Legislative Programme
The next item of business is a statement by Margaret Curran on the legislative programme. The minister will take questions after the statement, so there should be no interventions.
Last September, the First Minister outlined to the chamber a legislative programme to take us through to the end of this parliamentary session, in the spring of 2007. As we approach the summer recess, I am grateful to have an opportunity to note the bills that have been passed and those that are in progress, and to advise members of adjustments and additions that we propose to make to the programme.
In the nine months since the First Minister's statement, a whole suite of bills has been passed in the chamber to make Scotland a better place. The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and the Joint Inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Act 2006 build a safer Scotland and protect the most vulnerable. The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 modernise laws for a modern Scotland. The Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 gives reassurance to those who lose loved ones in tragic circumstances. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 encourages the private rented sector and protects tenants within it. The Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 gives more parents the flexibility to decide their involvement in their children's schools. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 puts us at the leading edge of sustainable government in Europe and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill gives stronger protection to animals from cruelty and harm. Furthermore, we should not forget the implementation of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, which has been recognised as the most significant public health measure in a generation.
The legislation that we have dealt with has involved significant work for the Parliament, and members and particularly the committees have played a full role in that work. I record my thanks to the committees for their contributions in the past year and for the contributions that they will make in the coming year.
The Executive is keeping its promises, is in touch with the real needs of the people of Scotland and is delivering on health, crime, education and the environment. However, we want to go further. An ambitious programme is already before us that is based on a vision of a strong and ambitious Scotland in which opportunities are not only available to some, but are accessible to all Scots, whatever their background and culture. The Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill will strengthen families and allow more children to have a family of their own. The Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill will protect adults who are at risk of abuse. The Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill will strike a balance between debtors and creditors and allow people to get on with their lives. The Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill will make justice quicker and better, particularly by toughening up on bail. The Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill will improve the services that are provided by the legal profession and address public concerns about how complaints against lawyers are handled. The Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill, which we will deal with today, will modernise elections. The Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will introduce a quicker and more efficient planning system that has community involvement at its heart. The Crofting Reform etc Bill will expand and safeguard crofting for the 21st century. There is also the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill. The programme is certainly ambitious, but the Executive still has more to do.
I want to make a number of announcements and intimate to the Parliament a number of adjustments to the legislative programme, many of which aim to make Scotland safer by tackling crime and protecting those in our society who are vulnerable. I will also say something about children, our rural communities and improving the way in which the Parliament deals with transport developments.
I am pleased to say that the Executive will introduce a sentencing bill as a key priority. That bill will be tightly drawn and will focus on two central issues that I know are of keen concern to hard-working families and communities throughout Scotland. First, the bill will introduce measures to end automatic unconditional early release and achieve greater clarity in sentencing so that the public—especially victims—will know exactly what a sentence means. The bill will ensure that offenders will be in no doubt about what will happen to them. Offenders will no longer be automatically released unsupervised into our communities. Secondly, the bill will introduce new measures to restrict the sale of non-domestic knives and swords, about which the Minister for Justice will give fuller details in the near future.
I want to spell out how we will take forward our commitment to replace the existing soliciting offence with an offence that criminalises nuisance or offensive behaviour, whether that is caused by those involved in prostitution or their clients, as announced in our response to the report by the expert group on prostitution. In other words, the men who use prostitutes will also face prosecution. A short bill will be introduced in this session, provided that committee time can be secured to consider it.
We have considered carefully the issue of aggravated sentences for hate crime and we will issue a formal response in due course to the proposals that have been made by the working group on hate crime. We want to deal with the matter in the wider context of on-going work on consistency in sentencing. A report will be forthcoming from the Sentencing Commission in August.
I am pleased to confirm that, following the Bichard report, there will be a protection of vulnerable groups bill. There is perhaps no greater responsibility than protecting our children, and taking action on the Bichard recommendations therefore demands priority from the Executive and the Parliament. The bill will form part of our commitment to protect the most vulnerable in our society and will complement our wider child protection reforms. Giving priority to the bill has had an impact on our plans to progress proposals to reform children's hearings services, but I will return to that matter later.
The protection of vulnerable groups bill will include provisions to improve protection by preventing those who are unsuitable to work with vulnerable groups from doing so. It will put in place the legislative framework that is required to deliver the new vetting and barring scheme that Bichard recommended and will make other necessary changes to procedures to tighten protection measures further. The provisions will relate not only to those who work with children, but to those who work with adults at risk, in a paid or unpaid capacity. We will seek to make provision about information sharing to protect children at risk, as the First Minister announced earlier this year.
