Scottish Executive's Programme
The next item of business is a statement by the First Minister on the Scottish Executive's programme. There will be no interventions during the statement, as there will be an opportunity for members to raise points in the ensuing debate. I understand that the First Minister has undertaken to respond to those points.
I blush for appearing at yet another occasion.
With permission, Sir David, I propose to make a statement on the Executive's programme, with particular reference to our legislative intentions over the next parliamentary year.
Before setting out our plans, I want to pay tribute to members of the Parliament for their consideration of our legislative proposals over the past year. Throughout the year, the Parliament and Executive have worked together in the spirit that was envisaged by the devolution legislation. In the case of every one of our bills introduced since last October, the Parliament—both in plenary and in subject committees—has approached very constructively the task of examining the policy development process and the contents of our measures. I hope and expect that the harmonious working relationships that have been established will continue over the coming year.
I am particularly grateful to my colleagues in the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups who have played a very full and constructive part in the policy-making process. The partnership, no doubt to the disappointment of some, has shown admirable staying power, and long may it continue.
Our programme of legislation reflects what we believe and what we are seeking to do for Scotland. We want to promote social justice; improve people's lives; build for the future; foster a competitive, wealth-generating economy; and deliver modern, cost-effective public services. Those purposes reflect the political priorities and objectives of the Executive. They run right through our programme for government—on which we shall make a further statement in October—our approach to legislation, and our expenditure priorities.
On spending, there will be a dramatic increase over the next three years, taking the total in real terms well beyond the highest level ever recorded in Scotland. We plan increases of over £1 billion, £2 billion and £3 billion in the next three years, which will enable us to support people in the whole community and improve the social conditions of all. We will ensure that public spending is more closely attuned to policy objectives and less to departmental boundaries. For example, Scotland's elderly will benefit from that with a package amounting to much more than £100 million over the next three years and from the provision of extra help on keeping warm at home, concessionary fares and long-term care, which Malcolm Chisholm talked about.
Next week's spending statement will provide the means to deliver the difference we want to make in Scotland. We need to ensure that that money is used effectively on health, education, crime prevention and all the other key services that the Administration provides. By making that difference, we will improve the lives of all Scots—children, working families, pensioners and particularly those who most need our help.
The spending announcements and the legislative programme reinforce each other. The legislation programme that I am announcing today is essential if we are to deliver the difference and make Scotland a more effective and caring society.
In June last year, I announced a programme of eight bills and we subsequently brought forward a further seven proposals. We have made significant progress in the area of social justice, in improving people's lives with the passing of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, the Education and Training (Scotland) Act 2000, and the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.
The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 and the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 were both long-overdue reforms. We have also introduced the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which is tackling problems that others have ducked, in a policy area where opportunism has been all too common.
Our main proposals for land reform legislation have been delayed for the best of reasons. We are now including the crofting community right to buy. Making new law in that area is especially complex and we must get it right; it will be introduced in this parliamentary session.
On modernising public services, the Parliament and the Executive, working together, have made significant advances with the passage of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Ethical Standards in Public Life (Scotland) Act 2000.
To date, the Parliament has passed no fewer than 12 Executive bills. In the jostle of the Westminster legislative queue, the Scottish Office counted the securing of two or three significant bills as a success. What has been achieved is quite remarkable, and is concrete evidence of the benefits of devolution to the people of Scotland.
In the coming year, our intention is to introduce nine bills. We shall introduce our housing bill before the end of this calendar year, as Wendy Alexander explained a few moments ago. That bill will form the basis for the most radical restructuring of the social housing sector in Scotland in a generation. It will provide a coherent framework for tackling Scotland's most pressing housing needs.
We aim to boost tenants' rights and to ensure that their homes are of a high standard. Scotland will have a common social tenancy and a modernised right to buy. The scourge of homelessness will be tackled by strengthening local authorities' duties towards homeless people. Scottish Homes will be converted from a non-departmental public body into an executive agency working with local authorities, housing associations and other providers to improve housing conditions in Scotland.
We are continuing to examine how our proposals can be further improved, particularly in tackling fuel poverty. The housing bill will provide the guarantee that tenants seek as they look to the future. Through the community ownership initiative, tenants will have the opportunity to vote for massive additional investment. Their rights will be protected and a strong regulator, accountable to the Parliament, will protect their interests. Community ownership will draw in private finance, allowing public funds to be targeted towards improving the heating and the fabric of Scotland's most deprived homes. The bill will mean not just warm words but warm homes. It will improve people's lives, build for the future and promote social justice.
We will introduce a bill on the regulation of care that will be aimed at strengthening the protection of children and vulnerable adults. It will establish two new national bodies: the Scottish commission for the regulation of care and the Scottish social services council. The commission will register care services and make regular independent inspections. For the first time, there will be registration and inspection of care services, including those that are delivered in people's homes. Children's services will also be covered. The council will regulate the social services work force and co-ordinate the education and training of social services workers.
Most of us have friends or relatives who will need care services at some time in their lives. Indeed, most of us will be in that position at some stage. The effect of changes made through the bill will be to make people more confident that care is of an assured quality and is being provided by people who are properly trained. This major bill will also address the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly relating to quality of care. In the coming weeks, Susan Deacon will present to the Parliament a more detailed response to the commission's report.
Our guiding principle will be to deliver the maximum possible benefit for the maximum number of people from the resources that we have available. The test to be met is that public funds must improve the standard of care for the oldest and frailest members of our society and must benefit as wide a range of people as possible. We will target particular effort and resources to those in greatest need. Too many older people and their carers are let down by current systems of health and social care. We are determined to address that, through investment, policy and legislation. As a society, we must recognise the challenges of an aging population and the work that must be done to ensure cost-effective, high-quality health and social care for all the older people of Scotland.
We will introduce a bill to provide for the payment of a graduate endowment by Scottish and European Union students who have completed a degree course or who have graduated, having studied at a Scottish college or university. The graduate endowment scheme will recognise the benefits that graduates have gained by studying in Scotland, and will help to support the students who come after them.
The bill will also ensure that students who study by distance learning will no longer be excluded from receiving financial support from the Executive. The new system will provide improved support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and will encourage their entry into higher education. When fully implemented, the scheme will put an additional £50 million a year into student support. That is real proof of our commitments to widening access to higher education and to improving Scotland's skills base.
Our commitment to social justice also underpins our intention to introduce an evidence (sexual offences) bill. As the Deputy First Minister has explained, we are committed to preventing the accused from cross-examining the victim in person in sex offence cases. We also intend for that bill to strengthen the current restrictions on cross-examination on sexual history and character.
We will introduce a water services bill, which will provide a new legislative framework to safeguard public health, protect the environment and provide accessible and affordable water services. The bill will also ensure that competition works in the interest of all customers. The framework will establish a regime to license new entrants to the market in the interests of quality of service. The framework will also ensure that new entrants pay a fair share of the cost of maintaining public networks. I am firmly committed to a publicly owned Scottish water industry, owned by authorities that remain accountable to ministers and to the Parliament.
There will be a bill to deal with the need to strengthen rights that have been brought to the fore by the incorporation into Scots law of the European convention on human rights. The bill will cover matters of substance, focusing on adult mandatory life prisoners, security of tenure for Parole Board for Scotland members and legal aid. It is essential that we deal with the challenges that have emerged, and it is our intention for that bill to be introduced later this autumn.
The Executive's programme will also include an international criminal court bill, reflecting the joint responsibility of the Executive and the Parliament for observing and implementing the United Kingdom's international obligations in so far as they relate to devolved matters. The purpose of the bill will be to give effect in Scotland to the UK's obligations under the relevant international treaty, and to enable the UK to become one of the founder members of the new international criminal court, to be based at the Hague. The UK has taken the lead in calling for the establishment of a permanent international court to deal with persons who have been accused of international offences such as war crimes, torture and genocide. The bill will enable us to play our part in making the international court a reality.
We will introduce a salmon conservation bill, which will deal with concerns about declining salmon stocks by broadening the range of measures to conserve salmon.
The bill will also allow district salmon fishery boards to apply to the relevant minister for regulations that are designed to enhance conservation. [Interruption.] Members should be under no misapprehensions about my intentions in this matter—or about the title of the bill. I am very fond of retired people, but I make some exceptions. [Laughter.] The salmon conservation bill will also permit ministers to introduce area-specific or Scotland-wide measures, when that is necessary.
Finally, we will introduce our annual budget bill. A requirement for additional bills may arise, for example from the important negotiations on the findings of the McCrone report on teachers' pay and conditions, or to provide further measures to protect the public from sex offenders. We also have a real interest in several members' bills that the Executive would be happy to have on the statute book. I can promise that 2001-02 will be a busy year.
I underline the fact that we remain committed to introducing a freedom of information bill. That bill will provide the public with an important new legal right of access to information that is held by Scottish public bodies and will establish an independent information commissioner to protect and enforce the regime. We are developing the legislation in an open and inclusive way, and were encouraged by the generally supportive response to our consultation document "An Open Scotland". The next step will be the publication of a draft bill, around the turn of this year, which will be subject to full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. We will consider the results of that carefully, but we aim to introduce the bill as soon as possible, later in 2001. Freedom of information requires important legislation, and we remain committed to delivering the distinctive freedom of information regime that Scotland deserves.
I have set out an ambitious programme of legislation for the Executive in our second year. I have no doubt that it will expand with circumstance, and many ambitions will favour that expansion. However, I have announced a substantial, relevant and coherent package, which sits well with our long-term intentions. I have presented the programme to Parliament with confidence, given what we achieved in our first year. In our second year, the Parliament and the Executive will once more work together for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
This programme, like its predecessor, will help to improve people's lives, build for the future, improve Scotland's competitiveness and get the best value from increased public expenditure. It underlines the Executive's determination to work for social justice in Scotland. I commend the programme to the chamber, and to the country.
I welcome the salmon conservation bill and assure the First Minister that I will be right behind him, on that high ideal, as the bill progresses through the Parliament.
There are several bills that I will support. The evidence (sexual offences) bill will deal with an important issue that the Parliament needs to address; the international criminal court bill is also laudable; and the regulation of care bill is important too. Those bills will, no doubt, be subject to detailed amendment, but will perhaps not enjoy great political controversy. With the exception of the housing bill, which will be deeply contested, it would not be possible to agree with the First Minister's description of the legislative programme as ambitious.
I am able to say which of the bills I would support because I received a list of the proposed bills before I received a copy of the First Minister's statement. When I asked the people in our research department how they managed to produce that list and get every single bill right, they told me that the list was in The Scotsman of 17 August. That leak was subsequently denied by Labour sources, but every part of it has been confirmed by the First Minister's statement today.
The Scotsman said that the programme
"will come as a major disappointment to those who had hoped for a reforming administration."
Even now, The Scotsman is not a newspaper that is right behind the First Minister. It went on to quote Labour sources who called the programme lacking in "ambition", "deeply disappointing" and "unimaginative".
If the First Minister looks with fairness at the legislative programme, and indeed last year's, he will come to the conclusion that while it includes important and worthy measures and things that need doing—and many things that the SNP will support—it does not exactly grapple with the towering heights of the Scottish economy or social life.
Last year's programme was described, rightly, as the Groundhog programme because—as we demonstrated—it repeated announcements not just from Labour in the Scottish Office, but from Michael Forsyth's health service and building programme.
This year's legislative programme might be described as coming from the "Big Brother" Executive. Members will be familiar with "Big Brother", which is so popular on Channel 4 at the moment. It shows a group of people who are locked away from reality and are out of touch, who spend their time bickering among themselves and have a Big Brother who tells them what they can and cannot do. However, there is a fundamental difference between the TV programme and the Labour-Liberal Executive—every week, somebody is evicted from the "Big Brother" house. As yet, the Minister for Children and Education has not been evicted.
