The next item of business is a debate on the Scottish Government’s programme for government 2014-15.
15:11
I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party to the First Minister’s statement. I congratulate the new First Minister on bringing forward her first programme for government.
This is of course the first post-referendum legislative agenda that the Government has presented and it is being presented in a Scotland that is, as others have said, changed and “changed utterly”. The passion and energy of the referendum, which came from the ground up on both sides rather than being directed by politicians, means that business as usual is no longer good enough. When 85 per cent of the electorate take part in a vote in Scotland, the old way of doing things just will not work any more.
We must all change, and that includes the Scottish Government. Voters will rightly judge the First Minister and the Government on results, not rhetoric. Indeed, they might even hold their feet to the fire on promises of greater social justice. However, Scottish Labour wants to see a programme for government that puts cutting inequality at the heart of absolutely everything that we do. We believe that social justice should not just be an empty slogan but should be the central strategy that makes our country and our communities healthier, wealthier and happier. Simply talking about social justice does not pay the bills or lift a single person out of poverty.
I see lots of summits, commissions and conventions in the First Minister’s statement. Perhaps they are the new vehicles for the new consensus, and I welcome that. However, that is not a substitute for taking action. It is welcome that the Scottish National Party Government has decided to prioritise social justice, which is something that it has had the power to deliver from the beginning. For me, there is no greater ambition for government. If the Government brings forward legislation or takes action to tackle inequality, the Scottish Labour Party will support it.
Although it remains to be seen whether the new First Minister will turn out to be different from her predecessor on social justice, in one crucial aspect there can be no debating that there has been a major change: the First Minister is a woman, and that indeed is cause for celebration. It sends a signal, as she said herself, to every young woman and girl in Scotland that they can reach the top of their chosen profession without gender acting as a barrier. We on the Labour benches have long advocated equality for women in politics. We were the first to have a 50:50 gender balance in our parliamentary party and the first to introduce all-women shortlists. The new 50:50 Scottish Cabinet is to be welcomed and it is a great start but, as the First Minister knows, it is not enough.
I welcome the First Minister’s commitment to 50:50 by 2020, but she can do that for public bodies right now. There is no need for quotas in order to do that, because ministers make all the appointments. We know that the boards of public bodies are dominated by men. I will not run through the full list, but we can look at the example of the Scottish Enterprise board, which has a mere three women to nine men. What signal are we sending about women in the economy? If the First Minister is serious about breaking down the barriers for women in public life and not just in politics, we agree that 50:50 representation is essential, but we believe that progress can be made on that right now.
I hope that the First Minister will also recognise the difficulty that many women experience in the workplace. If the SNP really wants to act on social justice, it could start by shining a light on the discrimination that is faced by working women. How about challenging every large private firm to audit and publish its pay gap? And let us do it for the public sector, too.
I turn to the living wage, because we all know that it will make a huge difference to women. We believe that the Scottish Government should promote better pay with a living wage strategy and a living wage unit. A convention is welcome, but we can do more. We want to see the passion and energy that the SNP showed for independence being put into delivering better wages for workers across the country.
Just a few months ago, we asked the First Minister, in her previous role, to support the living wage in all public sector contracts. She has the power to do that, and it would guarantee a rise to workers in low-paid jobs such as cleaning, catering and caring, the majority of whom are women. If Renfrewshire Council can agree that with its private care providers, surely the Government can do something, too.
I wonder, then, whether the member will agree that control over the statutory minimum wage should be devolved.
No, what I think is that the living wage is—[Interruption.] If members will let me finish, the living wage is considerably higher. Actually, the debate in Scotland has moved on to the living wage, and I think that that is critical. I welcome the SNP’s new-found interest in this, because it has voted against it in the past. This year alone, it has voted against the living wage no fewer than five times. The people of Scotland deserve better than that.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
They should not have to put up with a Scottish Government that talks left but walks right.
The reality for too many Scots is that work does not pay. It is a moral scandal that, after seven years of SNP Government and four years of the Tories, some working families in Scotland rely on food banks and payday lenders to make ends meet. If the boiler breaks down or the electricity bill is higher than expected, they are in trouble, because the cost of living crisis is increasing. Nearly one in five children in Scotland are living in relative poverty, which is an increase of 15 per cent on the previous year. Some 30,000 more children are living in poverty in Scotland today, and that is something that this Parliament and the First Minister can change.
Scottish Labour more than halved child poverty in just 10 years. We lifted 200,000 Scottish children out of poverty and we can do that again. The reality is that this Parliament has always had significant powers to fight poverty.
One of the achievements of Labour in government in the UK was the tax credit system, including the child tax credit system. That has been altered, which has made things worse for working families. Will Ms Baillie support the devolution of those powers to this Parliament so that we can address that here?
The Smith commission will report tomorrow. The member has people in that commission who are taking forward his agenda. Why does he not talk to John Swinney and we will see what the consensus delivers tomorrow?
Let me talk about the powers that the SNP Government has, because that will be interesting. On housing, for example, this Government has a shameful record. [Interruption.] Scotland faces a social housing crisis—
Order.
Presiding Officer, they do not like the facts, do they? They like to shout them down.
Will the member give way?
No. Scotland faces—
Members: Oh!
Well, I ask the First Minister to answer this question, then: why is it that social housing in Scotland is at a level that has not been seen since the second world war?
This Government is well on track to meet its target on social housing, but the question that I wanted to ask Jackie Baillie is this: can she remind the Parliament exactly how many council houses the last Labour Administration built?
Perhaps—
Members: Six.
I know that the First Minister is fixated on council houses. [Interruption.]
Order.
Perhaps she would like to tell us how many were built by housing associations in the social rented sector, because we built more than she is currently doing.
At this point, 180,000 Scots sit on waiting lists, 23,000 homes lie empty and the Scottish Government’s statistics yesterday showed a 22 per cent drop in social housing completions in the past year. That is not a record to be proud of. If the Government is serious about tackling poverty, that has to change.
We must also reform the private rented sector for those who are unable to access social housing or get a foot on the property ladder. We called for a ban on rip-off rent rises and the SNP said no. It voted with the Tories to protect rogue landlords rather than offer some support and protection to the one in four Scots who live in poverty in the private rented sector. Where is the bill? It is not here.
We are encouraged by the First Minister’s recent comments about the importance of childcare. We regard that as an economic rather than a gender issue, although it will come as a surprise to many Scots that a transformative childcare agenda does not require Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. As Scottish Labour has said all along, we need the political will to make a difference to families across this country. If we want a thriving economy, we need to fix that barrier for parents. It can also be a huge game changer in the fight against poverty. Our current childcare system is not working. It must become more affordable and more flexible. The costs are among the highest in Europe.
Although the First Minister’s ambition to make childcare free for 27 per cent of two-year-olds is welcome, it would see Scotland lag behind England, where the figure is 40 per cent. We cannot make all childcare free, but we can make it affordable and flexible. We are committed to capping childcare costs and we are working through the details with experts. We would ensure a childcare place for every mother and father who wants to go to college to gain the skills needed to get a job.
During the referendum campaign, the Scottish Government realised that childcare was an important issue. It should remain one, but the programme for government does not have a bill to match that ambition. The Government is “planning”, or it is in consultation, so we could be waiting for six years before we see a difference. That is a pity, as the Government would have had our full support for taking radical action.
The First Minister must also accept that her Government has presided over budgets that have disproportionately hurt the poorest people in Scotland. The cuts to local authorities have scarred our communities. These cuts are felt on the front-line public services that are most relied on by our poor and vulnerable.
Will the member give way?
Yes, if the cabinet secretary can explain why there are 70,000 fewer local government workers and why the bulk of them are women.
On how many occasions has the Labour Party asked me to give local government more money at any stage of the formal budget negotiations? The answer—because Jackie Baillie will not give it—is that it has done that on no occasion.
As a former local government worker, I am always happy to see more money being given to local government because it will do something with it. As a consequence of John Swinney’s Government’s decisions, there are 70,000 fewer local government workers in Scotland today.
We welcome the Government’s intention to finally do something about the council tax freeze. I am not opposed to a freeze; after all it was Glasgow City Council that led the way, but the Government has underfunded that promise. We are promised a consultation, not legislation, so it is off into the long grass again.