The Executive is committed to a comprehensive package of reforming legislation, but we must also be able to respond quickly and effectively to the needs of our citizens. Members of all parties will have been moved by the plight of those who suffer from asbestos-related disease and their families, and concerned by obstacles that lie in the way of fair damages being awarded. Des McNulty has built on his long record of campaigning on the issue by moving quickly to propose legislation, but time is against him in this session. The Executive will therefore publish an asbestos damages bill to address the issue of relatives' claims so that a choice does not have to be made between claiming while a person is alive and waiting for them to die tragically, and so that families do not suffer disadvantage as a result.
We are concerned about the implications of the recent Barker judgment in the House of Lords, which might reduce some compensation payments. I am sure that members are aware that the United Kingdom Government has announced its intention of legislating to overturn the ruling, and we remain in close contact with it. We will seek to reverse the ruling by the quickest possible means to ensure that all Scots are advantaged where that is possible, whether through our own bill or possibly by means of a legislative consent motion before the end of this parliamentary session. We will move as swiftly and efficiently as we can.
Following last week's emergency legislation, the Parliament is aware of the unfortunate illness of the Lord President, which has delayed the judges' response to our judicial reform proposals. Moreover, given the Lord President's central role in the plans that were outlined in the consultation paper, it would not be right to proceed without his response. However, I will be crystal clear. We are still firmly committed to placing the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland on a statutory footing and to carrying out the other proposed reforms. We will publish a bill before the end of the year that will allow an incoming Administration to expedite the process, should it wish to do so. Indeed, the fact that emergency legislation was needed shows that there is a need for appropriate reform.
I am sure that I am not the only person who was pleased to hear Jamie Oliver's praise for school meals in Scotland, but we want to build on that success and we will do so. Accordingly, I can confirm that the schools nutrition and health promotion bill will be introduced as planned. We are determined to turn around Scotland's poor health profile and we want to establish healthy lifestyles in children as early as possible. Our bill will ensure that all food and drink in schools is healthy and nutritious, which will make it easier for children to stick to the healthy options and to enjoy the long-term health benefits that come with that. The bill will ensure that all schools put health promotion at the heart of their activities and will improve take-up of free school meals.
I return to the issue of children's hearings. Last year, we consulted on a programme of reform that will improve children's services and support those who work with children and young people to deliver improved outcomes. The "getting it right for every child" proposals properly place the child at the heart of children's services. We have set out a unified approach, with less bureaucracy and more freedom to get on and respond to children's needs, in line with the Scottish Executive's vision for children. That means earlier help, with the child getting the right help at the right time for their particular needs. The proposals have received wide support. We want to implement key proposals as quickly as we can, which means bringing about changes in practice and developing the tools and material to support change. Pathfinder projects are developing and refining the approaches, which we will roll out across Scotland without the need for legislation.
However, legislation will be necessary to bring about some changes. I have made clear our intention to legislate on information sharing to protect children at risk and we are seeking to make provision for that in the protection of vulnerable groups bill. Having given priority to a bill to enact the Bichard recommendations, we have decided to consult on a draft bill this autumn with a view to early introduction of legislation on the "getting it right for every child" proposals early in the next parliamentary session, should the incoming Administration wish to do so. In the draft bill, we intend to include provisions to ensure that a robust, modern framework for children's services is put in place and to strengthen and modernise the children's hearings system. Peter Peacock will announce more details later today.
Many members can testify to the demands that have been placed upon the Parliament by the existing private bills procedure, particularly in respect of transport developments. [Interruption.] We can hear some of that now. We have made progress in opening new rail lines and there have been record levels of investment, but we know that there is now a need to speed up the parliamentary process to ensure that future transport investment can be implemented more quickly. I am sure that members will be relieved to hear that we will, as planned, introduce the transport and works bill—
Hear, hear.
I will not be tempted to respond to that. The transport and works bill is intended to bring greater consistency with existing processes for handling development applications, such as those that are applicable to trunk road developments, and to enable the detailed scrutiny of development proposals via a public inquiry or local hearing, to be carried out by persons appointed, on the basis of their qualifications and experience, as independent reporters.
I am pleased to confirm that an aquaculture and fisheries bill will be introduced as planned. The bill will strike a balance for the fish farming industry between prosperity and employment for rural communities and protection of the environment, by providing a backstop for the industry's voluntary code. It will also improve a number of matters for Scotland's many anglers, while protecting freshwater biodiversity.
Finally, I shall mention a bill that has been in development for some time. The Environment and Rural Development Committee is considering its stage 1 report on the Crofting Reform etc Bill, but I wish to record that the Executive has followed with interest and care the evidence on all sides. We await the committee's report and will respond constructively to what it has to say.