The First Minister gave the game away when he began his statement on the legislative programme by talking not about its content, but about next week's spending announcements. He spent the first part of his statement not on today's business, but on next week's business in education and health. Those are the towering heights of the Scottish economy and social life.
Significantly, in that articulation, the First Minister made no reference to the £23 million cuts to the education service in Scotland this year, which have been felt particularly in Aberdeenshire, where children in my constituency are being decanted from school buses because of spending cuts that the council blames on Jack McConnell and that Donald Dewar blames on the council. There was no reference to that in the First Minister's statement. Nor was there a reference to the catastrophe in Scottish education that has been presided over by the man who should be evicted from the First Minister's Big Brother house.
The First Minister mentioned health and what would be done—
Will the member give way?
There was no mention of the waiting lists, which rose from 75,000 to 86,000 between June 1999 and June 2000. Of course I will give way on the subject of waiting lists in the national health service.
It is rather a novelty for Alex Salmond to take an intervention from a back bencher—perhaps he could have the respect to allow the back bencher to decide the subject on which she will intervene.
Alex Salmond raised the idea of people being evicted. What are we supposed to make of someone who walks away voluntarily from his position as Opposition leader because he is no longer able to control his party?
In July, in common with the Deputy First Minister, I went down to Westminster for the final few weeks before the recess. I had a good look at the Prime Minister's demeanour and noted the change that has come over him. I came to the conclusion that Tony Blair will not last 10 years as the leader of the Labour Party if he goes on the way he is doing.
It is a pity that Labour members, when asked to comment on the NHS, do not want to comment on what was wont to be one of their profound ambitions, and do not want to comment on the fact that patients with cancer who require radiotherapy should wait a maximum of two weeks for the start of their treatment—
Will the member give way?
I think that we should talk first about the patients with cancer, then take the intervention. Patients who require radiotherapy should wait a maximum of two weeks for the start of their treatment, but the Scottish average is six weeks and some people wait as long as six months. Perhaps the minister, in his intervention, would like to defend that situation in the NHS in Scotland.
The minister would like to mention that the difference between Mr Blair and Mr Salmond is that Mr Blair can at least be elected to leadership to take decisions, unlike Mr Salmond, who has walked away. If Mr Salmond can say in Parliament that one of the flagship bills—the housing bill, which will radically transform opportunities in housing and opportunities for investment for the people of Scotland—is meaningless, he does not deserve the support of the people of Scotland.
The minister should check the record: I exempted the housing bill, and said that it would be politically controversial—
Why?
Because of the right to buy. I am sure that, in the intense debate that the minister is having with tenants around Scotland, she has realised that her bill will be controversial.
Mr McAveety did not want to speak about the NHS. Is he defending a situation in which we have those waiting times and waiting lists? Is he defending a situation in which the Minister for Health and Community Care underspent last year because the Minister for Finance was moving money into forestry and other things?
The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is leaving his place, but I see that he is now coming back. In supporting the earlier rant from his minister, the First Minister said that we should be celebrating the unemployment position in Scotland. Should we be celebrating the real unemployment figures—the figures from the International Labour Organisation that Labour in Opposition used to use? There are 170,000 people unemployed in Scotland. That represents a rate of 6.7 per cent, in contrast to Austria, which has 3.2 per cent—
Austria?
Denmark has 4.8 per cent, Ireland has 4.5 per cent, the Netherlands has 2.6 per cent, Portugal has 4.3 per cent, and Sweden has 5.6 per cent. I heard the First Minister gasp, "Austria" as if that was a strange international example to choose. Those are all small independent countries in Europe with low unemployment rates.
The First Minister's legislative programme is lacking in ambition. It does not tackle the key issues in the Scottish economy and in Scottish social life. The First Minister's legislative programme does not explain why, in Donald Dewar's Scotland, children cannot get their examination results, their parents cannot get petrol on the forecourts, and their grandparents have to sell their homes to pay for long-term care.
Let us have an explanation of the legislative programme. It does not explain why the largest oil producer in Europe has the highest petrol prices. It does not explain why the minister who presided over the greatest disaster in Scottish education in living memory still retains his place in the First Minister's Cabinet. It does not explain why the First Minister allowed a chief of staff to tell fibs—to put it mildly—about death threats to the Minister for Health and Community Care and then took time to remove him. It does not explain why 47,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland have been lost since Labour took power, and it does not propose any action to deal with that.
Pathetic.
It is pathetic that manufacturing employment in Scotland is below 300,000 for the first time since the industrial revolution.
Did Alex Salmond read this month's Bank of Scotland economic report, which said that manufacturing output was up for the 22nd month in succession and that the pace of that rise was increasing? It also reported an increase in manufacturing employment. Mr Salmond really must not go in for selective quoting. Anyone who looks round this city and round Scotland will see that we are going through a strong economic phase. I do not believe that that can possibly be described as a partisan interpretation.
Rather than spending his time reading the Bank of Scotland's economic summary, perhaps the First Minister should examine the gross domestic product statistics that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—who has conveniently left the chamber—is unable to explain. The minister is unable to explain why a decline in GDP over two successive quarters does not constitute an official recession. After the earlier rant, we heard a quiet explanation: the Government had avoided a recession by rounding down the first set of figures.
The First Minister should consider the reality, rather than the spin: the Scottish economy is suffering a manufacturing recession. He should recognise the fact that Scottish agriculture is suffering a recession. Why does the First Minister think that key fuel-dependent industries have been protesting over the past two weeks? Does he think that they are imagining the threat to their industries and jobs? Has not he made representations to the Prime Minister, telling him that Scottish manufacturing, exporters and key Scottish industries are suffering from an overvalued pound? Does not the First Minister recognise the reality of the Scottish economy, as opposed to what is regurgitated in the statements of the spin doctors?
As always, it is very interesting to listen to Mr Salmond. Will he tell us what legislative programme he would come up with if he were to remain as leader of the Opposition? What legislation would he propose? All this stuff about budgets and funding is more suitable for the debate on the comprehensive spending review to be held next week. He seems to have confused his speeches.
It was the First Minister who started talking about next week's debate. However, budgets and funding are at the heart of what I am saying and are the reason why the Government's programme is so unimaginative and limited in its scope and intent. It may come as a surprise to Richard Simpson that part of our argument is that the two legislative programmes have been unimaginative and have not transformed Scotland not just because of the problems of the First Minister and his deputy, those of holding the Executive together, or the limitations of the ministers, but the limitations of the Parliament's power to command the heights of the Scottish economy.
I will not dwell on the disasters that have befallen the Scottish Executive in the past year. [Interruption.]
Order.
I see that the Minister for Rural Affairs is deep in contemplation. I hope that, in the coming year, when the UK Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is about to license or approve trials of genetically modified crops in Scotland, he will he have the decency to inform the minister who is responsible for agriculture in Scotland.
Even if we do not immediately get the powers that the Parliament needs, I hope that when an issue such as the Mike Tyson fight comes up, we will have an Executive with the ability to articulate Scotland's concerns to Westminster. I want an Executive and a Parliament that, when they are lobbied by pensioners such as the group that visited us this afternoon, do not have just the ability to offer a concession on warm homes—welcome as that is—but are able to meet their concerns about long-term care and the basic pension. I want a Parliament and an Executive that can legislate on the Scottish economy and Scottish social life and can command the fiscal decisions to get the Scottish economy moving. I want an Executive that does not have to fiddle the Scottish GDP figures, because, as in the other small countries in Europe, Scottish gross domestic product will be moving ahead. I want an Executive and a Parliament that are grown up enough to realise that only through independence in Europe shall we realise the hopes of the Scottish people.
In setting out the Executive's programme for the coming year, the First Minister has clearly attempted to draw a line under the failures that have characterised the Administration since its inception. Political relaunch is invariably a sign of failure and of an Administration in trouble—words such as "Titanic", "deckchairs" and "rearrange" come to mind.
The failures are well documented. In its first year, the Executive failed to address the issues that matter to the people of Scotland, such as health, education and law and order. Instead, it was perceived to be concentrating excessively on fringe issues, such as the repeal of section 2A, on which it was badly out of touch with public opinion. Perversely, in year 1 of operation, the Executive seemed determined to reinforce the commonly held public perception that politicians are more interested in themselves than in the interests of ordinary people.
We continue to protest about the number of ministers in Scotland, who are enjoying the perks and privileges and salaries of office—four times the number that was required to run this country efficiently for 18 years under the Conservative Government. We continue to protest at the absurd prioritisation—and in this coming year we will continue to protest about the excessive cost—of the Holyrood project, that monument to the ego of politicians, which is running at five times what Donald Dewar promised when he signed off the devolution white paper in September 1997.
Let us have something new.
There is plenty new to talk about. Dr Simpson will be needing his surgery after this.
The failure to address the real issues stems from a far deeper problem. The Executive has no coherent philosophy on which to base its programme for reform of our public services. Instead, there is a Blairite obsession with strategies, action plans, holistic approaches, performance indicators, benchmarking and all the rest of the techno-psychobabble that is such a feature of new Labour.
Even judged by its own criteria, the Executive is failing to meet its targets—targets that encourage the trend towards administrative centralisation, which is proving to be so damaging to our health and education services. Ministers are taking more and more powers to themselves to try to meet those targets, knowing that they will be blamed if they fail to do so. It is a vicious circle that is entirely of the Executive's own making. It ignores the fact that our public services are crying out for greater devolution of power from politicians and the centre to individuals, families and communities.
We need to strike the right balance between the responsibilities of Government and the institutions that make up our society. I do not see the Executive striking that balance.
When the Executive comes forward with policies that are in line with that approach, it will have our support, as it has done previously in the Parliament. However, there is no sign that there is a change in that direction, although I am sure that Ms Wendy Alexander is about to tell me otherwise.
In line with empowering local communities, I take it that we can look forward to Conservative party support for the power of community initiative, which enables local authorities in Scotland to lead community planning in their communities.
Yes, I am sure that the minister will have our support, as she will for many aspects of her housing bill, because she is simply adopting and extending ideas that we pioneered in government and that we are delighted to continue to support. On the issue that she mentions, she will have our full-hearted support.
We have seen in the health service that the attempt to meet centralised targets—in particular the discredited Labour manifesto pledges on waiting lists—has led to greater centralisation and to Susan Deacon adopting a dictatorial approach to the NHS in an attempt to achieve her ends. That has done untold damage to our health service. We have ended up with the ironic situation—as the First Minister was good enough to confirm at question time today—that waiting lists in Scotland are higher today than they were in 1997.
First, will Mr McLetchie acknowledge that the promise was given in 1997 on the basis of what we would achieve by the time of the next general election? Despite his best wishes, or perhaps his worst fears, we are not yet at the next general election. Secondly, will he acknowledge that Scotland, of all the regions of the United Kingdom, has the most patients treated in the quickest time, and that it exceeds other areas by a substantial margin? Improvements to waiting times are what his party has been demanding ever since the election, and that is being achieved.
The member raises a point that I answered in discussions earlier today with the First Minister. Labour set the targets and is failing to meet them. It was Labour's choice, not ours. We made the very point that Dr Simpson is making to me. Labour has a few months left in which to realise those targets. We will be watching very closely when—or if—it does. At the next question time, we could ask Ms Deacon for a guarantee that those targets will be met by election day. It will be interesting to hear the answer. Perhaps Mr Simpson might like to ask that question.
As well as failing to understand the need for greater devolution of power, the Executive has, I would submit, failed in the roles that Government—and only Government—can perform. The primary task of Government in that respect is to uphold the rule of law. I submit that the Executive is unwilling to take the measures that we believe are necessary to tackle the rising crime rate. There are fewer police officers on our streets. Four prisons have been closed and more dangerous criminals are being released early from prison at a time when Mr Wallace meekly presides over an initial 10 per cent cut in his justice department's budget.
I am disappointed that there is nothing in the legislative programme about restoring honesty in sentencing. There is nothing about extending the use of mandatory sentences for repeat serious offenders.