As the First Minister knows, Scottish Labour led the way on land reform with a series of radical measures including the introduction of the right to roam and the ending of feudalism. We will support whatever the Government now wants to do on land reform as long as it meets the test of being radical. My colleague Claire Baker will say more about that later.
Few things unite us across the chamber more than the horror of domestic abuse. More needs to be done to end violence against women. As a minister, I was proud of Scottish Labour’s work, which began to tackle the issue and on which the current Government has built. However, one in five women will experience domestic abuse at some point in their lives. This is not an issue of party politics; it is an issue of human decency. I therefore very much welcome the Government’s intention to legislate in this area and on revenge porn. The Government will have our full support. When are we likely to see that legislation? We support its introduction as soon as possible.
I am also delighted to welcome the First Minister’s commitment to carrying on with a bill on human trafficking that was initially introduced by my colleague Jenny Marra. I hope that that can serve as an example of what can be achieved when we work together.
Nobody will be in any doubt that winter is approaching. For 900,000 Scots who are living in fuel poverty, this winter is something to dread. It means hardships, tough challenges and higher bills. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which we all supported in the chamber, pledged to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016. That target is unlikely to be met, although I would happily take an intervention to be told that I am wrong. Well, there you go.
It is shameful that this Government has underspent the fuel poverty budget at a time when the need is self-evident. As families across Scotland choose between heating and eating, the Scottish Government is doing nothing about it. However, it does not have to be like that. In the spirit of the new consensus, the First Minister should join Scottish Labour and support a freeze on energy prices. We know that the SNP wanted to give energy companies a double windfall in the shape of a corporation tax cut and the removal of the green levy, but I hope that its new-found commitment to social justice will lead it to support our plans, which would save every Scottish household an average of £120 while we overhauled the energy market and took on vested interests. Scottish Labour has already produced a fuel poverty strategy, which I commend to the First Minister.
A new era means a new Cabinet, but it is not without its challenges. Our national health service is in crisis and education budgets have been slashed. Change at the top means nothing if the new faces do not have a new approach.
It is disappointing that the agenda contains little action to repair our broken NHS, because it is clear that urgent action is needed. Delayed discharge is up by 106 per cent since last year, as more patients take up beds that they no longer need, due to the lack of care packages. NHS complaints are up by 23 per cent. Accident and emergency waiting time targets are not being met. Cancer waiting time targets are being missed. Just last week, we found out that the Scottish Government’s promises on access to cancer medicines have been broken.
When she was in opposition, the First Minister promised to increase the number of available hospital beds, yet in Scotland hospital beds are disappearing faster than in almost anywhere else in the western world. More than 6,000 beds have been withdrawn from Scottish hospitals over the past 10 years, which is a drop of 21 per cent.
I care passionately about our NHS and all those who work in it, and I know that the First Minister does, too. However, the NHS and its staff face challenges. As our NHS teeters on the brink, the Government’s response is inadequate. Our NHS deserves much better than that, which is why we believe that it is time for a fundamental review of the NHS, to ensure that our resources are being put in the right places, to strengthen our NHS for decades to come. It is time for a Beveridge report for the 21st century.
When the previous First Minister left office, he called free tuition his greatest achievement. There is even a large rock sculpture to prove it. However, the reality is different. For thousands of Scots, education at any level means being caught between a rock and a hard place. The numbers speak for themselves. The budget for further education has been slashed by £67 million. The number of college students in Scotland has been cut by more than 140,000. The number of Scottish students attending university is down by 12,000, and for those from the poorest backgrounds the number is down by more than 3,500. Student bursaries have been cut by 35 per cent and student debt has shot up by 69 per cent in the past year alone.
The Government has failed to close the inequality gap in numeracy and literacy.
Will the member give way on that point?
The member is winding up.
The silver bullet in battling poverty is education, yet we have lost 4,000 teachers since 2007. The SNP promised to halve classroom sizes in our primary schools. At every level of education the SNP is failing Scotland.
I will take a final moment to pay tribute to the incredible campaigning of Gordon Aikman. I have known and worked alongside Gordon for years and it would be wonderful if his diagnosis could leave a lasting, positive legacy for vulnerable people across Scotland. I welcome the First Minister’s pledge today and I also support her action to ensure that local authorities will not charge for those who require care and have a terminal illness. I also support the measures in the carers bill.
Charging for social care is of course a wider issue. Those under 65 in non-residential care increasingly have to contribute higher proportions of their benefit towards the cost of care. Some have cancelled services as a result. The care tax is a tax on the most vulnerable members of our communities. It is a tax that, working together, we can abolish. It would cost about £50 million. If the Government is to protect the most vulnerable, I urge the First Minister, in the interests of fairness and equality, to do that.
15:30
The First Minister has made a point at this, the start of her period of office, of saying that she will be a listening First Minister, one who works with people from any and all political stripes where there is agreement. She says that she will be open to ideas and suggestions for improvement. I welcome that approach.
Last week, I laid out a Conservative vision, which, I believe, would make our country better, using the taxation powers that are coming to the Parliament to reduce the financial burden on Scotland’s families; introducing school choice in order to drive up standards; recognising the importance of our colleges and stopping the political vandalism that has resulted in 140,000 places being cut under the present Government; creating a Scotland where we value our vocational education as highly as our academic education; and stopping the removal of £60 million each and every year from our nation’s health budget by giving free prescriptions to the better-off in our society, who had previously been happy to pay a contribution. Rather, we should use that £60 million to fund 1,000 extra nurses and midwives across our land.
The First Minister said that there was little on which we could agree, so let me appeal to the angel of her better nature as regards areas where we might. Let us consider the new bills that have been unveiled today and, first, those that are already in train.
The First Minister is a lawyer by trade. She understands the concept of due process. She has been a politician for five times as long as she ever practised law. She understands legislation. It was simply wrong to attempt the scrapping of the centuries-old tenet of corroboration without telling MSPs, never mind the public at large, what would replace it. Loyal to her colleagues as she is, she has a great opportunity, as a new First Minister with a new Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to revisit the fudge that came out of that aborted parliamentary fix.
As the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill makes its passage through the Parliament, let us get back to first principles. How do we better secure justice for victims and fairness for the accused? We need the wholesale review of the law of evidence that the Conservatives have been calling for. We will help in any way that we can to clean up the mess that has been created.
On Thursday, I asked our new First Minister about ending automatic early release. The independent Scottish Parliament information centre showed that, under the SNP’s current plans, fewer than 1 per cent of the criminals who are jailed would be subject to the sentence that is handed down. The First Minister said that there would be opportunities to amend the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill during this legislative diet. I am asking for assurances that improvements, which have been put forward in good faith to stop those who break their contract with society having their prison doors flung open early, are considered in the same good faith in which they are offered.
That should be an area on which there is agreement. The SNP manifestos of both 2007 and 2011 contained a pledge to end automatic early release. That pledge is not honoured if it does not apply to more than 99 per cent of our prison population. The present Government has been in power for more than seven years now. For each of those seven years, it has said that it believes in that policy, and it has promised to deliver it. Let us make that happen in the final 18 months of this session.
It is not just in areas of justice where we want to help the new First Minister; it is in areas of social justice, too. Nicola Sturgeon, having said that the improvements to childcare could happen only under independence, has now found a way, through the proposed bill that has been unveiled today, to address the matter under the powers of devolution.
The Scottish Conservatives have always placed great import on early years education. We applaud moves to increase provision for two-year-olds. Indeed, I am long on record decrying the fact that Scotland has lagged behind south of the border in that very area. However, we see nothing socially just at all in the idea that the amount of provision someone receives depends on a fluke of nature or the lottery of birth.
It is not just, socially or otherwise, that families with children who were born in one half of the year benefit more than families with children born in the other half. The issue is not just that only half of families in Scotland benefit from two full years of free provision. The First Minister is a smart lady, and it cannot be beyond the wit of man, or woman, to address that iniquity, and we will support any attempts to do so under the proposed bill.
Should the Smith commission deliver the powers for it, we can also support votes for 16-year-olds in future Scottish elections. We support increasing the provision of apprenticeships. We support the roll-out of Clare’s law, which we called for. We can support future human trafficking legislation.