This parliamentary session is entering its final stages. Before too long, every member here will need to submit themselves—as they should do in a parliamentary democracy—to the judgment of the people in an election. I have laid out today some of the legislative detail, but I close by emphasising the Executive's aspirations for Scotland and Scots. The Scottish economy is growing. We said that it was our top priority, and the economy has grown above its average rate every year since the previous election. Some people do not like to hear this, but I will say it anyway: gross domestic product grew by more than 1.8 per cent in 2005 and the private sector has grown for 33 months in a row. Since devolution, 170,000 more people are in jobs.
We are tackling crime and overall crime rates are falling. We have been honest about the challenges that we face. Violent crime is coming down and we have created new laws to tackle Scotland's booze and blade culture. Through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, we have taken tough action to tackle antisocial behaviour in communities. Through, for example, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, we have put ourselves on the side of the victim.
Schools in Scotland are going from strength to strength. The attainment of Scottish pupils is improving and standards are being driven up. Our 15-year-olds are among the best performers in the world. Since devolution, attainment has improved. Test scores are up an average of nine points at primary and by 20 percentage points in secondary 2 reading.
Waiting times for hospital treatment are at their lowest levels and survival rates from Scotland's key killer diseases are increasing. We are working to improve Scotland's national health: by banning smoking, through the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005; by providing free fruit in primary schools; and by delivering exemplary standards of nutrition in our schools.
There have been dramatic increases in rates of recycling and renewable energy and there is free travel throughout Scotland for older people. There are new and refurbished schools throughout Scotland and there has been housing investment at unprecedented levels. Child poverty has been reduced by a quarter as promised and we are on track to end it.
When the election comes, we will be proud to stand on our record of promises kept and trust repaid for hard-working families, and of using the powers of devolution to make Scotland better. We have focused on the needs and priorities of the people of Scotland.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement, although I had taken the precaution of buying a copy of The Herald, which I found to be presciently accurate.
I welcome the sentencing bill, the asbestos damages bill and, as someone who has served on a private bill committee, the transport and works bill. On the Barker judgment and the problems arising from that, the Scottish National Party will seek to assist the Government in getting a solution as quickly as possible. The minister was on weaker ground in the latter part of her speech when she moved from legislation to Government performance overall, but I am sure that we will debate that at length over the next nine months.
In relation to bills promised or required that have not been delivered, I wish to make two points. First, Governments should not announce bills that they cannot deliver. Last September, the First Minister committed to the judicial appointments bill, as did the Government in the partnership agreement in 2003, so it is really not good enough to blame the non-appearance of that bill on the recent judicial illness. That will not wash. Secondly—as the minister would expect of me, I mention this in a consensual manner—there are delays in getting bills to Parliament. The Executive must carry the can for that and be held accountable for it. However, if the minister, who mentioned this twice in her statement, perceives that there is a potential problem once a bill gets to Parliament—we know that both justice committees are overloaded, while other committees are relatively lightly worked—will she undertake to liaise with the business managers to see how the committee structure could better address both the Government's task of getting its legislation through and Parliament's task of scrutinising the Government's performance?
Like Alasdair Morgan, I shall start on a consensual note. I welcome his approach on the asbestos damages bill. The Executive will look to work with members of all parties to improve the lives of those Scots who are deeply affected by asbestos. We will continue to discuss that.
It is well known—in the Parliamentary Bureau, throughout the parliamentary system and on the coalition benches—that we are attempting to engage constructively with the parliamentary process so that we can manage the bills that are there. There is no doubt that we are sent by our constituents to work hard in the Parliament—they expect us to do that. I make no apology to my colleagues, a number of whom have had many onerous requests made of them, but that is our parliamentary duty. We, as MSPs, are here to scrutinise legislation; when important legislation is passed, it is important that we do that. I shall take any opportunity I can and liaise with whoever I can to ensure that we improve that process. We all believe in the committee process. We know that it is effective. We know that it produces good results and we would want to do whatever we could to support it. We will happily talk to the SNP about that.
I turn to the less consensual part of Alasdair Morgan's question. It is astonishing that such a nice man as him can stand there and say that what we have done with the proposed judicial appointments bill is shocking, given that he called last week for the bill to be delayed. However, never mind that. Responding to events and recognising the issues that we face is a fundamental part of Government and the key to that is ensuring that we remain focused, that we deliver our programme and that we deliver on the priority needs of the people who elect us. We have laid out exactly that: a coherent programme on which we are still delivering.