If Mr McLetchie reads the newspapers, he will know that a week last Friday the Prime Minister and I attended the end of the first week of training of the biggest intake of recruits to Strathclyde police in a generation—80 in one month. The chief constable was able to report not only falling crime rates in Strathclyde but rising detection rates. That is a somewhat different story from the lurid one that Mr McLetchie tries to paint.
That is one part of Scotland where I am delighted that progress is being made. However, Mr Wallace should not fall into the trap that Mr Straw did. He should consider the overall balance of the establishment of police forces. Before he starts crowing about the number of recruits, he must consider the number of retirees. I hope that he is not guilty of Mr Straw's dissembling on that aspect of police numbers.
The exams fiasco has left the reputation of the Scottish education system in tatters. Even the First Minister is honest enough to admit on television that it has been a disaster. We all wonder why the minister responsible remains in office—he is out of the chamber but regrettably not yet out of office. We wonder why that removal, which is so necessary to restoring public confidence in our system, has not yet taken place.
It sometimes seems to me that Mr Dewar is not so much the First Minister of Scotland as its head waiter. We are all waiting for correct exam results, waiting longer for operations in our hospitals, waiting for crime rates to fall and waiting for a fair deal for our motorists and hauliers. I will give the head waiter for Scotland a tip that he does not deserve: the longer people wait, the more frustrated they become. The day of reckoning for new Labour in Scotland is nigh.
I turn to some of the specifics of the legislative programme announced today. As Mr Salmond says, there are elements that all parties in the chamber would probably be happy to support. Among the measures he highlighted were: law of evidence; the international criminal court; salmon conversation—[Laughter.] I meant to say salmon conservation. We have had an awful lot of Salmond conversation, but salmon conservation is equally worthy of support. We support some of those measures.
We accept that much of the work of Government does not require legislation but is about the exercise of powers that the Executive has already been granted. For many businesses and employers, the absence of legislation is welcome. They are already struggling to cope with the burden of regulation and red tape that has been heaped on them since 1997 by the Labour Governments here and at Westminster.
I was intrigued by a reference near the close of the First Minister's statement. He said that he had
"a real interest in several members' bills that the Executive would be happy to have on the statute book."
I hope that the First Minister is not in the least bit happy to see on the statute book Lord Watson's Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps when the Deputy First Minister sums up, he will kindly confirm for the benefit of the Parliament that the Executive will not move the financial resolution that that bill in its present form apparently requires. We need to know the Executive's position on the bill. I have put that matter several times to Mr McConnell, the Minister for Finance, but it has been ducked.
As I said in response to Ms Alexander's intervention, there is much in the housing bill that we support and welcome. I hope that, in line with my suggested theme for the Administration, the Executive will devolve power to more community-based housing associations, rather than having the single, monolithic Glasgow city-wide association that appears to be in favour with current ministerial thinking.
Before the First Minister made his statement, there was a lot of media briefing about both that statement and other announcements that he would be making, particularly in relation to extra help for the elderly. Of course, those announcements are happily designed on his part to try to compensate for the embarrassment from which Labour is suffering in relation to the pension increases that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced earlier this year.
Although some of Mr Dewar's proposals on the elderly are worthy, it is fair to say that he continues to duck the central question on the Sutherland report. We have been happy to commit ourselves to implementing the key Sutherland report recommendation on making all personal care free, from a unified health and social services budget, for people who require long-term care. I believe that all members would fairly acknowledge that such a step would end the major fear facing many elderly people that they will be unable to meet the costs of their long-term care without depleting virtually all the savings that they have built up over a lifetime of work and of paying their dues and taxes.
Mr Dewar and the Scottish Executive may think that it is appropriate to improve access to information technology for older people. However, when it comes to political priorities, the grannies of Scotland would far prefer a Sutherland safety net to surfing the net. That kind of perverse and distorted priority makes the Executive deserve condemnation for its failure to be more forthright about what it is going to do about Sutherland.
I have two questions for Mr McLetchie. First, how much would his proposal cost and from where, in his version of the Scottish budget, would the money come? Secondly, in order to unify the health and social services budgets, would he take the responsibility of social services from councils or the responsibility of health from health boards?
Mr McLetchie, you must wind up now.
Oh. I have taken lots of interventions, Presiding Officer.
The estimated cost of the implementation of the Sutherland recommendations for Scotland is approximately £110 million, which, I understand, is about a tenth of the total £1 billion costing. As Mr McConnell knows, the additional funding announced in the budget in March, to which we are committed, is £173 million. I am quite happy to say that, for us, the implementation of Sutherland is a higher priority for that kind of spending than the First Minister's priority of the internet for grannies. We will give members more details on our proposals when we come to the debate on spending.
We will oppose, with all due vigour, the graduate endowment bill. The phrase "graduate endowment" is made up of typical new Labour weasel words. It is not an endowment; it is a graduate tax, which will hit home for every student when they start to earn the modest salary of £10,000, although that amount is not much more than the minimum wage. If that bill is enacted, as, sadly, I suspect it will be—
Please come to a close, Mr McLetchie.
The bill will stand as a fitting memorial to the duplicity and double-dealing of the Liberal Democrats, who betrayed the young people of Scotland in the aftermath of the election.
In obedience to your admonitions to conclude, Presiding Officer, I shall simply say that the Executive's programme and record fail on the fundamentals and on the key issues and concerns of people in Scotland. For that it deserves no welcome in this Parliament.
I have listened with interest to the diatribes that we have heard from the leaders of the two Opposition parties. I noted that it took Mr McLetchie some nine minutes to get round to mentioning the legislative programme and I am not entirely sure that Mr Salmond ever got there at all.
The actions of Government and Parliament comprise not just legislation, but administrative acts and financial provisions. We will be debating the financial aspects next week, which I hope will bring some new material to bear on the matter.
The Liberal Democrats are delighted to welcome the statement by the Scottish Executive on the next legislative programme. It is—not least with regard to the graduate endowment bill—the centrepiece of the further fulfilment of the partnership agreement between the Liberal Democrats and Labour. More important, it represents the further delivery by this Parliament of the reforms needed to bring Scotland up to date and to meet the hopes of the multitude of people who put faith in us to make this Parliament an instrument of the social changes that so many of us came into politics to bring about.
Will Mr Brown give way?
I would like to get started, if Stewart Ewing will allow me to.
Echoing Donald Dewar's earlier comments, I make a plea to the Executive to take these bills through Parliament in partnership with the Parliament and its committees, and in a way that allows the growing experience of MSPs and the wealth of expertise from civic Scotland to be reflected in the final version of the legislation.
As a Liberal Democrat, I am particularly glad to commend the graduate endowment bill to Parliament. Seldom in the annals of political controversy can so much venom have been heaped on any politician or political party as has come from the leaders of the Conservative and SNP groups and their various followers in the direction of Jim Wallace and the Liberal Democrats on the subject of tuition fees and graduate support. The experience tested the political skills of our coalition parties and strengthened the partnership. The way in which it was resolved was a textbook case for the Parliament.
Will Mr Brown take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
An expert committee was appointed and produced an excellent report, and the partnership parties produced a set of solutions that, quite frankly, are better than those that either of them put forward at the election—they are certainly far better than anything that either of the Opposition parties proposed. Across Scotland at this very moment, thousands of students are registering for the new university and college sessions, free of the incubus that is tuition fees. The package is increasingly recognised as one of the best student support packages in Europe. In the coming year, we shall legislate on the part of the proposals that reinstates student grants.
Although I am grateful to Robert Brown for giving way, I should point out to him that my name is Fergus. Stewart Ewing is my father, with whom he served on Glasgow District Council some years ago. Perhaps I am beginning to look older.
As Robert Brown is giving us a non-diatribe, perhaps he could respond to a simple factual question. Are there any bills that the Liberal Democrats proposed for inclusion in this year's programme for government that are not in this year's programme for government?
I am not sure that I quite follow the question. Double negatives seemed to predominate.
I shall rephrase the question. Have the Liberals put forward to their coalition partners in the Labour party any bills that they feel should be included in this year's programme for government that have not been accepted by the Labour party for inclusion in the programme?
I shall come to that later in my speech, if I may. I have one or two things to say about inclusions and exceptions from the programme.
Answer the question.
I have said that I will come to Fergus Ewing's point later. Perhaps I might be allowed to continue.
I do not want to go into detail, but I want to mention the liberal reforms that are being made in relation to compliance with the European convention on human rights, the international criminal court and preparations for the important issue of freedom of information. I hope that the consultation process on the Scottish human rights commission will be followed by legislation next year to set up a body fairly urgently. The bills on regulation of care, sexual offence evidence, water and salmon are all important measures. I commend and welcome, in particular, the continued commitment to the retention of water in public ownership.
There are one or two things on which the Liberal Democrats have a frisson of difference of emphasis. The housing bill is only one component of the Executive's housing strategy, which also comprises a growing range of financial and administrative measures, such as the homelessness task force reports, the various rough sleepers initiatives and the programme of major investment and community empowerment represented by stock transfer. The housing bill is a significant measure, which sets out the strategic and monitoring framework and improves the arrangements for dealing with homelessness and implementing the single social tenancy.
The proposals on extending the right to buy are much improved on the original suggestion, but it is a great pity that so much time and energy had to be spent improving a concept that met pretty general hostility from housing professionals and that many of us thought a distraction from the real housing issues. It is right to pay tribute to the Minister for Communities and the ministerial team for listening and responding to such concerns. To put it neutrally, we await the detailed terms of the bill with interest.
The housing bill should lead to a step change in community empowerment. Many communities, not least in Glasgow, will have real control of decisions and investment in their area, building on the pioneering work of the community-based housing associations, which have done so much to change perceptions of the potential of social housing.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
I hope that in the stock transfer debate to be held shortly, the SNP will come off the fence about where it stands on the issue and give support to this major move towards investment in Scotland's housing stock.
Will the member give way?
With respect to Fiona Hyslop, I do not have too much time.
I want to tackle the issue of future maintenance of tenement stock, particularly where there is mixed tenure. I have a significant worry, which I will share with the chamber. I am concerned that that means-testing of improvement and repair grants, further fragmentation of ownership through the right to buy and the lack of a compulsory sinking fund for major repairs such as roof and rough-casting renovations will lead to the frustration of proper maintenance. I urge the minister to examine that area urgently and if possible to include at least interim measures in the bill. If not, we will face the need for massive investment along the lines of that required in red sandstone tenements in the 1970s.
On local government, the housing bill rightly gives councils a potentially key strategic role in the housing plan, housing investment and, in particular, homelessness. However, I wonder whether the First Minister accepts the strength of feeling on Liberal Democrat benches about the need for wider reform of local government, including a fundamental review of the basis of local government finance and the electoral system for councils.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, does Robert Brown share the concern that I felt when the Minister for Communities said in her local government statement in June that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had decided that it would much prefer a housing bill in next year's proposals to a local government electoral reform bill? Does he agree that it would be helpful if local government electoral reform were pushed forward and that we should not use the excuse of the housing bill to delay electoral reform for local government?
There is no question of the one delaying the other. In my view, the two are linked. Once we have strategic reform, giving councils powers over housing, we must have properly elected councils that can be properly accountable to the electorate. It is no secret that that is the Liberal Democrat view. One of the important aspects of the Liberal Democrats' participation in the partnership is that there will be progress on that matter.
I suggest to colleagues in the Administration that, although Wendy Alexander would not commit herself in answer to Ian Jenkins's questions about dates, which might be fair given the differences to be resolved, it is surely possible for the Executive to say whether there will be legislation this year or next to implement the outcome of the Cabinet committee discussions. That is an important matter about which Liberal Democrat members feel strongly.