Will Ruth Davidson give way?
Not this time.
We also support the belated commitment to increase health spending. The rise in national health service spend each year down south means that, each year, the Scottish Government’s health consequentials have also risen. The Government has not always delivered those millions to Scotland’s health service, and external bodies agree: it is long past time that it did so. If the First Minister honours today’s commitment, we will welcome that too.
There was much fanfare today—indeed, journalists were briefed overnight—that the programme would contain significant new measures to boost Scotland’s economy. I fear that the measures are, at best, underwhelming. I back the rates relief and small business bonus conditions that the First Minister announced, but the Government has a far greater number of levers at its disposal that it is not using or that are hindering, not helping, business.
The Government has talked many times in many ways about creating the most business-friendly environment, the most competitive tax regime and the most attractive business solutions, but let us set its record against its promises.
What happened on the promises in the 2011 SNP manifesto to help to create new retail banks and support social banking? Nothing.
On the overall tax burden to business, the Government received this year £30 million in Barnett consequentials from a UK scheme that gives small high street shops and cafes a £1,000 rebate. The money was trousered, but the £1,000 rebate was never passed on.
Our larger retailers were hit with a mercurial £95 million smash-and-grab levy. It came from nowhere and hokey cokeyed in and out over three years to plug a funding gap.
Will Ruth Davidson give way?
On behalf of businesses throughout Scotland, I am happy to cede the floor to an intervention from any of the front-bench team so that I can get an assurance and guarantee that the unfair smash-and-grab retail levy will not raise its head again in the same or any other form. I am sorry that Mr McDonald does not quite qualify.
John Swinney rose—
I will give way to the cabinet secretary.
I am happy to confirm to Ruth Davidson that, as I confirmed in the budget, the Scottish Government is not introducing a public health supplement. However, as we had the gumption to introduce one, why is she criticising us for investing that necessary resource in delivering preventive interventions in our public services to tackle the social injustices that she is talking about?
I am afraid that you must begin to conclude Ms Davidson.
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer?
You have eight minutes, so you must begin to conclude.
The finance secretary cannot have it both ways: either introducing a levy is an important and necessary idea to help public health or he does not need the money, which is why he scrapped it. Which way round is it? We have not seen the answer.
Land and buildings transaction tax not only delivers an eye-watering 10 per cent tax on residential purchases but has an implication for business premises. Why does the Government think that it is a good idea to make it financially more attractive for people to set up factory floor space, depots, warehousing and industrial units in Carlisle than in Dumfries?
I am afraid that there is no time in hand in the debate and I must ask you to come to a conclusion.
I will come to a conclusion right now.
Where we find common cause, such as on early release and extending childcare, we will work with the Government to improve the situation. Where we see signs of life in the Government trying to help business, we will encourage and cajole it to deliver on promises that are yet unfulfilled. Where we differ—sometimes categorically so—we will continue to state our case and challenge the Government.
The Government has only 18 months left of a five-year term with a majority in which it could have done much more. It needs to get a move on.
I call Willie Rennie. I must ask you to keep to your six minutes, Mr Rennie.
15:39
Six minutes exactly, Presiding Officer.
I hope, believe and expect that, by the time the debate concludes tomorrow afternoon, Scotland will have an agreement on more powers that will match the spirit and unique experience of the referendum and deliver for the Scottish Parliament the power to be flexible and agile so that we can do things differently if we so choose. That is why we advocated the transfer of financial, constitutional and, now, welfare powers. Crucially, it is also why we argued that the agreement on Scotland’s future must not be crafted only by the referendum victors. For the first time ever, all five parties—including the SNP—are in the room. It is because we have set the right foundations that I am confident that we can secure a sustainable set of powers for the Parliament.
Apart from the obvious winners during the referendum, there were two other significant winners. First were the 16 and 17-year-olds who carried themselves with great dignity and great maturity and who contributed in significant ways to the debate about our country’s future. That is why we will pledge our support to accelerate the process as much as we possibly can so that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote at the next election. The second victor during the referendum was the islands, which organised quite a dramatic and effective campaign that has secured more powers for their communities. Likewise, we will support the Government on that.
I will take an intervention—unlike Ruth Davidson—from the great Mark McDonald.
I am grateful to Mr Rennie. I welcome the cross-party support for 16 and 17-year-olds to be given the vote at the 2016 elections. However, an election is looming next year. Does Willie Rennie agree that it will be a missed opportunity if the UK Government does not take similar action to lower the voting age for UK elections as well, given that young people were able to participate in the most historic vote in this country?
Absolutely. I agree completely that we should use the opportunity of the referendum, which showed how maturely 16 and 17-year-olds can deal with their democratic rights, to move forward in Westminster. The member will find no disagreement from me on that point. We have advocated that policy for many years.
The fair, legal and decisive decision to reject independence means that, for the first time for many years, as far as I can remember, we can assess legislation on its own merits, without it being mired in the debate over independence. I am sure that we can now find alliances that were perhaps prevented in previous years. In that spirit, I welcome much of today’s programme for government.
I want a Scotland that strives for a fairer society and a stronger economy so that there is opportunity for everyone. That is what Liberal Democrats have always believed in. By combining strong liberal values, real local power and protection for our environment, we can build a better country.
There is much in the programme that we can agree with and I am sure that we will work constructively on other areas to make those bills better. However, I will focus on one important omission. We know that one in four people are likely to suffer from mental health problems at some point in their lives, but a survey has shown that almost one in four people are not comfortable about making friends with someone with depression, having them as a colleague or even having them move in next door.
Our young people face long waits to begin treatment at mental health services. Too many wait six months to access treatment, which is an indefensible waiting time for a young person at such an important time in their life. That is why I am delighted that the UK coalition Government has written it into law that, for the first time, mental health and physical health will receive equal recognition. Getting the right combination of public mental health measures, anti-stigma initiatives, timely access to therapy and reliable crisis and emergency care will all be part of the picture. I hope that we can persuade the new health minister and the new health secretary to support such legislation.
Jim Hume has been moving forward with his bill on smoking in cars when children are present. He has made significant progress and set the weather on that policy. I hope that we can persuade the health secretary to adopt and support Jim Hume’s bill and make sure that it moves forward, because we need to tackle the danger of second-hand smoke inhalation in the confined space of a car. I hope that the Government looks on that sympathetically.
I hope that the new justice secretary indicates a new direction of travel on the justice portfolio. The Parliament knows that we have great reservations about the centralisation of the police force, the lack of democracy in that system, the massive increase in stop and search—which is now at a rate seven times higher than that in England—and police carrying guns.
We have set out proposals based on our belief that the chief constable’s powers should be defined more clearly so that we can have more control over how our police force works. The way in which it is working is inadequate and needs to change. I hope that we will talk to the new justice secretary about how that can be achieved practically.
I am afraid that the member must draw to a close.
Finally, we welcome the proposed expansion of nursery education in the next session of Parliament, but we think that the expansion should begin now. We are still lagging behind England on nursery education for two-year-olds—only 27 per cent of two-year-olds are in nursery in Scotland, in comparison with 47 per cent in England, so Scotland needs to catch up fast. If the new education secretary embraces that proposal, she will find willing participants on the Liberal Democrat benches.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for raising a point of order, but the First Minister said that the Government is spending £114 million per year in relation to carers. According to the Scottish Parliament information centre, the figure is £114 million for the period from 2007 to 2015. Is it possible for the Government to clarify that?
The Government said 18 months ago that it would legislate for my proposed lobbying transparency (Scotland) bill, but there is no such bill in the legislative programme. What can you do, Presiding Officer, to protect the rights of members—[Interruption.]
Order, please.
What can you do to protect the rights of members who propose legislation but see the Government playing games to prevent it from being introduced?
Thank you, Mr Findlay. I appreciate that those are debating points, but they are not points of order. As members well know, if they have inadvertently made a mistake with figures, there are opportunities to correct the Official Report.
15:46
There are many legislative proposals to scrutinise and much for the Government to achieve. We have a new First Minister and a new Deputy First Minister, and a refreshed and gender-balanced ministerial team. I take this opportunity to wish them well in their work.