Of course we should acknowledge the Lord President's situation and the knock-on effect that it has had. That is why we have taken proper action. It is not as if there is now a vacancy in the legislative programme; we are using the time to introduce the damages bill, so that is not an issue of concern to us. However, in case anyone misses the point, I re-emphasise that we are committed to the policy that lies behind the proposed judicial appointments bill. We will publish a draft bill and move forward with that policy.
I, too, thank the minister for her courtesy in providing an early copy of her statement. Like Alasdair Morgan, I congratulate the press and the media in general on their unerring ability to anticipate the contents of Executive statements.
In the run-up to next year's election, it is accepted that time is at a premium and we will certainly do everything possible to assist in the passage of legislation that we consider beneficial. The proposed transport and works bill will make the committee process more efficient, and we are all acutely aware of the suffering of those who have mesothelioma and a limited life expectancy. We look forward to scrutinising the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill very carefully to see that its content will achieve what is suggested.
We are pleased that the judicial reform proposals are not to proceed in the meantime. That might allow wiser counsel to prevail in respect of legislation that has the potential to damage the independence of the judiciary. We note, however, that the proposed sentencing bill will proceed. Perhaps the minister will confirm that, irrespective of so-called supervision, it will still be possible for someone who is sentenced to four years to be released after two years and, indeed, that the measures would enable someone who is serving six years to be released after three years, as opposed to the existing four years. That demonstrates that the purpose of the proposed legislation is to empty prisons and is nothing to do with public safety.
What did the Tories do in 1993?
The First Minister highlights the fact that the more often a lie is told, the more readily it will be believed. He knows that the Conservative Government introduced legislation in 1993 and then corrected it to revert to the previous position, which remained until his Government scrapped it. That is the fact of the matter, of which the First Minister is well aware.
The Executive says that it is proud to stand on its record. Does the minister accept that we in the Conservative party look forward to the election with much greater confidence and prospects of success than she has? On every recent test of public opinion, Scottish voters have made their judgment very clear. They want an Executive that will put reality before hype, and achievement before the smoke and mirrors of the present bunch. In one year, when Annabel Goldie is sitting in that man's seat, we will have an Executive that Scotland can be proud of and which can claim very real achievements.
Who could say that legislation is dry when Bill Aitken is talking? He could not even keep his own face straight. I thank him for a good laugh; it is a good way to start the morning. The prospect of the Tories returning to power in Scotland, apart from being fantasy, does not bear thinking about. We remember 1993 and what the Tories did in relation to automatic early release; that is the problem.
I will be absolutely clear. The reform of sentencing that Cathy Jamieson, the Minister for Justice, has proposed, is one of the most comprehensive packages of reform, which will deliver safety and solutions. The Tories do not appreciate that we are trying to solve the problem of crime in Scotland. We are not trying to deal with one part of it without worrying about the consequences—that is what a Tory Administration did to Scotland and how it blighted communities through automatic early release. The Tories do not seem to appreciate that it is now possible for prisoners to be kept in, whereas a Tory model would allow them out of prison and into communities unsupervised. Now, for the first time, there will be a robust system that will give communities the safety and protection that they need. Sentences and their conditions will be clear and communities will understand them. Judges will have many more powers to deal with sentencing.
I appreciate Bill Aitken's remarks about supporting us on the damages bill and the transport and works bill. However, that is all that he could say about our raft of reforms on criminal justice, health and education. The Tories' lack of vision and policy in this area is striking.
If we wait long enough, bizarre things happen in Scottish politics. I heard Kenny MacAskill quoting Tony Blair positively the other night because he recognises what the sentencing bill will do and that the Executive is trying to tackle crime and its causes. That is exactly what the bill will do. I expect that we will never persuade the Tories to adopt that policy, but at least Kenny MacAskill is persuaded.
I welcome several of the proposals, particularly on the improvement of nutritional standards in school meals and the transport and works bill.
However, there is agreement that climate change is the most important challenge that we face today, and yet there has been nothing in the Executive's legislative programme to address the issue despite strong public concern and cross-party support for back-bench legislation on climate change, home energy efficiency and microrenewables. Does the minister agree that it is high time that the Government took a clear political lead on climate change? Why has there been nothing in this Government's legislative programme to improve Scotland's awful record on energy efficiency? Will the Executive now support green proposals for legislation on climate change, microrenewables and home energy efficiency?