As the First Minister said, this is an ambitious and worthwhile programme of legislation. Its passage will make a real difference in many areas, and I am prepared on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group to commend it warmly to Parliament. I would like to think that in the rest of the debate there will be no more attempts to raise non-legislative issues and that we will have a real debate on what is included in the programme, on the issues that should be included but are not and on the points of detail about which members have concerns, so that the Executive—which, as I have said, is a listening Executive—can take those concerns on board. There are many things for this Parliament to do and we should not waste time on set-piece speeches that go off on tracks and have nothing to do with the subject of this debate, whatever the merits of the arguments.
We now move to the open part of the debate. I call Malcolm Chisholm.
I do not want to spend the second day in a row deconstructing a speech by the leader of the Opposition, but I must say how disappointed I am that Alex Salmond neither addressed the legislative programme in detail nor suggested any other legislation that the SNP would introduce. He is perfectly entitled to make general points about the constitution, but even in an independent Scotland we would need bills on education, health, housing and justice. We still know nothing about what the SNP has in mind in those areas.
In the Government's programme, I heard no reference to specific help for people on low incomes and pensioners in respect of the unrebated and extortionately high water charges. Would the member support such help if it were part of an SNP Government programme?
At this stage I do not know the contents of the water services bill, but I heard the First Minister say something about pensioners. Before discussing the bills individually, I was going to say that I was very encouraged by the beginning of the First Minister's speech because he mentioned social justice as the first of his several priorities and because he flagged up £100 million for pensioners. Fergus Ewing may not have been listening, but that included action on warm homes. The First Minister also said that the Executive is now less constrained by departmental boundaries than it has been in the past. A good example of the positive effects of that is the interrelationship between the departments of housing and health.
I was struck by a number of general points: the large number of bills compared with what I was used to at Westminster; the different way in which we will do legislation, of which the annual budget bill is the best example; and the fact that we are taking different policy routes from Westminster. The graduate endowment bill and the freedom of information bill, which proposes a more robust test of harm and a stronger role for the information commissioner than does its Westminster equivalent, are good examples of that.
The flagship bill is, of course, the housing bill, which I welcome. I welcome the bill because it boosts the rights of tenants, strengthens the duties of local authorities towards the homeless and changes Scottish Homes from a non-departmental public body into an Executive agency. That may be the precursor to changes in the status of other bodies.
There will be debate about the specifics of the bill and members will argue for the inclusion of more about private tenants and fuel poverty. I was encouraged by the First Minister's suggestion that the bill will include provisions relating to fuel poverty. In conjunction with the money that has been flagged up, I hope that those provisions will do a great deal to improve the health of people on low incomes. The scandalous fact is that 78 per cent of households with weekly incomes of less than £100 spend more than 10 per cent of their incomes on fuel. That is the definition of fuel poverty.
Will the member give way?
I have about one minute left, but I will give way in a moment if I have time.
I was very encouraged by the announcement of the regulation of care bill. By establishing the Scottish commission for the regulation of care, the Executive will be implementing one of the central recommendations of the Sutherland report.
Will the member give way?
I will give way briefly.
Malcolm Chisholm has raised an important point about fuel poverty. If this Parliament is to do anything, it must tackle fuel poverty. Does he share the deep disappointment that many of us felt when we saw the consultation document, which did not mention tackling fuel poverty? It is essential that, if the Government does not include anything about fuel poverty in that bill, we ensure that the Parliament takes ownership of it and makes fuel poverty a key element of the bill.
I do not have any inside information on that, but I am certainly encouraged by what the First Minister said today. I am confident that there will be significant action on fuel poverty in the next few weeks.
I welcome the evidence (sex offences) bill, which will end the cross-examination of rape victims by the accused. I remind members of the excellent work done by Johann Lamont and others in bringing that about. This is related to the European convention on human rights. I am glad that there is to be a bill. Some of us were concerned that it was being misused in connection with the rape cross-examination issue. We welcome the incorporation of the convention in Scottish law.
Although the programme is extensive, some of us will want to push it a bit further. I would like to see legislation on stalking and harassment, with a new, specific offence of harassment, following the consultation paper that was issued on the matter by Jim Wallace before the summer recess.
A key question for the Executive must be whether this programme will effect positive change in the lives of our citizens. I look forward to the spending statement next week. However, I think that some opportunities are being missed.
I will comment on some of the justice proposals that have been made today. I do not want to confine my comments to the proposals that have been announced because I think that one or two other matters, on which proposals have not been announced, need consideration.
On the proposals, three bills out of eight are on justice, but two of them have to be described as essentially reactive—the international criminal court bill and the ECHR compliance bill. The international criminal court is a welcome development—it is very worthy—but it is unlikely to affect Scots materially in their justice interests. While ECHR compliance may be required in terms of legislation, I see that there is nothing about making other aspects of our justice system compliant. I have in mind a recent Prison Reform Trust document, which suggested that a large number of areas in the prison system throughout the United Kingdom are likely to be challenged under human rights legislation. It is a pity that when we talk about ECHR compliance we are talking about it in narrow legislative terms.
In truth, only the evidence (sexual offences) bill that was announced today can be described as proactive. It is likely to be very welcome. I await the detail, but I cannot imagine that there will be much opposition to it now that the Conservative party leadership has ensured that Brian Monteith and Phil Gallie are quiet.
Will Roseanna Cunningham give way?
I will move on a little, if Johann Lamont does not mind.
The majority of people will be content with that bill and will be happy that it is being proposed. I would like more detail on its extent and how confined it is going to be, because other issues are important in respect of vulnerable witnesses. I wonder whether its title can be changed and its scope extended a little, to examine sex offenders in Scotland. There is no mention of that, but important moves could be made there, including consideration of a proposal that the SNP has long argued for: the imposition of lifetime supervision orders for some very violent and serious sex offenders. I would be interested to hear how narrowly confined that bill will be.
There are huge omissions. The First Minister talked about the freedom of information bill. I have no doubt that the Minister for Justice wants to see that sooner rather than later. A land reform bill was promised last year. It was delayed and I know that a draft bill may finally emerge in February 2001, but I do not understand why it has been so badly delayed. It is the piece of legislation in the land reform package that was most eagerly awaited and about which I received most correspondence, yet it is still missing in the Parliament's second year. Could the Executive not consider splitting some of the legislation? It seems obvious that we could proceed with the access proposals earlier, rather than wait for the crofting right to buy to be drafted into the other right to buy.
As convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I appreciate that it might appear odd that I should plead for more rather than less, but we have to consider what is most appropriate. Last year, three of the eight bills that were announced were justice bills. Three out of nine this year is slightly less onerous on paper, but the reality last year turned out to be five out of 12. I would like to tease out what extra legislation will appear, as I have no doubt that that will happen.
The issue is surely one of balance. For example, there are no initiatives on drugs in the criminal justice system, as I would have liked there to be. Legislative changes could be made that would make a difference in that area. I make the plea again that the domestic violence element of the family law bill be taken out. Let us get on with addressing that problem sooner rather than later, as it has a direct impact on a huge number of people. People in Scotland want the Parliament to legislate on such matters now; they want the Parliament to be proactive rather than reactive. It is difficult to explain to women who are desperate for more effective remedies that setting up the international criminal court should take priority. I do not think that the vast majority of people think that it should.
I will make one last plea on long-term care, which is not in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's remit. It occurred to me while the First Minister was talking about the regulation of care that the vast majority of carers are not professional carers, but spouses and adult children. What is the Executive doing to make the lives of those carers better? As far as I can see, the Executive is doing precious little, if anything.
I, too, speak on those parts of the Executive's programme that relate to justice, but I make no apology for referring to the graduate endowment bill because it cuts across justice by being in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. As David McLetchie suggested, the graduate endowment is an additional tax. Robert Brown's mincing support for what is, in effect, tuition fees mark 2 is the kind of thing that brings politicians' reputations into disrepute, particularly given that the Liberals changed their minds overnight between 7 May and 8 May 1999.
David McLetchie also referred to the reduction in police numbers, the closure of prisons and conditions in prisons and the courts. I did not expect that such matters would be included in a bill today, as they are management issues that will no doubt be covered under the budget bill when that is finally revealed to us.
I will take Jim Wallace to account on Strathclyde police recruitment. Strathclyde police are currently 350 officers undermanned. That has to change. The Conservatives would welcome in the budget bill the sustainability to which he referred, so that recruitment is sustained into the future.
I am disappointed by what is not included in the bill, although I am not seeking extra work for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Its work programme will be packed out over the coming months. To a degree, that undermines one of the fundamental principles of the Parliament: that members should be able to take issues that are dear to their hearts to the committees. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee has found that the legislative programme has been such that there has been no time for that to happen. The work programme this year will probably ensure that, once again, our wishes will have to be put on the back burner.
The international criminal court bill is a Westminster-led bill. I suspect that if the Parliament chose not to support it, that would have very little effect on the United Kingdom and Scotland. We would still sign on to the court and Scotland would comply; however, I seek the minister's guidance on that point. The fact remains that the bill is Westminster-induced, not Scottish Parliament-induced.
We need to pass the bill so that the UK can ratify the treaty. If the rules do not apply in one major part of the UK, ratification will not be possible. Furthermore, if we are not in the first 60 countries to ratify, we will lose considerable influence on the shape of the international criminal court.
Although I accept the minister's comment, he should not tell us this time next year how many bills have been pushed through Parliament as a number of the bills going through this year and next will simply be piggybacking on Westminster legislation. The same point can be made in respect of the European convention on human rights. Bills associated with the ECHR both last year and this have been virtually mandated by the incorporation of the ECHR in the Scotland Act 1998. Such a situation can hardly be to the Parliament's credit.
Notwithstanding Roseanna Cunningham's comments, the Conservatives fully support the evidence (sexual offences) bill. As for other elements, we might seek an extension to some of the issues that might be included in the bill. We await it with some interest.
Our disappointment stems from the fact that many of the real issues have not been addressed. On the war on drugs, Angus MacKay promised much about the confiscation of assets. Where is that in the Government's programme? Changes to sentences are also greatly needed. Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the public's perception of how the courts treat individuals such as rapists, paedophiles and violent criminals. There needs to be change in sentencing policy to recognise the importance of keeping under control those who threaten society.
I am sure that many other issues will emerge in future debates, but I will put on record our reaction to the programme: disappointment, with a marginal welcome of some aspects.
I congratulate the First Minister and everyone who has worked so hard across civic Scotland to deliver last year's legislative programme and look forward to the challenges of the coming parliamentary year. Those bills are already beginning to have an impact on my constituents.
Fergus Ewing said that he does not see any benefit to the elderly in the programme or spending proposals. Perhaps I imagined it, but I am certain that I heard the First Minister mention £100 million in concessionary fares along with the provision of care for the elderly. Furthermore, I disagree quite strongly with Roseanna Cunningham's comments about the international criminal court, because such proposals materially impact on people in Scotland.
I leave it to others to deal with the range of legislative proposals that have been introduced today; along with them, I see real benefits for many people across Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No, Fergus; do not do that. [Laughter.]
I warmly congratulate the Executive on the proposed legislation on the international criminal court. The people of Scotland are known worldwide for their strong sense of justice and fairness. Over the years, as a Labour party activist, I have fought shoulder to shoulder with other party members across the country for a world in which religion, sexuality, disability or colour of skin never work against someone's right to equality of opportunity. The establishment of a court where those who offend against such values can be brought to justice is no less than a magnificent step forward. I do not agree with Phil Gallie's comments and do not care that such legislation piggybacks on UK legislation. People in Scotland want that legislation.
I am sure that human rights organisations across the land will welcome the First Minister's proposals. Remembering the genocide in Kosovo that we have witnessed on our televisions in recent years, the holocaust and the history of Nazi Germany and Pinochet of Chile, I think that there will be nothing less than full and total commitment to the establishment of this international standing court.