The First Minister set out her theme of social justice, the important work to deliver new powers to Scotland and the need to put people at the heart of decision making. The Smith commission on new powers will report tomorrow. The Government’s programme is about the powers that we already have, which we must use as ambitiously as possible.
There is much to welcome. I welcome the commitment to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote; the focus on tackling in-work poverty; the commitment to end the collection of debts from non-payment of the poll tax; the Scottish business pledge; the proposed action against domestic abuse; and the human trafficking legislation.
However, elements are missing from the legislative programme. We are missing a way to deliver a step change in the energy efficiency of our existing homes and workplaces. WWF points out that, as well as tackling fuel poverty, the energy efficiency industry could provide 3,500 jobs in the short term and some 9,000 jobs by 2027. That offers an opportunity for modern apprenticeships and to enable people to become expert in treating hard-to-treat houses.
John Swinney responded positively to my suggestion during the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s budget work that energy efficiency should become a national infrastructure priority. He clearly understands the link between the need to retrofit our houses and the opportunities that that provides for much-needed new jobs and important new skills. We need affordable rents and affordable heating but, to deliver those things, we need ambition and a tight timescale on the regulation of energy efficiency in private sector homes.
Alex Neil understands from his time as Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment the energy efficiency challenge in existing homes. That area is now back in his portfolio, and I hope that he will meet the challenge head on. As the new fair work and skills secretary, Roseanna Cunningham has an important role to play in creating a workforce with skills in sustainable construction and retrofitting.
Also missing from the Government’s programme is a bill on private renting. The Government announced that it would introduce legislation on the private rented sector during the current session of Parliament to make private renting more secure. That seems to have disappeared, and I would welcome some clarity on it. The consultation is open now but, if legislation is not introduced in good time, the issue might end up being kicked into the long grass.
I welcome Angela Constance to her cabinet role. The First Minister has made it clear today that there is more to do on attainment, and I welcome the two proposed new bills. I fully support the Wood commission’s call for parity of esteem and encouraging a culture that does not see colleges playing second fiddle to universities. Colleges provide the flexible learning that people need to have opportunities in life, which links in with the First Minister’s theme today.
Childcare is a key component of allowing people to study and work flexibly. I welcome the increase in hours, but it is important that we do that with the child’s best interests at heart and not just the economy’s. To give children the best start in life means parental involvement as well as high-quality play, care and education. There may well be merit in starting formal education later in life, but that does not mean that childcare professionals do not play a vital part in a child’s life. More hours must be linked with flexibility and they must be delivered by qualified and well-paid staff.
I highlight the need for citizenship education. That is not a legislative proposal, but the referendum has shown that young people are and want to be active citizens, so we should ensure that our schools have the necessary resources and confidence to support and promote that citizenship.
I am pleased to see proposals on land reform—particularly the proposal to remove business rate exemptions for shooting and deerstalking estates and the measures on transparency of land ownership, which I hope will include beneficial ownership. Land reform is a broad topic and is an urban issue as well as a rural one. Delivering social justice and a fairer economy at a time of austerity is hugely challenging, but land reform is an opportunity that is within the Parliament’s powers. High land prices push up house prices. The budget expects house prices to rise by 5 per cent over the next two years but, at the same time, wages are stagnant and struggling to catch up with inflation.
I hope that the First Minister sees that land reform is linked intrinsically with tax reform. In our view, the council tax is unfair, but so is the council tax freeze, as it disempowers local authorities, is centralising, results in cuts to public services and forces councils to charge regressive fees. I welcome the announcement of a commission on fairer alternatives to the council tax. Local taxation has a massive impact on people’s lives and is a powerful tool. The commission needs to look more broadly at local taxation, including non-domestic rates, and should seriously consider a land value tax and the recommendations of the important report by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on strengthening local democracy.
The First Minister’s focus on creating a society in which everyone has the same chances in life is welcome. However, transport is an area of Government responsibility in which there are stark inequalities. We have created a transport system in which the car is king. To those who walk or cycle through our towns and cities, it is clear who rules the road. Another dimension to transport inequality is the straight-up fact that a large proportion of people do not or cannot use a car or cannot afford to run one.
Derek Mackay will understand the challenges in changing our cities from his time as planning minister, and Keith Brown, his cabinet secretary, knows the ins and outs of the transport brief. I hope that they will work together on a project for transport justice for Scotland, although there are no proposals on that today. I suggest that better buses should be the first step on that journey.
I look forward to working with the First Minister and her team as constructively as possible. The Green and independent group will continue to oppose Government policies when we do not agree, but we are open to working constructively whenever possible, as I am sure are ministers.
We now turn to the open debate, in which we are extremely tight for time. I remind members that, if they are participating in the debate over the two days, they should be here for the opening speeches and again tomorrow for the closing speeches.
15:53
Quite often in the chamber, I feel that I am in a parallel universe. The First Minister gave a positive speech about the programme for government and the Opposition parties have taken a huge amount of it out of context and have argued against things that they have previously argued for.
For example, I welcome the independent commission on local government funding, which Alex Rowley and Anne McTaggart called for in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s report “Flexibility and Autonomy in Local Government”, but it seems from Ms Baillie’s opening speech that that is no longer what Labour wants. Ms Baillie also talked about a reduction in teacher numbers. Today, Mr Rowley argued at the committee that there should be flexibility on teacher numbers and the pupil teacher ratio and that, if local government wants to reduce numbers, it should be able to choose to do so. I sometimes get that parallel universe feeling.
I welcome both the proposed independent commission on local government funding and the news that the council tax will continue to be frozen throughout this parliamentary session.
I also welcome the proposed community charge debt bill. We will see the final demise of the community charge—the poll tax—some 21 years after its abolition. Nearly 85 per cent of those of our fellow countrymen and women who are registered to vote turned out across Scotland to vote in the referendum, and I think that they did so because they thought that there would be a new society. They did not think that they would be hounded for past debts.
I hope that we can continue to get people to participate in such large numbers. We cannot afford to lose the people who voted. We must harness people power by ensuring that more power is given to people.
In recent weeks, the Parliament’s Local Government and Regeneration Committee has been taking evidence on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. We have travelled to Dumfries and Fort William to hear the views of people in those towns and the surrounding areas.
The other night in Fort William, we had the opportunity to meet members of the Buzz Project. I played drums, Bruce Crawford was on lead guitar, and we got an idea of what that voluntary project is doing across Lochaber, without any money from the council or the Scottish Government. That is the kind of thing that we need to encourage.
As well as hearing from people while we have been out and about, here in the Parliament we have heard from witnesses from Dundee, North Lanarkshire, Aberdeen and many other parts of Scotland. Many folk are already very much empowered, but we know that many communities are not quite in the same league. I am so pleased that an extra £10 million will go to the empowering communities fund, because community capacity building still has a way to go and £10 million can do a lot.
The message that we have received from people is that they want to be more involved in shaping services, they want better communication from public bodies, and they often want to take full control of the assets in their villages, towns and cities. In some parts of the country, it seems that public bodies do well at communicating with folk and involving communities in shaping services. In others, the very basics of encouraging participation are sadly lacking.
What do I mean by “the very basics”? In Aberdeen, a number of community councils think that Aberdeen City Council is failing to communicate with them about planning applications and that their voices are not heard. In Dumfries, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee heard from representatives of the usual place project, which is trying to establish a fully accessible community cafe with a changing places toilet. They told us about their frustration in trying to get a lease from Dumfries and Galloway Council and being pushed through a maze from one council officer to another.
The provisions in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill on participation requests and asset transfers will help to shift the balance of power to communities. However, legislation and additional funding will not necessarily lead to the best outcomes. The Government and public bodies must ensure that best practice is exported from places such as Dundee, which seems to be doing very well at encouraging community participation, to every public body and council in our land.
I know that all members value the work of volunteers and the third sector. We must remove impediments to their work, so that it can continue to thrive. In the next few days I will visit Barnardo’s, Silver City Surfers and the Trussell Trust’s Seaton food bank, in Aberdeen. Those organisations, and countless others in Aberdeen and throughout Scotland, serve our people well. Their efforts often make a huge difference to folk’s lives, helping to tackle injustice and inequality. I am so pleased that this Government is making participation a top priority.