I disagree with Chris Ballance. He asked whether the Executive would give a clear political lead on issues associated with climate change and that is exactly what we are doing. The answer is not to produce one piece of legislation; change has to be actioned across a raft of policy areas. Whether it be the work that we have done in housing with the warm deal, energy efficiency and the home efficiency packs—I think that I have that name right—or the work that has been done on recycling, or the variety of work that is being done by Rhona Brankin and Ross Finnie, we are taking Scotland forward. We have delivered on our far-reaching recycling targets and we are committed to renewables targets; we have a comprehensive package of policies.
There is now much greater awareness of the challenge of climate change. We have gone to enormous lengths to ensure that the general populace are much more aware of it. We have worked with local authorities to ensure that they can meet our targets. We have a far-reaching waste strategy. That is what needs to be done to tackle climate change. We do not produce one bill and just tick it off on a list when it is done. Action is required on all fronts and that is what the Executive is doing.
I hope that the whole Parliament will get behind the proposed damages bill and that it will right the wrong that has been done to asbestos victims. I welcome that proposal.
I will, however, challenge the minister on three other matters. Does she accept that the Executive has made very little progress on tackling the scourge that is child poverty in Scotland? Will the minister state for the record when the Executive intends to end child poverty?
Does the minister admit that most people in Scotland realise that the Executive has failed to provide high-quality social rented housing and will she commit the Executive to increasing the number of homes in the social rented sector that will be available to the hundreds of thousands of Scots who cannot gain access to decent housing?
The council tax keeps many pensioners and ordinary workers in poverty. The minister has said nothing about whether there will be a revaluation as part of the Executive's scheme to keep on the council-tax bandwagon. Will she rule in or rule out a revaluation as part of the maintenance of the unfair council tax, or will she do what the majority of Scots want her to do, which is to announce that the council tax will be scrapped and replaced with a fairer income-based alternative?
I am pleased to see that Tommy Sheridan is back on form in the chamber, although I do not know whether that pleasure is shared by all his colleagues. I genuinely welcome his comments on the damages bill and again pay tribute to the work that Des McNulty has done, which I am sure is acknowledged by members of all parties. Des McNulty has championed that cause and has ensured that the Executive has responded to, and is in touch with, many asbestos victims. That is a credit to Parliament.
I will deal in reverse order with the other substantive issues that Tommy Sheridan raised. He knows fine well that a finance review is under way and that we will respond appropriately when it has been concluded. It is clear that the arguments that he has advanced on abolition of the council tax do not have much support, are not robust and have not been thought through. When the Local Government and Transport Committee considered Mr Sheridan's Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill, it did a thorough job and came to firm conclusions.
On housing, I find Tommy Sheridan's audacity staggering. He has opposed every measure that we have taken to improve investment and standards in social rented housing and to provide new housing throughout Scotland. Mr Sheridan and I are both representatives of Glasgow, where the programme that has been undertaken will result in £4 billion of investment. He has opposed us at every step of the way, so he must forgive me if I accept no lectures on social housing from him.
There are organisations of repute throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom that acknowledge what we have achieved on child poverty and recognise that we are making steady progress on meeting our target of ending it within a generation. We have worked in partnership with the UK Government and we have been honest about what we have achieved. In the world of the Scottish Socialist Party, Tommy Sheridan might think that it is possible to abolish poverty overnight simply by agreeing to a motion or passing legislation, but the rest of us know that the situation is not quite like that.
We will deliver genuine and sustained change for the people of Scotland. Through our actions, we will reduce health inequality, and through our investment in public services we will improve standards for people who are at the lower end of the educational opportunity ladder. Day by day, we are making improvements. Poorer people suffer disproportionately from crime and antisocial behaviour, so we are taking action in those areas. If one asks all the organisations that work in the field what they think we should do to tackle poverty, they invariably come up with a list of the things that we are doing. Child poverty is addressed not through slogans and ultra-left politics, but by real and sustained action that meets the needs of the people concerned.
I thank the minister for providing an advance copy of her statement and I congratulate her on the many meaningful advances that have been made in Scotland for which the Executive has been responsible, not least of which is the progress that has been made on compensation for asbestos victims, thanks to Des McNulty's efforts. As a 17-year-old apprentice, I worked in the shipyards. Inside the ships, asbestos fell like snow—workers went home white with asbestos, looking like snowmen. I thank Des McNulty for campaigning on the issue and I thank the minister for taking action.
Sadly, no specific mention was made of new measures being taken in the remainder of the present parliamentary session to improve the situation of the 20 per cent of pensioners who live below the Government's poverty level. Surely it is time to explore the possibility of Parliament's obtaining fiscal autonomy for Scotland, especially as we read that Gordon Brown has promised to spend billions on upgrading Trident at a time when pensioner poverty—for which he is responsible—is still a reality in the United Kingdom, which is one of the richest economies in the world.