Yesterday, young people from Fife—some of them from my constituency—returned from a visit to Romania, where they had been exhibiting the cultural strength of Scotland through their dance and music. On their trip, they will have visited the graves of 14 and 15-year-olds who gave their lives to fight for freedom and democracy. Those young people returning to Scotland will remember those who were so much younger than them. The Ceaucescus, the Milosevics and the Pinochets can never be allowed to find a safe harbour in this world. This Sunday, with ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen of the Royal Air Force, I will lay a wreath in remembrance of those who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave real meaning to the statement championing democracy:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
Was it Rousseau who said that?
The First Minister's statement and proposals are a fitting tribute at the start of this new millennium to those who have lost their lives at the hands of tyrants. Such tyrants will now face the international court. The fact that the UK is one of the founder members of the international court is as the people of Scotland would want it to be. We need to be at the forefront of international treaties. The fact that we are spearheading ratification of the treaty is to be welcomed. While there will not be retrospective powers, the court will act as a deterrent, putting would-be war criminals on notice that they can no longer commit war crimes with impunity. Sadly, experience shows that it is unlikely that those crimes will stop overnight. A lasting memory for me will be the friend who came back from the football stadium in Chile. He recounted the eerie feeling as he stood in the stadium and remembered the bodies that had filled the stadium and had disappeared overnight.
I would say to Roseanna Cunningham that the international criminal court matters.
I welcome the announcement that there will be a housing bill this year. I welcome it in the same way as I welcomed it when it was announced in June, September and December 1999 and in June 2000. Yet again, we have received the latest in a series of promises on the bill. If there is a serious drafting problem with the bill, it is important that the chamber be told.
It is important to remember that, while legislation can and will help Scotland's housing situation, it cannot do it in isolation. Significantly, we have seen no real progress on housing investment. The Government could have been forgiven for late legislation—it might even have had a better reception for what we suspect will be an inadequate bill when it appears—if it had delivered on its housing pledges and if it had delivered desperately needed investment in Scotland's homes and housing that will deal with the record levels of homelessness that it presides over, but it has not.
It is clear that NHP stands not for new housing partnership but for no housing progress. The Minister for Communities recently boasted in a written answer to a question I lodged that housing investment over two years in Scotland will be more than £1 billion. She is clearly proud of that figure, but even in the darkest days of Tory rule £1 billion was spent each year—not over two years—between 1989 and 1996. The reality is that this Government, which claims to view housing as a priority, has presided over a catastrophic fall in housing investment.
The First Minister presides over record levels of homelessness, record numbers of families living in damp and cold homes, an acceleration in levels of children with asthma and the daily tragedy of young families being forced out of their communities because of a lack of available accommodation. A bill will not tackle that on its own. Investment is needed.
Outside the claustrophobia of Victoria Quay is the real world and the reality of housing policy. I am not alone in thinking so. In The Herald today, Councillor Madge O'Neil, a Drumchapel councillor from the heart of the First Minister's constituency, described the stock transfer proposal in the most unflattering terms.
Is the Minister for Communities aware that we might not have a Glasgow stock transfer ballot before the end of 2001? Is she comfortable with such a deadline? Is she aware that, if the ballot keeps slipping, there is the potential for an underspend of £80 million in Glasgow, which has to be spent by March 2002? It is time for the minister to admit that, as far as Glasgow is concerned, the game is up.
I have one simple question. Does the SNP support the community ownership proposals of the Executive, endorsed by this Parliament's Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee? Yes or no: is the SNP in favour?
The SNP's policy has been to oppose wholesale stock transfer, and that has been its position since we debated the matter at our conference last year.
The potential underspend of £80 million would build 2,000 new homes, completely renovate 4,000, re-roof 8,000 or centrally heat and double glaze 16,000. That is money in the budget of the Minister for Communities which she is in danger of losing because of her problems with the Glasgow housing stock transfer.
We expected the housing bill to be a national housing bill for all Scotland. Instead, it is likely to turn out to be a more limited social housing bill. The housing bill will bring some welcome measures, but I remind members of what we expected to see, of what was in the green paper "Investing in Modernisation: An Agenda For Scotland's Housing". It included provisions for housing design, additional planning measures, a review of the level of tolerable standards, improving energy efficiency, additional powers for local authorities to tackle substandard housing, flexible tenure systems and seller surveys. None of those is in the consultation document "Better Housing for Scotland's Communities: the Executive's Proposals for the Housing Bill".
The housing bill offers a golden opportunity to introduce much-needed measures that can affect hundreds of thousands of people. Parliament must reclaim the housing bill to ensure that it lives up to the expectations of Scotland. The Government must remember that it is not just about legislation, but about investment in Scotland's housing needs.
Last year's 12 bills are concrete evidence of the benefits of devolution to the people of Scotland. We understate our achievement over the past year, as we had to learn the legislative process, if we dismiss the year's programme, which included such important measures as the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000.
It seemed at times that all the bills were coming before the Justice and Home Affairs Committee at stage 2—and I see that there is more in store for us this year. However, I extend a particular welcome to the freedom of information bill, which has long been the policy of my party and of others. I trust that it will go further than the English and Welsh legislation.
I regret that Mr Salmond, in the twilight of his leadership, suggested that the bill is somewhat unimaginative. I think that a freedom of information bill is a very important change that will bring a number of benefits to Scotland.
The proposed evidence (sexual offences) bill will be appreciated by the victims of sexual offences. In our view, it is immensely preferable that agents acting for the accused cross-examine the victim.
I have listened carefully to Mr Robson's argument—and to that presented by the First Minister—about the freedom of information bill, which appears to be coming along later in 2001, which is what the First Minister said. Will Mr Robson explain to me what I read on what I am told is called a rolling sentence on the Liberal Democrats' website today? It says:
"After only one year, Scottish Liberal Democrats have made a difference . . . Delivering on our promises . . . a far-reaching Freedom of Information Bill"
Where is it if it is not in the legislative programme announced today? The Liberal Democrats' website is saying that the bill is here today—not arriving tomorrow or in 2001.
Mr Swinney will understand that I am not responsible for the website. What is clear is that we have had a long-term commitment to such legislation and, as members heard earlier, legislation will be introduced. I hope that it will be on the statute book at the end of this year, proving what we have said on our website to be substantially correct.
There are some points of this year's legislative programme which I consider particularly important. We need to strengthen local authorities' role in preventing homelessness: we need more temporary hostel-type accommodation, particularly in rural areas, where homelessness often goes unseen and unrecognised. In getting an individual permanently housed, it is often critical that accessible, local temporary accommodation is available.
After some years of experience, I remain convinced that consumer representation is best provided by an independent body that is separate from the regulator and regulatory authorities. I hope that we have a chance to address that in the water services bill. At close hand, I have lived through the advent of competition in the energy industries, and I am not sanguine about the prospect of a smooth introduction of competition in the water industry. However, I commend the Executive on its aims in that area.
I recognise and welcome the thrust of the salmon conservation bill, but I stress the overriding importance of local conservation before Scotland-wide measures are introduced. I commend to ministers the voluntary catch-and-release schemes that are operating in many parts of the country—including on the Tweed, where there is a problem with spring salmon—and the local habitat improvements.
Finally, the First Minister mentioned members' bills. I shall vigorously oppose one of those, but there is another one that I shall propose. I hope that the Deputy First Minister will indicate whether he is prepared to support a proposed civil marriages (venues) bill.
I welcome the First Minister's statement on the legislative programme. I intend to be slightly controversial in my speech and, as a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I look forward to consideration of the legislation on student finance.
One of the reasons I have always believed in devolution for Scotland is that that would enable a Scottish Parliament to develop legislation that was appropriate to the circumstances of our people. The actions that have been taken by the Executive are a good example of that and are a significant achievement for the Executive in its first year of operation. Tuition fees have been abolished in Scotland, as of this coming term. That removes the need for graduate students and their families to pay tuition fees up front. That is an improvement on the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom.
However, that is only part of the proposed improvements. The Executive's proposals will redistribute further the balance of financial responsibility between low-income families and higher-income families, thereby better relating financial support to the ability to pay. Low-income families—who never had to pay tuition fees—will be entitled to a graduate endowment that will be worth up to £2,000 a year. The maximum debt at the end of study for a student from a low-income family will be reduced by an estimated £4,000. Those students will receive more maintenance during their study and will be less liable to debt at the end of it.
Dr Murray is talking about moving debt away from low-income households to higher-income households. Given that the water bill will introduce measures to ensure that services are affordable, does she agree that assistance should be introduced for low-income households as part of that programme, to help them to pay their astronomical water bills?
As I understand the benefits system, that matter is reserved to Westminster, so those decisions would be better made there.
The Executive's proposals would remove some of the disincentives to study for young people from low-income families and would extend access to and participation in higher education. Entitlement to that endowment will be means-tested on family income, but the proposals include a taper to prevent any sudden cut-off in entitlement.
People with high incomes—MSPs, for example—will be expected to pay a higher contribution to the support of their young people in higher education. I agree with that. Why should people such as me—if I still have this job when my children go to university—who have more money and are able to contribute more, not have to do so? I have no problem with that.
Will Elaine Murray agree with the late John Smith, who argued that people on higher incomes should pay higher income tax?
I have always believed in direct rather than indirect taxation. Unfortunately, that opinion does not seem to be shared by the majority of the population—at least, it was not prior to the beginning of this week.
Or by other members of the Labour party.
In my previous employment, I was privileged to teach mature and part-time students, many of whom were engaged in distance learning. The proposals will improve the situation for mature students—who could not access student loans previously—by providing a £10 million access fund to universities and colleges for the provision of access payments.
Mature students will also be entitled to the full loan. Part-time students, such as those I taught at the Open University, were never entitled to student grants—they were always left out of the financial support arrangements that were available to other students. They will be entitled to proportional support for the first time. I think also that this is the first time that Government has recognised the need to support distance learners.
I realise that my four minutes have nearly ended. I want also to welcome the Executive's commitment to provide funding to local authorities to assist with child care and the provision of access funds for lone parents and disabled students, thereby acknowledging the special access problems that such students face. In order to be economically successful, Scottish people must be equipped with the necessary skills, but education not only improves life chances; it improves the quality of life. Therefore I welcome the measures to increase access to and participation in education at all levels.
Let us cut to the chase. This programme is anodyne, lacklustre and devoid of inspiration. It is likely to excite only the most sycophantic of Labour members. It is more about keeping the back benchers on board than it is about making a significant difference to the government of Scotland. It is more about keeping an increasingly fragile and disparate coalition together than it is about making a positive impact. The programme is much more notable for its exclusions than for its inclusions.
Where, for example, is the local government bill? Why have the efforts of Kerley and McIntosh been put on the back burner? The answer is that the Executive fears the reaction of the backwoodsmen in council chambers. What price proportional representation in local government now? No doubt the Liberal Democrats will go along with the programme in their usual supine manner, more concerned with the illusion of peripheral influence than with one of their principal policy goals.
The Conservatives will endorse measures in the housing bill, including the housing stock transfer. We could hardly do other than support that because it was one of our policies. We shall attempt to amend constructively certain aspects of "Better Homes for Scotland's Communities", if they are included. We have concerns over the role of Scottish Homes, which has carried out its regulatory role well in the past. With its transfer to a hands-on Executive department, it might find its role restricted to the point of emasculation. We certainly require assurances about that.
We shall endorse whole-heartedly measures to assist the homeless, but at the same time demand that the measures be governed by realism. The goal of removing rough sleepers from the streets is commendable, but we must ensure that those who are placed in permanent housing and who have a history of behavioural difficulties do not impinge on the rights and entitlements of their neighbours. As the pioneers of right to buy—a policy that increased home ownership in Scotland from 38 per cent to 60 per cent—we will retain our support for the concept. We recognise the difficulties that the extension of the right to buy under the single tenancy could cause housing associations and we will want to be satisfied that the figures stack up. We would not want to prejudice in any way the housing association movement, which has been a positive story, as is inevitably the case when people are given the responsibility of running their own affairs.