15:59
The debate has been wide ranging, but I will focus on land reform. I welcome the announcement by the First Minister that the Government will produce a land reform bill as part of its legislative programme. Scottish Labour takes land reform seriously. The 2003 act was a landmark piece of legislation in the early years of the Parliament, and we are willing to work with others across the chamber to achieve the aims of land reform. Land reform is a means of delivering greater quality and social justice and of promoting the public interest.
It is 11 years since we last passed land reform legislation and I am pleased that, although we are now seven years into an SNP Government, we are on the verge of another land reform act. We have seen the Government encourage land ownership but, so far, we have not seen mechanisms to change the nature of land ownership in Scotland. The bill and a land reform programme, as well as the commitment of Government time and resources, can give us the opportunity to do that.
We face a short timescale for delivery of the bill, so the necessary consultation on and scrutiny of the bill will have to be concentrated if we are to see results by April 2016. We are committed to working with the Government to deliver radical and meaningful change. That can be done in this session of Parliament, but the Government must be prepared to take on the big challenges and address the issues of maximum landholdings, statutory land rights, the transparency of land ownership—I welcome what the First Minister said about that—tax and financial benefits. Delivery in those areas will be challenging, given the short timescale, but we should all commit to pursuing the agenda in the Parliament and beyond.
I welcome the intention to establish a land reform commission, which should provide continuity and focus outwith the election cycles, making recommendations on how to keep our land laws current and relevant.
The final report of the land reform review group provides us with a road map. Fifty-eight out of the 62 recommendations can be delivered with the current powers of this Parliament. Although I welcome the proposed land reform bill, it will be only part of the solution and I look forward to the policy statement that is expected next week.
We must take a comprehensive approach. We cannot deliver everything through a bill, but we need to be clear about the path that we are on and the destination that we are headed towards. We should think about the long term and have a discussion about where we want to be in 10 to 20 years’ time. Scotland has a highly concentrated land ownership pattern, and we should think about how we can encourage and support greater diversity of ownership, opening up the benefits that that can bring for local economic development, housing and renewable energy.
As well as land use, land ownership needs to be seen as a public interest matter because land is a “finite and crucial resource”. Although the headline proposals dominated the reporting on the land reform review group’s report, the group’s significant statement was that recognition that
“Land is a finite and crucial resource and should be used and owned in the public interest for the common good”.
That is key, and it is the principle that we should use to direct public policy.
How do we do that? If we accept that land ownership patterns must change in the public interest, that implies that there must be ways to have the public interest tested in land transactions, potentially by tackling further concentration in ownership patterns or shifting the focus to land being sold in smaller lots or parcels. What practical steps could be taken in the Parliament? The land reform review group argued that there should be upper limits to landholdings. Is there a point at which ownership that is concentrated in the hands of the few becomes detrimental? In a modern Scotland, is it acceptable, justified or beneficial that 432 people own 50 per cent of private land or that 16 individuals own 10 per cent?
In the interests of increasing social justice and widening access, could a public interest test or measure be introduced? France uses the SAFER system to consider the public interest, and we need to look at what model we could use here. Do we need a use-it-or-lose-it policy for developers and land speculators who land bank? The review group proposed the establishment of a number of new bodies, but the idea of a land agency, which Community Land Scotland and the review group supported, seems to offer a practical way forward on which we can make swift progress.
If we are clear about where we are headed with land reform in Scotland, solutions must come from across Government—from finance, housing and local government. We need to understand and act on the land dimension in all areas. We need only look at the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012, which was narrowly defined in terms of ministerial portfolio and was a missed opportunity in relation to land reform, for an example of a lack of joined-up government.
The announcement of the removal of business rates exemptions for shooting and deerstalking estates is welcome, particularly because of the additional support that that will provide to the Scottish land fund.
Are there other opportunities open to us through, for example, the replacement of stamp duty with land and buildings transaction tax? Taxes and financial incentives that are decided by the UK Government are relevant, but we need to look at the powers that we have here and how we can use them.
In the budget, the focus has been on domestic and commercial property in relation to land and buildings transaction tax, but is there not also an opportunity to look at how Government could influence land values if it so wished? At this point, I thank Paul Wheelhouse for his work on land reform. We have worked constructively across the Parliament, and I hope that that will continue with the new minister. However, land reform is complex; it cannot be delivered solely by the new minister. If the Government is serious about changing our pattern of ownership, it needs to be open to a debate about using all Government levers.
Much of what the First Minster talked about is relevant to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill, which is going through Parliament. The bill has a significant role to play in opening up more land opportunities to communities. Labour is committed to strengthening the bill. However, at the moment, the bill looks as though it is too cautious in some areas, and there is a danger that it will be too restrictive. There is also a difficulty with defining and determining some of the tests that are being placed in the bill.
The proposed land reform bill gives the Parliament an opportunity to deliver meaningful change in Scotland. I look forward to its introduction and its progress.
Thank you. I am afraid that we are fast running out of time, so I ask everyone to keep to their six minutes, please.
16:06
I welcome the First Minister to her new role and I congratulate all my colleagues on their ministerial appointments.
Along with everyone else, I look forward to progressing the programme for government. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to legislate to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish elections. From speaking to many young people in my constituency, I know that they would welcome that; they also want the opportunity to vote in Westminster elections, so I hope that that matter will go forward, whether as a result of the Smith commission or otherwise.
I welcome the strengthening of community involvement, which my colleague Kevin Stewart mentioned. That is fantastic news. Groups in my constituency and in many other constituencies throughout Scotland will benefit from that move.
I will touch on two areas: gender equality and domestic abuse. The First Minister mentioned the new Cabinet’s make-up, and the 50:50 split sends out a strong message about gender equality. The United Nations hailed that move, and we in the Scottish Parliament should be very proud of that.
The Scottish Parliament does not have the legislative powers to address gender equality, as the First Minister said. I understand that, in August, the Scottish Government wrote to the UK Government proposing a transfer of the relevant provisions in the Equality Act 2010 to the Scottish Parliament. Can we have an update on that issue?
The Scottish Government’s “Women on Board: Quality through Diversity” consultation, which was launched in April 2014, proposed measures to achieve gender equality through quotas on public body boards. Like other members, I welcome the consultation and the announcement of the 50:50 by 2020 pledge, and the Government and this Parliament should be proud of those measures. However, in the long term, we need to change the culture in Scotland to get full gender equality.
The commitment to increase childcare will help to create gender equality by giving all three and four-year-olds and our most disadvantaged two-year-olds 600 hours of childcare a year. We all know that that equals 16 hours a week during term time, and there are plans to increase it to 30 hours a week if the Government is re-elected. That would make it so much easier for mothers, and parents in general, to go back to work.
Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will want to look at and take on board an issue that relates to local authorities. We need local authorities to play their part and ensure that places are available for those hours in pre-school provision such as nurseries.
Stopping domestic abuse is a crucial issue for us all; indeed, we are united behind that goal. I will mention some of the things that this Government has been doing in that area. Since 2007, it has funded initiatives to tackle the domestic abuse of women, which has increased by 62 per cent. Between 2012 and 2015, the Scottish Government is investing £34.5 million, which is to be targeted at a wide range of initiatives to tackle violence against women.
The First Minister mentioned Clare’s law. Yesterday, a six-month trial of Clare’s law started in Ayrshire and Aberdeen. It will allow women and men to access information on their new partner’s offending history. That information can be used by someone who is concerned about their partner’s abusive behaviour or by a third party. It is really important that a third party who is worried about someone who is in a potentially dangerous relationship will be able to access such information, and I look forward to the pilot being rolled out throughout the rest of the country.
The consultation on the introduction of a criminal offence of committing domestic abuse is also to be welcomed, as are the proposed legislation on revenge porn and the proposed new trafficking laws.
I look forward to the introduction of legislation not just in the areas that I have mentioned, but in all those that the First Minister mentioned. I think that it is an excellent programme for government. The Scottish Government should be proud of its record on equalities and social issues since 2007. We have tried to look at all aspects of government. We have focused on the economy, but we have also dealt with social issues. I thank the First Minister for putting forward her programme for government, and I look forward to working with members of the Government.