I thank John Swinburne for his reference to the proposed damages bill and for articulating what it was like to work in the shipyards, where asbestos was commonly used. We will work with him closely as we progress the bill.
I emphasise that a great part of our work has resulted in significant change in the lives of pensioners throughout Scotland. It is right that we pay attention to our older citizens and ensure that they are a priority. Our free travel scheme is one of the most noteworthy measures that we have taken for pensioners, but our work on housing and the central heating programme has also benefited them greatly. It is through systematic change that we can improve people's quality of life.
Statistics show that the gap between the poorest pensioners and the richest pensioners is decreasing and that we are getting more pensioners out of poverty. The UK Government has said that improving the lives of the poorest pensioners is its key priority, but the Executive wants to improve the lives of all pensioners, which is why we have taken the action that we have taken.
I am sure that all members will welcome the plans to legislate following the Bichard report. As the minister said, there is no greater responsibility than that of protecting our children and other vulnerable people, so it is perhaps understandable that the proposed reforms of the children's hearings system have had to be postponed. Is the Executive still fully committed to establishing a system that is fit for the 21st century? Does the minister expect that a bill that will achieve that aim will be introduced soon after the May 2007 elections?
I can confirm that the Executive is fully committed to carrying out the modernisation and reform that are wrapped in with the proposals on children's hearings—Peter Peacock will talk about the detail of that. As I said in my statement, we will go ahead with the underlying work and the non-legislative changes that will be required to ensure that when legislation is introduced, its impact can be felt swiftly.
I thank the minister for her statement and echo many of her sentiments on the Executive's achievements to date. I welcome the proposals to introduce a damages bill, a sentencing bill, a protection of vulnerable groups bill and a schools nutrition and health promotion bill. However, I ask the minister to take back to her colleagues the issue of nutrition. Although our work in schools has been a success, we should consider such matters in the context of the whole public sector. Our work in schools should be the first stage in a process of improving nutrition in all the buildings over which we have control, including hospitals and prisons.
Another achievement has been our investment in public transport, which has been a record both in absolute terms and as a percentage of transport spending. I spent 34 months serving as a member of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee and I share the frustration of many people that the proposed investment has been delayed as a result of Parliament's private bills process, so I warmly welcome the proposed transport and works bill.
However, I have concerns about the delays that were mentioned in the statement. I know that the minister has a personal commitment to protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, so I am slightly disappointed that we do not have a cast-iron guarantee that action will be taken on sentences for aggravated hate crimes and that there will be another consultation on the children's hearings system. I seek an assurance from the minister that we will move quickly to bring to fruition the work on those two extremely important issues for the most vulnerable people in society.
Margaret Smith raised a substantial number of issues. Her initial point was about widening our consideration of nutrition—I understand that Andy Kerr is consulting on that at the moment. There is certainly a commitment to addressing Margaret Smith's underlying point and we are considering how that can be done. I would be happy to give the member more details on our plans, if she wishes them.
Every member of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee talks about the 34 months that they spent on the committee—I am now so familiar with the figure that it is embedded in my consciousness. I record our appreciation of the committee's efforts; its experience has led us to try to improve the entire public works bill process. Again, I am grateful to members in all parts of the chamber for their comments on how we should progress the transport and works act.
Margaret Smith's comments on hate crime perhaps portray the Executive in a more critical light. She was involved in many such issues in the previous session of Parliament. I genuinely understand the issue of hate crime and why it became significant to Parliament, and I understand the underlying impulse to tackle forms of violence that are completely unacceptable in our society. However, in producing new categories of aggravated offences, we must be careful that we do not at the same time undermine the system. We could create a range of offences that would lead to inconsistency in sentencing; for example, there is the possibility of being unable to find the right category of offence. If the category of aggravated offences is to be used, sentencing needs to be comparable. We need to ensure that the matter is sent to the Sentencing Commission for Scotland when it considers consistency in sentencing.
I reassure Margaret Smith that the recommendations of the working group on hate crime are being responded to. That work is under way in the victim information and advice service, through a variety of different means that we are using to support vulnerable adult witnesses and through a variety of other issues that came out of the working group on hate crime report. I also reassure her that the work that we are taking forward will ensure that we get the result that all of us want to get. There is no lessening of our appreciation of the reality of hate crime, the dreadful impact that it can have on people's lives and what it tells us about the kind of society in which we live. We want to challenge that.