The Conservatives also recognise the problems of the elderly in care. Society has a clear duty to look after its most vulnerable members and we condemn the way in which some of them have been exploited and abused by unscrupulous and uncaring proprietors. Regulation is essential and we will support it, while noting that Labour's fine words do not match its status as the only party in Parliament that is not committed to implementing the Sutherland recommendations.
The legislation on the water industry must also be approached with realism. Water authorities require capital investment desperately and that must come from the private sector. It is essential that the industry should be allowed to enter into partnerships that will permit that investment, otherwise powerful competition from the private companies down south will be damaging.
There will be general and genuine disappointment at such an insipid programme. However, a general election is coming and Labour's strategy is quite clear: it does not want another section 28 fiasco. When electoral expediency is the principle, no measures must be introduced that might possibly frighten the horses.
On the only health and community care legislation in the programme—the commission for the regulation of care services—the Executive will get no argument from me. After all, the proposal mirrors long-standing SNP policy.
However, I offer some words of caution: in legislating for the regulation of care services, will the Executive ensure that sufficient recognition is given to the workers in the care sector? Those workers are the people we entrust to look after the most vulnerable and frail people in our society, yet they are among society's lowest-paid workers. They must feel valued. With such responsibilities as they have must surely come a decent wage structure, access to training that leads to professionally recognised qualifications and flexible career pathways. To ignore the needs of those workers will be to undermine the very purpose of the legislation. A caring service depends on a cared-for work force.
Let us not get bogged down in what the new Labour Executive wants to present; let us look behind the smoke and mirrors. Only in new Labour's Scotland could we have a health minister whose reaction to every question on failures in the health service has been to bombard members with a recital of figures. I will let members into a secret—no one, but no one, out there believes those figures any more. All that money is going, supposedly, into the health service, but health delivery staggers from crisis to crisis. We want answers to questions, not arrogance and evasion.
The new Labour Executive loves quoting figures, so I have brought some. There are 5,000 fewer hospital beds since 1996. There are 1,000 fewer nurses and midwives. On waiting lists—new Labour's obsession—its own latest figures show a rise of 15 per cent during the past year. Surely only in new Labour's Scotland, with a health service that is crying out for resources, could we have a health minister who manages to underspend—underspend—to the tune of £135 million.
Finally, I have a very important figure—£110 million. That amount would end the misery that is caused by the continued reluctance of new Labour in Scotland to implement the key recommendation in the Sutherland report—that personal care of the elderly, like medical care, should be provided free and from the public purse.
The Executive is always banging on about Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. Here is its chance—it must not be feart. Health is a devolved issue and the Executive does not have to take its orders from its big brother in Westminster. It should accept its responsibility and keep faith with Scotland's elderly people. Tell Tony and his cronies that if they can squander almost £1 billion on their millennium dome, the Executive in Scotland can spend a mere £110 million to end the misery and fear for the future that the Labour Government and the previous Tory Government have inflicted on Scotland's elderly people for over a decade.
One year in, and all that this Labour Government has been able to produce is more hype, more spin, more glossy brochures and, unfortunately for patients and health service workers, yet more disillusionment. We are up to here with spin and creative accounting. Let us have no more ducking and diving. Where is the new Labour strategy and structure that will rebuild Scotland's health service?
I want to touch on some of the proposed bills and a couple of issues that—unfortunately—are not included in the proposals.
My first point relates to the housing bill. Last year, Glasgow City Council carried out its largest ever survey of its tenants' priorities. It surveyed 2,350 tenants, 78 per cent of whom returned the forms. That makes it the most detailed survey of Glasgow City Council tenants that is available. The council asked the tenants about their priorities and to give each priority an importance rating. I hope that the Minister for Communities is listening because, in the importance ratings, a damp-free house with central heating received 90 per cent support, a responsive repairs service received 89 per cent support and security of tenure received 88 per cent support, yet community ownership was 10th on the list of priorities and received only 27 per cent support.
I am much encouraged by Tommy Sheridan's comments. First, the warm deal is addressing fuel poverty. His second point was on responsive repair services—it is important that tenants have a choice about where their repair services come from. Mr Sheridan's third point was on the need to increase new investment, which is at the heart of the bill. The bill will provide the best package of tenants' rights ever and will deliver secure tenancies. Measures on fuel poverty, a responsive repairs service and security of tenure are exactly what the bill provides.
The minister's words were interesting, but empty. She mentioned the concern about warm homes. I remind her that the Tories changed the capital receipt clawback rules in Scotland in 1996. Mr Forsyth did that and in 1997 he changed them again in order to take 75 per cent of capital receipts. The Labour Government has now been in power for three years. During those three years, my city of Glasgow has lost a potential investment of £58 million through the capital receipt clawback. That amounts to 25,000 Glasgow homes.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have taken an intervention from the minister and I would like to finish my point.
If the Labour party had removed the capital receipt clawback rules as it said it would, 25,000 families in Glasgow would have central heating or double-glazed windows. They are sitting without those because the minister has refused to remove the capital receipt clawback rules.
The minister mentioned the idea of choice in relation to the community ownership option. What choice is Wendy Alexander presenting to the tenants of Glasgow who are already saying clearly that they do not want community ownership? She is telling them that if they do not—[Interruption.]
Order.
What is the member's proof?
Several ministers and members, including Dr Simpson, have asked what my proof is. I have just summarised the most extensive survey of tenants by Glasgow City Council. If Dr Simpson reads The Herald today—[Interruption.] If Dr Simpson reads The Herald today, he will learn that at yesterday's housing investment sub-committee, the city council produced a report that said that the majority of its tenants are opposed to the transfer. The Executive should listen to what the tenants are saying.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am not taking another intervention. The Executive should listen to what the tenants are saying, rather than to the narrow—[Interruption.]
Order.
Will the member give way?
If you are not taking an intervention, Mr Sheridan, you should carry on.
I have already taken about three interventions, most of which came from a sedentary position.
The point is that it is a narrow and ideologically driven proposal, which will force tenants into community ownership although they are asking for public investment. By all means, let us have mixed tenure in the city of Glasgow. Let us have housing associations and private housing, but let us have public housing too, in the shape of the municipal authority.
I want to make some quick points on a couple of other subjects.
Make them very quickly, please.
I hope that the minister will respond to my concerns about the water services bill and tell us that there will be a comprehensive and far-reaching system of rebates. The poor and the pensioners of our country cannot afford the rising water bills that they face.
I have two more quick points.
I will allow you one, Mr Sheridan.
I took interventions—I will make my points very quickly.
I cannot believe, given the debate that we had in April, that the Executive has not brought forward a proposal to improve and humanise debt recovery. I cannot believe, given the importance of that issue and the fact that the Executive was overturned on poindings and warrant sales, that it will not bring forward in the next 12 months legislation to improve a situation that strikes at the heart of Scotland—the number of people who suffer from debt problems.
Finally, Elaine Murray made an honest contribution and said that she supports progressive taxation. If she does, I hope that she will join me in arguing in the chamber that the Executive and Parliament should bring forward a replacement for the council tax, which is a deeply regressive form of taxation. We have already discussed an alternative. It is called the Scottish service tax and it would tax the wealthy appropriately and exempt the poor and the pensioners.
I read with interest a copy of the First Minister's statement, in which he said that he wishes, with the Executive, to
"foster a competitive wealth-generating economy."
He went on to talk about the Transport (Scotland) Bill which, in essence, is anti-competitive. It adds burdens to the Scottish economy that damage our businesses and their competitiveness compared with the rest of the UK. We have distance-to-market problems. We have huge difficulties with additional fuel costs and so on, and the last thing that Scottish business can deal with is additional taxation, for example, in the form of a double taxation on parking places, because already business rates are charged on parking places. I am amazed by the number of businesses that have complained to me about the threat of that taxation. Parking places are not for the convenience of directors or fat cats; they are for the running of businesses. They are essential parts of how business is done, and many parking places are used as delivery points for industry.
On the European convention on human rights, while I recognise and agree, as we all do, that people have rights and rights to protection, a litigation culture is afoot in Scotland, which is costing Scottish business £250 million a year. I have raised that matter with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Henry McLeish. I have not had a reply. Business is in deep trouble with that, and we need a lead from the Executive on how business can be advised to deal with it. Some of the chambers of commerce, particularly in Glasgow, have set up a hotline. What is the Executive doing? That problem is a consequence of legislation that has a good effect on some people, but a negative effect on the economy.
Another phrase that was used in the statement was "cost-effective public services". I was amazed when Jack McConnell came out with the fact that there will be a review of funding. Surely to goodness it is time that we had a review of what we expect local authorities to deliver. Once we can agree that, we can look at the funding package. I know that some Labour members and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities do not agree, but there is sympathy from those who understand how money adds up. Councils should be—we must discuss this soon—enabling authorities. We need to instil a competition culture, because that is part of the economy of Scotland.
On Tommy Sheridan's little discourse about the capital receipt clawback, is he aware that it is used to pay off ever-escalating council debts? If we did not have it, the interest charged would result in increased council house rents. I am sure that Tommy Sheridan would not welcome that.
Does David Davidson know the percentage increase in rents that would result? It is 3 per cent, in case he does not know. The tenants of Glasgow would prefer central heating or windows.
In fairness, it is still a charge on the tenant, which I am sure Tommy Sheridan would not approve of.
On behalf of the Conservatives, I welcome the fact that community ownership will bring in private finance, but we have to ensure that that does not result in restrictive and expensive bureaucracy.
We welcome many elements of the bill for the regulation of care. I refer to comments made by Jack McConnell when I say that it is time to discuss the placing of community care into local health trusts so that we have joined-up delivery and not the haphazard mix of council and local health delivery.
I would like to hear the Executive comment on the use of private nursing homes, which give better value for money than many local authority homes. I have had many complaints lately about the openness of the tendering process. That relates to today's discussion.
On the salmon conservation bill, I am only sorry that it is a bit late to save Alex Salmond.
The graduate endowment is a tax. The Liberal Democrat party cannot go round claiming that it is providing free education. There are young graduates in my family who will hurt when they start paying the tax. It is not a clearly thought out policy. We need to consider the index linking and the effect that graduates will have on the economy in future.
The member has about 20 seconds in which to close.
I shall refer briefly to water. I hope that the self-proclaimed shadow minister for water sitting on the Scottish National Party benches—Richard Lochhead—will join me in welcoming the opportunity for business to get involved in the new licensing system to create competition. We need a complete review of the funding formula, because the water authorities cannot cope with the restrictions. The net result is that everybody pays higher bills, which disadvantages the economy.
Like other members who have spoken, I am sure that every bill announced today is worthy in its own right. Like Kay Ullrich, I want to pay particular attention to the regulation of care bill, which is long overdue and which will go some way to introducing national standards of care for children and other vulnerable individuals in our society.
Worthy though each individual piece of legislation undoubtedly is, the programme for government hardly gives the impression of an Executive with a clear vision of how to tackle the many real issues that affect the daily lives of individuals in Scotland today. What it does is to give the clear impression of an Executive that is badly out of touch with reality.
To take education, I am the first to admit that there is more to a programme for government, especially on education, than legislation. However, when we consider what has been announced today, it would seem that education as a Labour priority is nothing more than a bad memory. That is not surprising, as it is certainly not a good memory for anybody else in Scotland. Labour's biggest achievement in education to date has been to throw the examination process into chaos, to cast a shadow over the immediate future of thousands of young people and to undermine the reputation and credibility of the entire education system—a reality that, strangely enough, was not mentioned in the First Minister's statement.
What the First Minister did refer to was the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, which was passed before the recess. I have no doubt that the First Minister, if he was still present, would recall the centrepiece of that bill, which was to place a duty on the education minister to secure continuous improvement in the standards of school education in Scotland. That is rather laughable in the wake of the events of the past few weeks. However, I suppose that it is only in Donald Dewar's Scotland that an education minister who has presided over unprecedented examination chaos could be described as a first-class minister.