16:11
I am pleased that the first official visit that the First Minister undertook was the visit that she made last week to carers. I extend my appreciation to the 657,000 carers for the work that they do in looking after loved ones, and I welcome the proposed carers bill. As Friday is international carers’ rights day, it is right—and timely—that that bill has been announced this week.
Many people who are carers do not see themselves as carers; they regard themselves simply as loving family members who, regardless of the lack of support that they receive, will continue to care. It is important that we do not take advantage of that commitment and that we support and enable them, and that we ensure that their caring role does not impact on their life chances. We need, where we can, to help them to continue to earn an income, and to support their continued employment. Carers save our public services more than £10 billion a year, so they deserve good quality and suitable support.
In her statement, the First Minister said that the Scottish Government had given almost £114 million a year to carers over the past seven years. My colleague Neil Findlay said that it was our understanding that, rather than being an annual figure, that was the total over the past seven years. I would be grateful if the First Minister could clarify that when she sums up.
The statement and, indeed, the documents on the proposed carers bill give very little detail on what might be included in it. It is vital that the bill will not consist only of empty words, but will have some bite and give carers access to first-class support and services. I understand that carers assessments will be renamed as carers support plans, but we need provisions that give carers a right to short breaks. We also need to be able to identify carers more easily, and we need to be able to make transitional arrangements for carers when they move from one health board or local authority area to another, when the person for whom they are caring moves from youth to adult services, or when they themselves move from youth to adult services.
Young carers are among the most vulnerable carers, so we must ensure that they get the support that they need; they must have their own carers support plans. We also need to tackle many of the challenges that young carers face. They should have their own advice and support services. I heard today that Skye and Lochalsh young carers group is devising a toolkit for schools to make them aware of the needs of young carers and to help them to support young carers. We need to ensure that young carers have the same opportunities as other young people and that they can access education just as they would have been able to were they not young carers.
The carers bill should also deliver on other promises that have been made. For example, a promise was made on emergency plans more than three years ago, but it has still not come to fruition. Carers are extremely concerned about that.
The First Minister’s statement referred to accessible advice, not accessible support. We must ensure that support is available in ways that suit carers and are person centred. Moreover, we need access to appropriate respite care. Whether it be a day, a few hours or a weekend, it must suit the carer and give them the ability to lead their life.
As the First Minister will be aware, Scottish Labour has pledged its support for the Scottish Youth Parliament’s care fair share campaign, and I would really appreciate it if the carers bill would allow the Government to do the same. It is not hugely expensive, but it makes a big difference to young carers’ lives. We have also suggested that the Care Inspectorate be given responsibility for inspecting services to carers, and that local authorities publicly and annually report on the services that they provide to carers. Much more needs to be done; the carers bill is a vehicle for that work.
Rhoda Grant has mentioned a statement that I made about funding for carers, so I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that, due to a misprint in my statement, I said that the funding was per year. In fact, Rhoda Grant is correct: that funding was for the period 2007 to 2015. I wanted to take the earliest opportunity to rectify that.
I appreciate the clarification, and the fact that it has come so early
I welcome the consultations on revenge porn and on domestic abuse legislation. However, we have been calling this for quite some time. We very much hope that the legislation will be introduced in this parliamentary session, although we perhaps question the need for a wide consultation, given that most people are probably signed up to the importance of tackling violence against women. The Parliament has a track record of work in the area, but we need to do an awful lot more. The First Minister said that she genuinely wants to work across the chamber; we would certainly be more than willing to work with her on the issue.
Yesterday marked the start of the 16 days of action for the elimination of violence against women, and it was also the same day that crime figures showed sexual offences to be on the rise. That might be the result of better reporting and detection, but the figures are very worrying, and I wonder whether more could be done.
Could I also just mention briefly—
You can if you are brief. You really need to conclude.
Will the trafficking and exploitation bill cover sexual exploitation? It is a really important issue, and the bill provides an opportunity to address it.
I am grateful that the First Minister has met Gordon Aikman, who is, we will all agree, inspirational, and I welcome the announcement that she has made today. However, as she will know, Mr Aikman will be in a wheelchair before he reaches the relevant stage in his life, and he will still have to pay for his care. I ask the First Minister to join us and to scrap the unfair care tax today.
Once again, I appeal to members to keep to their six minutes.
16:17
I thank the First Minister for her truly inspirational programme for government, which sets out the legislation and policies that will shape our urban and rural communities and, indeed, our country. I believe that it will ensure that Scotland is both socially democratic and socially just.
At the heart of the programme is the land reform bill. I must make it clear that for the many rural north-east constituents whom I represent, land reform is very much about social justice for the young people who are growing up in our rural communities. The issue is not as complex as Claire Baker made out. The First Minister has talked about a radical programme of land reform but, in the north-east, the programme will not be seen as radical.
In Banchory earlier this year, I witnessed a packed hall of people who had come to listen to Lesley Riddoch talk about her book, “Blossom”, and that audience made no apology for declaring their strong support for land reform. Looking back, I realise that the people who came to listen to Lesley Riddoch were not local farmers and that some, like me, were not born and bred in royal Deeside. However, all of them understood that in order for our rural communities to flourish, land reform is needed from this Parliament. There is a burning desire across rural Scotland to build more prosperous, fairer and better communities. Access to land is what our young farmers want in order to stay in the communities that they were born in, and it is about the right to live and work where one’s parents live and work. I meet too many young people who have the skills and expertise to farm but who, without access to land, cannot do so. Access to land is not all about land ownership; it is about having the mechanism to allow the land to be farmed by the people who live on it—some families have lived there for generations.
The land reform commitment that we talked about is as much about social justice, which Alison Johnstone mentioned, as it is about local democracy. Many people see the French revolution’s main legacy as being the land reform agenda that shaped what modern France is today: a country of villages—a modern country with vibrant rural communities where social justice and local democracy are thriving. We want a little bit of that in Scotland.
Many people are looking forward to the main legacy of this Scottish Parliament being its land reform agenda, which will bring many parts of rural Scotland into the 21st century. Sometimes I wonder why so little has changed in the attitudes of the people who live in our rural communities, and why old practices that belong to the 18th century still prevail. However, this is where we are. This Parliament has the opportunity to shape our country for the better; I look forward to debating the new land reform bill.
I look forward as well to any progress that this Government can make on the law of succession and I acknowledge the First Minister’s announcement of a succession bill. The feudal difference between land and other property still survives as part of Scotland’s law of succession, while other European countries have moved on. The introduction of feudal tenure in Scotland was 900 years ago. Some would call the addition of the succession bill radical. I disagree—900-year-old legislation is not fit for the modern Scotland in which I choose to live.
We need to be honest about our weaknesses and we need to be confident when we address them. We also need to be proud of our successes if rural Scotland is to be a place where ideas flourish, businesses locate and jobs are created.
I also represent many coastal communities in the north-east. Just as with our rural communities, anything that the Government can do to empower coastal communities is very welcome. I thank the First Minister for her announcement of the harbours bill and I look forward to debating it in Parliament. It is a great opportunity to reform aspects of current harbours legislation.
Legislation to remove Scottish ministers’ power to compel trust ports to bring forward privatisation proposals is more than welcome. I understand that the power has not been exercised by Scottish ministers since devolution, but for me privatisation is never the answer. I saw the UK manufacturing industry being decimated by privatisation, just as many of our public services have been eroded. Coastal communities are looking forward to keeping control of their future, their local economy and their harbours. The harbours bill is important for the future of our coastal communities, from Peterhead to Fraserburgh, for our booming energy sector in the north-east and, of course, for our fishing industry.
I thank the First Minister for responding to the needs of our rural and coastal communities. Her commitment to empowerment is reaching every part of the north-east of Scotland.
For many businesses in the north-east of Scotland that are paying business rates, the announcement of the withdrawal of business rates exemptions for shooting and deerstalking is welcome.
The programme, under this First Minister, will shape our communities and our country. Scotland can see that this First Minister is leading a Government that has purpose—a Scottish Government for all of us who live here. The result will be a Scotland that is both socially democratic and socially just—a society that is based on prosperity, participation and fairness.
