is correct, and that the Government has never said that it is. Our alcohol framework has 40 different initiatives that are designed to tackle the issue. However, minimum pricing is part of the solution.
The relationship between price and consumption and between consumption and harm is beyond any doubt. We must tackle pricing. During the previous parliamentary session, the Opposition parties opposed minimum pricing but failed to come up with any credible alternative to tackling the price of alcohol.
We absolutely accept that pricing is part of the answer—I am sure the cabinet secretary agrees. However, across the parties, we brought an alternative suggestion to her that she rejected. I would be happy to remind her of the detail.
Will the proposed bill simply be a minimum unit pricing bill or will it be an alcohol bill that will afford the Parliament another welcome opportunity to put in place additional measures to tackle alcohol abuse?
The so-called alternative proposals that were made during the previous parliamentary session amounted to nothing more than asking a Tory Government in Westminster to take action. That Tory Government’s very first move on alcohol was to cancel a planned increase in the duty on cider. That was the sum total of Labour’s alternatives.
On the scope of the bill, which we will introduce in due course, it is worth reminding Labour members that, when we debated the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill, they had the opportunity to make other credible proposals and failed to do so. I will continue to talk to people across the spectrum—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I want to make some progress just now, but I might come back to the member later.
I will continue to talk to people across the spectrum about how we can tackle the problem better. However, let us not shy away from what lies at its centre: the relationship with price. On that point, I welcome Liberal Democrat members’ change of position—I applaud them for that. I also put on the record my welcome for Jackson Carlaw’s support for minimum pricing, which he expressed during today’s debate. The fact is that the debate is moving on in the direction of those who know that, although the measure is controversial and not something that has been done elsewhere, we need to do it because the potential prize is worth having.
On a positive note, the cabinet secretary knows that the Parliament has already made the decision to have a social responsibility levy. When will that be enacted to allow local authorities the funding to support families that are suffering from alcohol abuse?
We have that power, but we also agreed that we need to consult properly to get it right. We will continue to do that and we will make our proposals in due course.
I want to move on because, believe it or not, my 20 minutes have flown past and we are almost at the end.
I move on to the future of our country. The fourth key pillar of the Government’s programme is independence: making the case for independence and, as the First Minister said yesterday, persuading the current generation of Scots to be the independence generation—or, for those of us who like our technology, the i-generation.
I have been really amused to hear the Opposition parties criticising us for not including a referendum bill in the programme for government. I have been imagining their reaction if we had done that. What would the cry have been then? That we were breaking our promise to have it in the second half of the parliamentary session. It is also worth my reminding the Opposition parties that the only reason why we did not have a referendum during the previous parliamentary session—the only reason why the referendum has not already happened—is that they blocked the democratic right of the people of Scotland to choose. We will take no lectures from the Opposition. The referendum will happen during the second half of the current parliamentary session. We will make the case and we will win the case because the tide of public opinion is running our way.
In the meantime, we will continue to argue for more effective powers for this Parliament of ours. We will not argue for those powers for their own sake but so that we, as a Government, a Parliament and a country, can do our job more effectively. More powers over the economy and independence are not abstract concepts. They are about jobs, opportunity, prosperity and the security of our country. That is the essence of the case for independence. What lies at the heart of the case for independence is a more prosperous Scotland for us all. That is why the SNP will be proud to continue to make that case and proud when we win that independence referendum.