Did Nicola Sturgeon not also hear the First Minister refer to the possibility of legislation on the McCrone recommendations? Does she accept that we will need to take a great deal of notice of the McCrone report if we are to make the improvements to education that she mentions?
I will reserve judgment on the Government's commitment to the McCrone process until I hear the outcome of the spending review next week. That is when we will hear what the commitment is in real terms.
Surely now—more than ever, after the chaos of the past few weeks—what the people of Scotland have the right to expect is for the Government to have some idea of how to restore credibility to the Scottish education system.
As it has obviously been beyond the imagination of the Executive to come up with anything, let me make a positive suggestion. Why does not the Executive take up the idea suggested last week by Professor Lindsay Paterson and supported by the Scottish civic forum? The idea, which was in the SNP's manifesto last year—although members should not let that put them off—was that of a standing education convention. It would be a forum that would bring together people in Scotland who know what they are talking about, to influence policy before it becomes set in tablets of stone by faceless officials in Victoria Quay.
If such a body had existed, perhaps the Minister for Children and Education would have been forced to address teachers' concerns about higher still, rather than pressing ahead in spite of those concerns. Perhaps he would have found it more difficult to turn a deaf ear to the siren warnings that have been sounded by teachers and parents about the problems in the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
The reason the Executive's message about today's programme for government will not strike a chord with the Scottish people is that the Executive speaks a different language from the Scottish people—and we all know how appalling the Executive's record is in modern language teaching.
I suggest that it is time that the Government realised, and showed that it realised, the real, pressing issues that concern the people of Scotland, as well as showing that it has some idea of how to tackle those problems. Until the Executive does so, the people of Scotland will continue to be discontented with it, and will show that discontent at the ballot box.
We move now to winding-up speeches. I call Margaret Curran, who has five minutes.
I want six minutes, because Tommy Sheridan got six.
I am delighted to be summing up on behalf of the Labour party. This is a new year for the Parliament, and it is important that we all take some responsibility for the way in which the Parliament is perceived. It is important that we focus on the issues of real concern to the people of Scotland and that we deliver on the ground. That is the key test that faces the Parliament, and it is a test that we must pass.
I am pleased that the programme of legislation is addressing the needs of the Scottish people.
Will the member give way?
Yes, but will the time that the intervention takes be added on to my time?
Yes. Whenever possible, I will add a little extra time to allow for interventions.
I am sure that Margaret Curran is aware that local authorities will not contribute to the cost of residential care for elderly people with assets of more than £16,000. Earlier, Jack McConnell said clearly that the Sutherland report will not be implemented in full, because the money will not be provided. Is Ms Curran aware that the Scottish Executive has the power to increase that threshold, and would she support such an increase?
Let me make it clear that I am here to talk about the legislative programme. I will not duck questions about my views on the Sutherland report. I will answer them at the proper time.
From the proposals for funding higher education, to proposed bills on regulation of care and on evidence in sexual offences, the programme covers many important issues. I say to Alex Salmond and Roseanna Cunningham that if they think that those bills will not be controversial, it is clear that they have not been as involved in the debates on those issues as I have. If they think that a bill on evidence in sexual offences will be easy and straightforward—which is most certainly not the case—they cannot have been through the bruising arguments that we have been through.
We have an ambitious, energetic and realistic programme of legislation that will offer significant changes in key areas of Scottish life.
I suspect that Mr Salmond must be on a retainer at The Scotsman, given that he quotes that paper regularly in the chamber. Today, he quoted a back bencher who said that the programme was unambitious and lacking in vision. I advise Mr Salmond that we were talking about the candidates for his party's leadership election.
The programme is governed by the themes of social justice and systematic progress. It is quite proper for the housing bill to have taken centre stage when the legislative programme was unveiled. As we have heard during the debate, housing is one of the great challenges that faces the Parliament. There is broad consensus across Scotland on the unacceptable condition of much of Scotland's social housing. We must deliver on housing if we are to make progress on health and on many other issues. If we were to ask Harry Burns, who is the director of public health in Glasgow, what we must do to tackle health issues in that city, he would say, "Tackle the poor quality of Glasgow's housing." The problems are deep-seated and intractable, and we have much to do.
I have a list of statistics, although I do not know whether I have enough time to go through them. For example, the Scottish house condition survey states that one in three houses in Glasgow is in need of urgent repair, and mentions a repair bill that is likely to exceed £2 billion. I will not go through any more statistics, but we must grasp the human story behind them—the houses that are in desperate need of repair, the rooms that cannot be used and the families who struggle to raise their children.
I do not wish to underestimate the progress that has been made in many areas, but after a generation of disinvestment, some of the problems that we face amount to real urban squalor. It is in that context that I welcome the housing bill.
I do not underestimate Margaret Curran's concern about conditions in Glasgow, but does she appreciate that the problems are caused by the agenda of the housing stock transfer proposals, and that the starvation diet of investment in Glasgow over the past few years has added to the burden of poor conditions that she is describing?
That is absolute nonsense and it is time that Fiona Hyslop grasped that. Next Thursday, we will be debating housing stock transfer and we shall be going through all the arguments surrounding it. I commend the report of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to members and, believe me, I shall be at my assertive best when I deal with some of the tactics of the SNP in that debate. It is time that SNP members actually listened. We must get some investment into housing and it is time that the SNP stopped using the issue for party political purposes and started addressing the real needs and problems.
Allow me to quote from written evidence to the committee's inquiry:
"After several years when housing had almost no political profile, and when investment levels were being savagely cut, SFHA welcomes the interest in housing displayed by the Scottish Parliament and the Executive . . . We particularly welcome the commitment to community empowerment and community ownership, along models successfully developed over the last 25 years by housing associations and co-operatives throughout Scotland."
That quotation is from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which does not slavishly support the Scottish Executive when it does not wish to do so.
As I said, I do not want to deal in depth with housing stock transfer today, as we will be having that debate next week. However, I have to say to Tommy Sheridan that the most basic point to remember is that if tenants do not want housing stock transfer, they do not have to have it. It has been made absolutely clear that there will be a ballot. All in all, we have a vision of change that utilises the energy and commitment of communities and acts as a stimulus to wider community regeneration, but which also tackles effectively the scandal of homelessness and ensures that all in Scotland will have the right to live without anti-social neighbours.
There is a profound contradiction in some of the things that Fiona Hyslop has said today. She has said that we stole all our ideas about homelessness from the SNP manifesto. That is a staggering example of vanity, but I shall address that another day. Now that the SNP has failed, its members cannot quite understand where they are coming from. Each of the spokespersons from the SNP has said, "You haven't done this and you haven't done that," despite widespread consensus that the direction that we are taking on housing is the right one.
What we did not hear was Alex Salmond interweaving the SNP's complaints into any kind of coherent vision. The SNP should put forward some kind of alternative, but it is doing what it always does, offering up a carping list of criticisms rather than a constructive contribution to the debate. The basic structural flaw in the Opposition's presentation is that the SNP listens to those who lobby the Executive and those who oppose it to determine exactly where the bandwagon is that it can jump on to.
This is the second year of the legislative programme. We are inaugurating a new vision for Scottish housing. We must move away from articulating anger and towards creating solutions. That is the real test of this Parliament and, as a Labour party activist who is not frightened to criticise, I am proud to say that we have an Executive delivering for the poor and for women.
The Scottish jury are still out on the image of this Parliament, and who can blame them? The first year may have been exciting for us but, let us be honest, it has not been particularly impressive for the wider public outside the chamber. There is little doubt in my mind that issues such as section 28, the expense of Holyrood, the Lord Advocate abandoning his job to become a judge, the obsession with abolishing fox hunting and the Scottish Qualifications Authority's fiasco with exam results have been a poor advertisement for the integrity and focus of this Parliament.
This Parliament's image needs a facelift. The legislative programme attempts a makeover, but the odd dash of lipstick and flash of mascara that it offers do not address the wrinkles and blemishes that the Scottish people still think disfigure this institution. Have the people confidence in the Executive's priorities? They are entitled to look at this legislative programme and ask what the priority is of the Scottish Executive.
Is this an Administration that thinks that wealth generation is not a priority and that spending money is? Is that why wealth generation is listed fourth on the list of objectives on page 1 of the statement? Is that why the first political priority stated on page 2 is a "dramatic increase" in spending? Without wealth generation, spending is difficult. Wealth generation in Scotland is difficult, with a crumbling roads infrastructure, no integrated transport strategy and movement of workers, goods and services now to be obstructed by workplace parking charges and road user charges.
What about the legislative programme? Bill Aitken described it as anodyne. He is charitable. Worthy though the water services bill, the bill to strengthen rights under the ECHR, the international criminal court bill and the salmon conservation bill may be, they are hardly electric as far as the people of Scotland are concerned. As for the housing bill, that is fine, but in Glasgow, surely support of community associations would be the best way to nourish local and community endeavour. Would not that be preferable to stifling such initiative with a sprawling urban bureaucracy?
On the regulation of care, I know what the people of Scotland want. Indeed, nobody should be in any doubt having seen those present in the public gallery this afternoon—nothing short of a commitment to Sutherland will do. The image of the Parliament will be tested in year 2. Out there, we can take it that our pensioners and elderly people will be not only looking closely at the Labour Executive, but scrutinising with interest the activities of its Liberal Democrat pals in the coalition.
What about the graduate endowment tax? Because it is nothing more than a postponed tuition fee, it is still a deterrent to admissions to higher education. Frankly, seeking repayment on a graduate income of £10,000 per annum is beyond belief. Any student will affirm that. Restricting the award of bursaries to students with a joint parental income of less than £10,000 is obscene—that is less than two minimum wages.
The Conservatives offered them nothing.
The Deputy First Minister says that we offered them nothing. I do not think that the abolition of tuition fees amounts to nothing. The minister will find that there is not a student in the land who disagrees with me.
I whole-heartedly welcome the bill on evidence in sexual offences and hope that it will take into account the climate of apprehension that engulfs a woman who has been the victim of rape or sexual assault. I hope that it might be possible for the bill to be extended to examine stalking. That is where the image of the Parliament might take a rise.
In short, the image of the Parliament is still dented—it is still tarnished—and I do not think that this legislative programme does enough to relieve that impression.
Annabel Goldie did the Parliament a disservice, which is rare, in confusing the Executive, which has exclusive responsibility for the legislative programme, with the Parliament. We can introduce bills as private members, but the Executive is responsible for its legislative programme. If that programme is unambitious and uninspiring, that is the responsibility of the Executive and not of the entire Parliament.
In strict analysis, I understand the distinction that the member tries to make. However, if he goes out to the Royal Mile, he will not find anyone who can distinguish between the Parliament and the Executive.
That is why it is so important to make the distinction in parliamentary debate.
When presented with the briefing document on the Executive's programme, I did a double-take on seeing that the first bill listed was on salmon conservation. I felt some unease at that blinding revelation. I thought that there was something that I had not been told. I was therefore glad when the First Minister clarified that the past eight weeks had not necessarily been in vain.
A number of interesting points were made in the debate. David McLetchie railed against the Executive's use of performance indicators. I have nothing to criticise in the Executive's use of performance indicators. I am all for the Executive using performance indicators, because such indicators prove that the Executive is failing to deliver what it tells the people of Scotland it will, just as it is failing to deliver on its commitment on waiting lists.
I was interested to hear what Elaine Murray said about the debates that we would have on student finance. However, ministers will have to offer more credible arguments if they are to justify the £10,000 threshold for repayment of the graduate endowment. From my visit to Stirling University earlier this week and other discussions that I have had with the student community, I know that there is bewilderment that the Government is continuing to argue that an income of £10,000 proves that an individual has received a material benefit from higher education. Many people can secure an income of £10,000 without going to university. I hope that, during the passage of the graduate endowment bill, ministers will be prepared in a genuine spirit of parliamentary debate to reflect on the £10,000 threshold.