I ask for shorter questions and answers from now on.
I invite the minister to agree that we should try to work more cleverly as well as harder. In that context, will the minister look again at the current position of the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill? The bill supports an objective that is shared by almost all in Parliament, but it will deliver only the spending of money but nothing for individuals. The Executive could spend the money and we could deliver human rights by other ways. Will the minister consider whether it is appropriate to retain the bill in a legislative programme that already has 10 bills, all of which are approximately at stage 1?
The Executive said that it would bring forward the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill and that is what is has done. We will continue to take forward that bill. The approach that we have taken has been constructive; we listened to the issues that the Justice 1 Committee raised. We have also broadly listened to the evidence that the Finance Committee is taking on the governance of commissioners more generally and we will listen when Parliament responds to that committee's recommendations.
We have some sympathy with some of the issues that have been raised, but we want to ensure that we have a sensible governance structure and that we are sensible in the approaches that we take. We are looking to lodge amendments at stage 2 of the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill that will address the issues that Parliament raised in the stage 1 debate. That is the constructive approach that the Executive is taking.
We have been clear about the policy commitments that we want to introduce and we will legislate on them where we are required to do so. However, when Parliament has criticisms and offers alternative ways forward, we will listen and take action appropriately. When we get to stage 2 of the bill, Stewart Stevenson will see some of the responses that we have made.
From the statement that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has made, it is clear that we have done a lot, but still have much to do.
I declare an interest as a member of the Routes Out of Prostitution board. Does the minister agree that it is right that we should examine prostitution closely, particularly as it affects women? Many of the women who turn to prostitution are discriminated against in the law, whereas men are not. Given that Parliament has not had a debate on the report of the expert group on prostitution and that some of the issues the minister addressed have not yet come before us, can she assure me that issues will come before the chamber for parliamentary debate before they go straight to committee?
The minister quite rightly told some of us in the chamber this morning that she expects us to work hard; we expect nothing less of Margaret Curran. Will she further assure me that in the closing months of the parliamentary session the important bills that we will have before us—the damages bill and other bills, which all of us welcome—will have the highest quality of scrutiny? As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that we continue, as we have done before, to pass a high number of bills of the highest quality.
Pauline McNeill makes substantial points; in fact, she has raised them with me before. I know that Pauline McNeill wants, as convener of the Justice 1 Committee, to ensure that the committees properly undertake their scrutiny role and their role of holding the Executive to account. I know that that view is supported by other conveners. Committees need the time and support to do that and the Executive needs to ensure that we get the balance right. I will continue to engage with conveners and parliamentary officials to ensure that we try to achieve that. I do not need to exhort members such as Pauline McNeill to work hard; they do that without any encouragement.
However, as I said, Pauline McNeill raised substantial points. I know the work of the Routes Out of Prostitution project. The point that she made on prostitution is a reasonable one; the report has not come to the chamber for debate. We need to give some attention to that. There are many significant and complex issues around the bill that we hope to introduce. We want to engage with people on the best way of finding the appropriate time for the parliamentary debate and scrutiny that will ensure that the issues are tackled properly.
I return to the point that Pauline McNeill made on the emphasis that we need to give to the committees in their scrutiny role. We will work very hard to ensure that that happens. We will engage with committees to do that.
I remind the minister that we on the Conservative benches welcome some bills. However, before we come to a final opinion on a bill, we like to see the quality of the drafting and the influence that it will have on our people.
The minister will recall that the stage 3 debate on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill was a bit of a pantomime, to put it lightly. I am very surprised that the legislative programme does not include a revisiting of that legislation, given that that was suggested at the time. We need to get that legislation finished off properly—as everyone remembers, the bill's passage was a bit of a shambles at the end.
I turn to committee time, on which I welcome the minister's words. In taking constructively what Alasdair Morgan said, and given the fair old build up and logjam of bills in the last months of this session of Parliament, should not we do away with non-essential debates? That would allow more committee time and give more clerking support to committees to enable them to do the job that the minister has set before them.
I would never dismiss out of hand any proposal that would allow the committees to do their work and due parliamentary process to be undertaken. However, I balk immediately at the idea that we should not have proper debates in the chamber. A strong principle of parliamentary democracy is that we take debates to the chamber, which is the primary arena of parliamentary democracy.
I accept David Davidson's point about committees. We want to ensure that they have the full time that they need to do their work, so we have brought forward and refined the legislative programme with exactly that principle in mind. We knew that it was important not to say that we would introduce bills that we could not deliver through the parliamentary process, either because the committees did not have time to scrutinise them or we could not find the appropriate time in the chamber. We refined the process for that reason; that was the genesis of the programme that we have brought to the chamber today.