16:23
As Ruth Davidson pointed out earlier, this statement was trailed as a boost to the Scottish economy. I must say that I struggled to find many measures that would deliver that. The small business bonus is to continue, which we welcome, but was it ever in doubt? Indeed, what we see is an expansion of business rates to cover previously exempt areas.
The expansion in childcare was also trailed. However, when we examine the statement we see that nothing new is proposed beyond what has already been announced, except of course that we now seem to have killed off for ever the notion that only with independence can better childcare be delivered. As Ruth Davidson also pointed out, there is no attempt to address the issue of age discrimination in childcare. I can illustrate that perfectly, because I have two children: a daughter who was born in August and who got a full two years of nursery provision, and a son who was born in January but who got merely five terms of nursery provision. An attempt by my colleague Liz Smith to overturn the current position and provide equity was defeated in the Education and Culture Committee despite its being supported by all parties other than the SNP. If the SNP is serious about equity, social justice and improving childcare, it must start to tackle the current anomaly.
The First Minister’s statement dealt with access to higher education for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, which is a laudable ambition. I have pointed out in the chamber many times before Scotland’s poor record on such access compared with that of every other part of the UK, notwithstanding that tuition fees apply elsewhere in the UK. The First Minister trumpets free education, but of course there is no evidence of a deterrent effect from a graduate contribution or tuition fees. Why? It is because those fees come with generous bursaries that are funded from the fee income.
I do not know the First Minister’s personal circumstances and I am a few years older than she is, but when I went to university, I did so on a full grant because of my parental circumstances. I suspect that if I applied in the same circumstances today to go to university in England, I would not only be exempt from paying any fees but would be the beneficiary of a generous bursary, and maybe the same would apply to the First Minister. It is therefore disingenuous for her to suggest that she would not have been able to go to higher education if a graduate contribution were introduced here on similar lines as apply in England. In fact, Scotland’s record on access to higher education is not a good one and it needs to be improved.
I want to deal with the question of land reform. I am a veteran of the parliamentary scrutiny in 2003 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which became an act. Members with long memories will remember our erstwhile colleague Bill Aitken railing at that time against Mugabe-style land raids. It seems to me that what we have in the First Minister’s statement today is a mish-mash of proposals that will do little to improve land use or to support good practice. The proposed land reform bill will have
“Powers for ministers to intervene where the scale of land ownership or the conduct of a landlord is acting as a barrier to sustainable development”.
We await the detail of the bill, which will come out in due course, but on any level that proposal represents a massive expansion of state power. What qualifies Scottish ministers as arbiters of what is good land use or to decide what is an appropriate scale of land ownership? The best that can be said of the proposed bill is that it will be a charter for lawyers. We on the Conservative side of the chamber might even have to rethink our opposition to the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Scottish Government also proposes to have a land reform commission. That is just what rural Scotland needs: another quango. There is also a proposal to impose business rates on sporting estates. The class war is alive and well in the Scottish Parliament. Has any assessment been done of the economic impact of the proposal? Has any assessment been done of the cost? Has any assessment been done of the jobs that might be lost?
Will Murdo Fraser take an intervention?
Mr Allard will tell us.
Does Murdo Fraser not think that plenty of other businesses, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, find it unacceptable that they have to pay business rates while large sporting estates do not?
Mr Fraser, you are approaching your last minute.
I look forward to Mr Allard taking that argument to the gamekeepers who are employed on estates in the north-east of Scotland and explaining to them why the income that pays their wages is likely to be affected by the proposed measure.
What is wrong with the approach of the Scottish Government to land reform is that it has an ideological opposition to ownership of large areas of land by private individuals or private trusts. However, what is important is not who owns the land but how the land is used. Even community ownership, as we have heard this week, has its problems. There are many excellent estates. Atholl Estates in Perthshire, with its combination of forestry, farming, sporting interests, tourism, energy and housing, is an exemplar. It speaks volumes that the factor of Atholl Estates, Andrew Bruce Wootton, was so dismayed by the ideological direction of the land reform review group that he resigned from it in protest because in his view it lacked understanding of the real issues.
What concerns me is that we are seeing a bidding war on the left between the Labour Party and the SNP, with each trying to be more radical on land reform, but lacking any clear understanding of the real issues in rural Scotland. What we need is an evidence-based approach, not an ideological one, and that is what the Scottish Conservatives will provide.
16:29
I welcome the First Minister’s first legislative programme. We live in challenging times, but the programme shows vision and provides hope for the future. As Kevin Stewart said, some of the Opposition members who have spoken seem to be in a parallel universe. The Scottish Government has achieved so much since its first election in 2007.
One of the major issues, and one that the First Minister mentioned, is how we support our families across Scotland. I welcome her commitment on childcare. Perhaps I should declare an interest; in two weeks’ time I will be a grandfather. My daughter, Jessica, and her husband, John, may look for such support in future as both of them go on to work. As Sandra White rightly said, access to work is the whole reason for the policy: it will make an economic difference. As the First Minister said, one of the best investments that we can make is to ensure that families get that opportunity.
The legislative programme is founded on the three key principles of priorities, participation and prosperity—in fairness, priorities was not actually one of the commitments. What is important is that the First Minister has already announced that the SNP’s 2016 manifesto will set out an ambitious plan to almost double childcare provision. If the SNP gets another term, as has been mentioned, there will be more hours of provision for our children and families. The Scottish Government has expanded funded hours by 45 per cent since 2007. There is still more work to be done, but that is worth up to £707 per child per year, and it is a big investment.
Further devolution of tax and benefits will enable us to unlock the resources that are required to support a transformational change in provision. Access to tax revenues and benefits savings that arise from increased labour market participation will contribute to the costs of achieving that transformational change.
However, with more powers comes more responsibility. Every debate seems to be about what will happen next, and the challenge is before the Smith commission.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment, thanks.
Promises were made and our citizens’ expectations are high. Let us not forget that Gordon Brown said:
“We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be”.
He underwrote the infamous vow and became the credible voice—the hero, if you wish—of the no campaign. “Within a year or two,” he said. Where has this credible voice gone at a time when Scotland needs people to put their arguments forward? He is off on the after-dinner speaking circuit. [Interruption.]
Order, please. Let us hear Mr Adam.
His Westminster crony Danny Alexander called for
“effective Home Rule”
with
“unprecedented new powers”
that put us
“irreversibly on the journey towards a federal UK.”
With all that in mind, is it not the case that we must give the Parliament the powers that the people of Scotland want? We can then talk about making the type of transformational change that we all want, using those powers.
In education, the Scottish Government already has a strong commitment to driving improvement and ensuring equity in attainment throughout Scotland, as the First Minister said. To see that, we only have to look at the raising attainment for all programme, which was launched in June 2014. It is working in our communities to try to ensure that children are not victims of their postcode and that, through education, they get the opportunity to be all that they can be. That is what the First Minister is trying to do here.
All that stands in stark contrast with the situation that we find with the beliefs of the Westminster elite. They believe that they are going back to business as usual.
Can the member explain what prevents the SNP from changing the birthday discrimination when it comes to nursery provision? That is nothing whatsoever to do with Westminster policy.
We are talking about transformational change in this debate. We are talking about being able to give young people the opportunity to move forward. I am saying that, for us, everything is connected. We need to have in this Parliament the powers and the levers that were promised by all the no parties. [Interruption.]
Order, please.
The SNP Government’s achievements have been made during challenging times, and Westminster is continually promising us yet more austerity.
This programme builds on the Scottish Government’s previous work, but we need to ensure that Westminster delivers on the promises that it made to the people of Scotland. We need to ensure that we have the powers that mean that we can make the transformational change that my constituents—all our constituents—want. Much good work has already been done but we must continue to be ambitious and bold in our ideas. I welcome the programme for Government and look forward to working towards the type of country that we all want.
16:35
I welcome the First Minister’s commitment to reviewing the council tax and looking at new ways of funding local government. That is long overdue and hugely welcome, especially given the massive pressures on our local services, particularly schools and care services, and councils’ lack of capacity to act in the civic leadership role that we expect of them in community renewables or town centres, for example. The council tax is a critical issue and I welcome the fact that we have a statement in front of us that puts it centre stage.