I want to make a number of points about the role of the Parliament in the scrutiny of this legislative programme. The Government has proposed a list of bills and we will have a busy programme ahead of us. However, there are a number of unanswered questions, to which I hope the Deputy First Minister will respond.
Tommy Sheridan made a fair point about the absence in the programme of any measure relating to the replacement of the warrant sales system. Have we learned nothing from the past year? The Parliament flexed its muscles on warrant sales and demanded action from the Executive. However, with this legislative programme, the Executive is in effect promising slippage in the timetable for responding to Parliament's will as expressed in its welcome at stage 1 for the abolition of poindings and warrant sales.
Mr Jim Wallace indicated disagreement.
The Deputy First Minister is shaking his head. I have only seven minutes, so he can respond to what I have said when he sums up.
I would also like an answer from the Deputy First Minister on what provision has been made in the legislative programme for protecting this Parliament's right to legislate in areas in which it has competence but where there is a temptation for the Executive to present us with a Sewel motion so that legislative responsibility can be passed to the Westminster Parliament. There is no indication in the programme of the Government's stance on that. We must know what position the Executive is likely to take on issues where we have legislative competence but responsibility may be passed to Westminster.
The final point that I want to make about the role of Parliament is important for the direction that we take in our second year. What will be the Executive's attitude to legitimate and substantial amendments that are lodged by Opposition parties in committee at stage 2 and at the stage 3 debate in Parliament? Far too much of the Executive's legislative programme last year was railroaded through Parliament because of the in-built parliamentary majority of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. Legitimate ideas, issues and amendments that were put forward by Opposition parties were accepted by the Executive parties only very rarely. I would like the Deputy First Minister, in the spirit of taking politics forward in Scotland, to commit the Executive to listening carefully to the arguments made by Opposition parties.
In this debate, a great deal has been made of the criticism of the spending aspects of the Government's programme. The Government's programme will, of course, be made up of a blend of spending announcements, legislative announcements and executive announcements. However, ministers must respect the fact that Opposition politicians have an interest in scrutinising properly absolutely everything that the Executive proposes. Too many things appear in the gloss of the published documents and in quick-burst ministerial announcements, which do not give the Parliament the opportunity to exercise its powers of scrutiny. There are substantial issues relating to the McCrone and Kerley reports and that apparition, the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2000—whatever happened to it?—that Opposition politicians must scrutinise and pursue.
The frustration of members at the emptiness of the Government's legislative programme arises from the fact that the Government has touched on a number of legitimate and worthy issues that we want to pursue. The SNP supports the regulation of care bill, for example. To some extent, the public will be reassured by the bill, but they would be much more reassured by a strong announcement by the Government on what it intends to do with the Sutherland recommendations. The frustration in Scotland arises from the fact that it seems to take the Executive for ever to come to a conclusion about anything, whether it be student finance, local government reform, judicial appointments, McCrone or care of the elderly.
My final point relates to the issues raised by Margaret Curran in her inclusive summing-up. I can understand how, as a committee convener, she builds such unity in her committee with that style.
Will Mr Swinney give way?
No. I am winding up.
What will never be absent from the contribution of the SNP is our vision for Scotland. We have a vision of a just, fair and prosperous Scotland, but, most important, of a Scotland that can exercise real powers through independence to change the lives of people in Scotland for the better.
I thank all the members who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate—the Executive's programme is wide ranging.
I am sorry that Alex Salmond was so negative and churlish. He barely mentioned the legislative programme. He made references to "Big Brother", which I suppose he now watches instead of the Ceefax pages. I notice that, like nasty Nick, he has gone under pressure before being voted out by his colleagues. He also chastised the First Minister for quoting from a Bank of Scotland economic report.
I can understand, given the SNP's general tendency to run Scotland down, that it does not like reports that talk about manufacturing output being up for 18 consecutive months, manufacturing employment being up and service sector output being up for 22 consecutive months. People can make their own judgments when reports as positive as that produced by the Bank of Scotland are dismissed out of hand by Mr Salmond.
I will make a legislative proposal to the Deputy First Minister, since he wants a constructive suggestion. Would he agree with legislation to make it illegal for a council to instruct bus drivers to decant children on dangerous roads in rural areas, as the Liberal Democrat administration is doing in Aberdeenshire at the moment? The administration blames Jack McConnell and Jack McConnell blames the administration. Does the Deputy First Minister think that it should be possible for a council to put children in danger in Aberdeenshire?
I feel sure that Jack McConnell will make an announcement in the next week about funding for local government, which I hope Mr Salmond will be willing to support.
My understanding is that the provision of school transport by Aberdeenshire Council meets its legal requirements and delivers to most parts of Aberdeenshire a better service than is provided by SNP-run Angus Council. I will take no abuse from Mr Salmond when councils controlled by his party are doing worse than the Liberal Democrat-led Aberdeenshire Council.
I believe that the programme of legislation that we have outlined is underpinned by a coherent, comprehensive and long-term strategy to ensure social justice and make a real difference and improvement in people's lives.
The First Minister announced several bills. The housing bill is aimed at helping people in the social housing sector, including some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Several members have mentioned the housing bill. Robert Brown referred to the law of the tenement. I do not think that it would be appropriate to deal with that in the housing bill; it forms part of a land reform bill. The title conditions report from the Scottish Law Commission should simplify the law of the tenement proposals and we certainly hope in due course to be able to implement those.
I say to Bill Aitken that we have given the undertaking on financial viability which had been sought by housing associations. It is not true to say that housing has been starved of resources; there is a 40 per cent increase in housing resources compared with the Tory programme.
Will Mr Wallace give way?
I am about to respond to what Fiona Hyslop said in her speech. She made several comments. It was significant that we learned today that the SNP is opposed to a £1.5 billion investment in Glasgow's housing stock, which is perhaps the biggest housing refurbishment programme. The SNP was supported by Mr Sheridan, who complained about the loss of £50 million but turns his face against an investment of £1.5 billion. That is what the people of Glasgow will have to weigh up.
I have responded to the points that Fiona Hyslop made in her speech.
Tommy Sheridan talked about choice. Of course the people of Glasgow will have a choice. When they learn that the benefit of our proposals will be £16,500 of new investment per unit instead of the current £600 per year, there will be a clear majority for change.
Will the minister tell the chamber what he will give the tenants if they vote no?
The important point that Mr Sheridan and the SNP seem to reject is that that level of investment will come through accessing private capital. They do not wish private capital to be involved, but that is how we will improve the housing stock in Glasgow.
Mr Sheridan referred to three of the key issues: fuel poverty, investment and effective repair services. Wendy Alexander said that our proposals will allow choice in repair services, and I have spoken about investment. As the First Minister said, tackling fuel poverty, which was raised by Malcolm Chisholm and several other members, is one of the Administration's key concerns. As the First Minister said, we believe not just in warm words but in warm homes, and we will provide extra help to keep people warm at home.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I will give way to Fiona Hyslop because she is getting desperate.
The people of Glasgow and the rest of Scotland would have more respect for the Government if it listened to what they said and acted accordingly. The minister should answer Tommy Sheridan's question: what additional investment will the people of Glasgow receive if they vote no?
We will listen to the people of Glasgow—they will be allowed to vote.
Do they have a choice?
Of course they will have a choice—they will have a ballot. I rather suspect that, given the choice between a £16,500 investment and a £600 investment, they will support the proposal.
The regulation of care bill is aimed at strengthening the protection of children and vulnerable adults. Kay Ullrich asked about staff. I assure her that there will be provisions in the bill to publish and promulgate codes of conduct and practice for all the work force and complementary codes of practice for employers. The Scottish social services council will strengthen and support the professionalism of the work force.
Kay Ullrich mentioned the length of waiting lists, although I recall that in May or June 1999 she said that the most important criterion was waiting times, which is reflected in the partnership agreement. It is quite clear that there has been an improvement in waiting times in the categories of those who are seen within one month and those who are seen within three months.
We should also be interested to learn today from Mr McLetchie that the Conservative party is willing to allow only £63 million of the new investment in the health service to go directly into health services. We are investing substantial sums in the health service. It would be interesting to know how the Conservatives would tackle such things as the winter crisis that sometimes affects the health service.
The graduate endowment bill was welcomed by both Robert Brown and Elaine Murray. Annabel Goldie, with the kind of breathtaking hypocrisy that one sometimes hears from the Tory party, complained about the details of our bursary scheme even though the Tory party has never offered any bursary and reduced financial support for students when it was in office.
As for the graduate endowment bill, the consultation carried out on our response to the Cubie report showed that the principle of the graduate endowment was broadly welcomed as a way of providing additional funding for improved maintenance for future generations of students. On John Swinney's point about the amount for repayment of the grant, I have told him before that the figure of £10,000 was chosen as it is the current figure for the start of repayment of student loans. There was some logic in that, given that, under our scheme, no student will have loans that are higher than that figure and most students will have a lower loan.
Just as important, if we had set up a different threshold and a new bureaucracy, we would have been severely criticised for using to fund such a bureaucracy money that ought to be allowing young people from poorer backgrounds the opportunity to have a higher education. That is not our intention. I should also point out that the rate of repayment is 9 per cent on anything more than £10,000, not 9 per cent of one's full income, which means that someone who earns £11,000 will pay only 9 per cent of £1,000.
If the Deputy First Minister did not have all his problems with a different system—and I know how computer systems give the Executive some difficulties these days—would he have argued for a higher threshold than £10,000? No one made the argument about whether someone who went to university and got a job that paid £10,000 was a sufficient indication that they had benefited from such education.
Our priority is to help and give maintenance to students from poorer backgrounds rather than establish wider and greater bureaucracies. I rather hoped that Mr Swinney shared that priority.
I was interested to hear Roseanna Cunningham and Phil Gallie from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee say that there ought to be more justice bills, given that they usually tell me that they have too many bills to scrutinise. However, I was disappointed to hear Roseanna Cunningham in some way disparage the international criminal courts bill. Helen Eadie gave a very passionate speech about its importance. We as a Parliament are taking responsibility to recognise our international obligations, which shows that we are an outward-looking Parliament that does not give way to the parochialism of people such as Roseanna Cunningham.
Some questions were asked about members' bills. I was surprised that John Swinney raised the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill. I made the timetable perfectly clear on 8 June. Indeed, amendments have been lodged today that set the time by which we hope to have replacement legislation in place.
I can assure Euan Robson that his civil marriages (venues) bill will be supported. Furthermore, in response to David McLetchie, the Executive will allow a free vote among the Executive parties on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. For the record, I will oppose the bill. We have also indicated that we will not make any decision on the financial resolution on the bill until after the Parliament has expressed its view at stage 1, for no other reason than that we have to work out the financial implications should it pass that stage.
John Swinney made a petty point about Opposition amendments. I have accepted a number of such amendments in the past year. For example, I accepted the view of the Equal Opportunities Committee and introduced the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2000 to allow a question on religion to be asked in the census. The Executive has been responsive to the views of the committees and the Opposition. Only last week, I accepted a very substantive amendment from Michael Matheson to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill that removed a complete ministerial responsibility. John Swinney asked about the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2000. If he had bothered to read the consultation document, he would have found that it has not been long since the consultation finished. The results obviously have to be analysed.
Presiding Officer, you shared with me the experiences of the consultative steering group. We were committed to a Parliament that was willing to consult. Consultation inevitably takes time; however, at the end of the day, it leads to better legislation.
I will conclude by saying that we have presented to the Parliament a legislative programme that addresses many of the important issues in Scotland today and can make a change for the better and a difference to people's lives. It reflects a partnership Government and a partnership with the people of Scotland to deliver better services and government for Scotland. I commend it to the Parliament.
Meeting closed at 18:05.