We have to be honest about the fact that we are not doing the children's hearings bill; other priorities have overtaken it. We cannot cut corners in terms of the appropriate parliamentary time that we need for legislation. I hope that I have given David Davidson some reassurance.
David Davidson is also the convener of a hard-pressed committee. More generally, I would be happy to talk to him about how we will manage the process throughout the coming year. The legislative programme is demanding and members will be very hard pressed to fulfil their responsibilities, but they have risen to that challenge before and it is possible for them to do it again.
On the passage of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, we know the procedures that will help us to examine the matter. Again, we need to ensure that Parliament gets the wee bit of extra time that it needs, if extra time is required. The issue is more about that than it is about what David Davidson described. That said, we need to ensure that procedures are used appropriately to empower members to discharge their duties. I will continue to work with members in that regard.
I do not doubt that the Conservatives scrutinise the quality of bills or that that is how they arrive at their judgments of support. I reassure David Davidson that if quality is the main criterion for judgment, we will not disappoint.
I am sure that the minister would be the first to agree that, in and of itself, legislation is not a panacea. In the particularly important area of child protection, I seek reassurance from the minister that every effort will be made to ensure that regulation and legislation do not inadvertently discourage or obstruct good work in our communities. Will the Executive ensure that there is a proportionate approach to risk in that context? In the vital area of information sharing, will the Executive take steps across ministerial portfolios and departments to ensure that in addition to changes to statute there will be changes in culture, systems and practice? Will the management and leadership be put in place in our public services so that those changes can be made?
I agree strongly with Susan Deacon that legislation is not a panacea, but I am sure that she appreciates that the changes in culture and practice for which she calls cannot easily or quickly be made. However, there is a desire throughout the Executive, led by the First Minister, to achieve such changes and to ensure that governance in Scotland is sensitive to people's experience—especially vulnerable people's experience—and to the challenges that people face. There is also a desire to ensure that our regulatory regimes are fit for purpose and that they are empowering rather than limiting. The devil can be in the detail in such an approach, so it is important to ensure that we do not inadvertently cause difficulty. However, I reassure the member that in day-to-day work throughout the Executive the sensitivity to which I referred is being applied to decision-making structures and to approaches to design and implementation of policy. We take the matter seriously and are working on it.
On the proposed schools nutrition and health promotion bill, the minister said that the Executive would ensure that all food and drink in schools is healthy and nutritious. How will the Executive deal with the contracts that local authorities have signed with companies that sell soft drinks or provide vending machines that supply unhealthy food, about which members are concerned? How can we get round the tendering process, particularly given European rules and regulations, so that schools can be allowed to source healthy and fresh produce locally for the children who attend them?
I am sure that Stewart Maxwell noticed that in my statement I cleverly said that Peter Peacock would deal with certain issues, although I grant that I was not referring particularly to the detail of issues that Mr Maxwell raised. In all honesty, it would be more appropriate for Peter Peacock to address such matters and we will ensure that the member receives detailed answers to his questions.
As far as I am aware, Scotland is one of the few countries—if not the only country—in which there is no direct advertising for Coca-Cola in schools, which demonstrates our commitment.
The reputation of Parliament is enhanced when we do the right thing: the Executive is doing the right thing in introducing an asbestos damages bill and reversing the House of Lords judgment. On behalf of asbestos victims and their families, I congratulate the Executive on the announcement that injustices will be remedied. In particular, I thank the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, for listening so carefully to what campaigners said about damages. [Applause.]
Can the minister give us more information on how quickly she will move on the two issues? I acknowledge that the issues are complex, but now that we have said that we will deal with those injustices, it is important that we do so as quickly as possible.
I thank Des McNulty for his remarks. As I said, I hope to receive an indication of cross-party support and to be able to brief party representatives on how we will proceed. We can move forward on proposals on one aspect of the proposed asbestosis damages bill and I will be happy to meet Des McNulty to take that work forward.
On the slightly trickier issue of the possible legislative consent motion—the timescales make it tricky—we must ensure that Parliament's interests are protected and that we maximise the opportunity that is presented by the UK Government's apparent determination to legislate. It is not appropriate to give Des McNulty more specific details at this stage, but I reassure him and other members that I am working hard to ensure that Scots have the opportunity to benefit from legislation as quickly as possible. We will attempt to create the means for that to happen within days rather than months, if we can. If I can win cross-party support for our proposal, I hope to come back to Parliament before the end of the session with an indication of how we will take the proposal forward.