The First Minister said that the council tax freeze would continue. In effect, that means that it will continue next year and the year after, so I would like her to review the issue of fully funding that council tax freeze because that is a key issue that comes back to me from local government colleagues.
The challenge is that the council tax freeze has not benefited those who are on the lowest incomes, particularly those who rely on council tax benefit to survive. The freeze also impacts other vulnerable adults, particularly older people and people who have disabilities, whose support services are being cut back or rationed, or who are having to pay for services that used to be free. The current situation has a financial cost.
Jackie Baillie mentioned how the loss of 70,000 jobs in local government since 2008 has impacted on local government’s capacity to deliver the range of services. There is scope for more efficiency, but after the prolonged—
Will the member give way?
Lovely. I was predicting that Mr Stewart’s intervention would come within two minutes.
The 70,000 jobs have been oft-quoted. How many of them have been transferred to arm’s-length organisations that councils have set up?
The key thing is that the number of people who have gone from local government means an impact on strategic thinking and the delivery of services, not just the output of service delivery. Many councils no longer have the expertise to take up the challenging and innovative opportunities that we need them to take up.
It is clear that the concordat is dead, if not buried. It was not mentioned in this year’s budget, so as the new First Minister takes office, it is important that we move on from the past. I thought that Kevin Stewart’s intervention was going to be about his committee’s recommendation for cross-party talks, which many of us support. It is important because a new council tax system must have buy-in across the chamber and in council chambers throughout the country. If we look at the range of political involvement we can see that we all need to be part of the buy-in. I welcome the cross-party nature of the commission and the timescale. If we are looking at designing an effective replacement for council tax, it is important to get it right.
I welcome the lack of detail about the type of system signalled by the Scottish Government. I hope that that means that the Scottish Government is prepared to take a wider view and go beyond its previous support for local income tax. Many of us have criticisms of it. It is not local. The rate would have to be significantly higher than previously suggested by the Scottish Government, and that would hit young people in particular. I hope that that means that we can move on.
Reports made during the past couple of years have suggested potential ways forward. I was keen for the Labour Party’s devolution commission to look at a property tax and at widening the tax base for local government in general. As the Scottish Government gets more tax powers and accountability, surely that should also be on the agenda for our local government colleagues. That is unfinished business.
The work that has been done by our commission and the strengthening local democracy commission points in the direction of new property taxes. We can all agree that the current council tax is not fair or effective, that it is well out of date and that property needs to be on the agenda if we are designing a new tax system. Across Europe, it is the most regularly used system to provide a key part of local government finance.
We must also broaden the range of resource that comes to local government. Notwithstanding the council tax freeze, the amount that local government raises by its own hand is 18 per cent, which presents a big challenge. We need to look not only at the council tax but at fair funding across the country—the issue of pooling and sharing—and, critically, at funding national priorities, which are set out in national legislation, but which are also local priorities, as councils might want to deliver services in different ways, according to geography and social need.
It is important that the new commission does not look at the council tax in isolation. We must make sure that there is robust funding for local government. Members only need to look at the announcements over the past couple of weeks: the hits on class sizes, the teacher number drops, the suggested library closures—
Will Ms Boyack give way?
No, Kevin Stewart has already come in.
Ms Boyack is in her last minute.
We have a crisis in social care. It is interesting that local government will have to pay extra into the pot to tackle the social care crisis. We have an urgent problem regarding resources at local level for providing for the range of vulnerable adults and older people. That is not just a problem to be dealt with in the future; it is a current problem. Unison’s time to care campaign makes that clear.
You must close.
The scale of the challenge means that we need more than is in the programme, but I welcome the fact that we will have a cross-party commission. We all need to engage in that process and make it work.
16:41
I welcome the First Minister’s commitments to social justice and to represent all the people. Following the previous speaker I will focus on older people, who, as the First Minister said in her speech, are carers for spouses and children. Indeed, sometimes they are carers for their own parents.
What is an older person? They are not a homogeneous group; older people are as individual as people in any other age group. To define older people is tricky. Most people tend to think that somebody is an older person if they are 15 years older than they are. For the sake of debate, let us say that older people are between 55 and 95. Forty years is some age range. In 2012 there were more than 1 million Scottish pensioners.
It is not all well out there, but so far the Scottish Government has not done badly for this age group. The concessionary bus pass is a wonderful asset. It provides social care, takes people out and about, means that people are included, is good for mental wellbeing and keeps people active. Seventy-seven thousand pensioners receive free personal care courtesy of this Parliament. The UK’s cuts of £40 million to the council tax benefit budget were plugged by this Government to help 200,000 people over 65.
Importantly, the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 puts a duty on local authorities to offer people who are assessed as needing social care an option to design their own care package.
I welcome the investment to reduce delayed discharge, which is deleterious to the patient, who is often an older person who wants to get home, and to those who are waiting for treatment.
Community engagement is very important to the individual, who should be at the centre of decisions. In fact, in the recent old people’s assembly here it was proposed that there should be an older person on the board of say, the NHS or a housing association. Wee quotas are very fashionable; what about having them for those things?
I presume that attendance allowance is devolved, but I may be wrong. The programme will at last do something about the iniquity of the savings that go to the Treasury because we pay for free personal care while attendance allowance is not claimed.
I want to move on from the idea that older people are a problem. They are a huge asset. I love this picture from NHS Health Scotland—it is not a self-portrait—of a lady with boxing gloves, ready to take on the world.
Pensioners are a huge economic asset. In the UK they make a tax contribution of some £45 billion per annum. Their spending power is some £76 billion per annum. Their volunteering has a hidden value of around £10 billion and their charity and family donations have a value of another £10 billion. They are a major economic force. Pensioner power rules, OK! They are not a problem; they give much back to society. Sometimes, we might even refer to them as our much-needed social glue. I am pleased that the Scottish Government’s programme recognises the substantial contribution of Scotland’s older people, while also recognising their needs.
The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights, Alex Neil, and I had a bit of a stramash in the tea room, trying to work out what 60-year-olds are called. We came up with “sexagenarian”—which we have to say properly—or “hexagenarian”. My hope is that having this sexagenarian or hexagenarian in the Cabinet, with a portfolio for social justice but also focusing on older people, will ensure that we have the policies that we need. We do not always need legislation, but we need policies that recognise—[Interruption.]
Order on the front benches, please.
Am I being heckled? Remember the boxing gloves.
We need policies that not only support older people when they are in need, but recognise the huge amount that they give to society. Remember the lady with the boxing gloves: she may come after you.
16:45
I am glad that I am going to be a sexagenarian next month; that makes me feel a lot better about it.
I congratulate the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the new Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs—who is in the chamber—on their new roles.
The First Minister indicated that she was keen to listen to the views of Opposition members. In that spirit, on behalf of my party, I put forward some suggestions for consideration by the new justice team. I look forward to working with them but, given the situation in my party at the moment, I cannot guarantee how much longer I will be able to do that for. I certainly look forward to working with them in any case.
As Murdo Fraser mentioned, one bill that has already been introduced is the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill, which is sometimes incorrectly described as ending automatic early release. Currently, all prisoners who are serving a sentence of less than four years must be released after serving half their sentence. In 2012-13, more than 14,000 people were serving less than four years. The bill will not affect that at all—people who are serving four-year sentences will still be released after two years. The bill applies only to sex offenders who are serving more than four years and to other offenders who are serving 10 years or more. That covers about 1 per cent of the current prison population. Obviously, there would be significant implications for the Scottish Prison Service and prison populations if automatic early release were to be abolished altogether, and to propose that would of course be fiscally irresponsible. However, it could be argued that the bill is tokenistic.
I suggest that we take a more radical longer-term approach to sentencing, to reducing reoffending and to reconviction. In 2006, the Sentencing Commission for Scotland produced a report on the early release of prisoners and their supervision on release. That report recommended:
“At the time when a custodial sentence is imposed the sentencer should explain the effect of the sentence so that the offender, the victim, the media and the public at large are in no doubt about what the sentence means in terms of the time to be served in custody and that which may be served in the community”.
In a written submission to the Justice Committee in May, Victim Support Scotland said that it wanted to see
“a system in which sentences are straightforward and understandable to the victim(s) and the wider community”.
The Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill does not add clarity to what a sentence means. It would still be possible for the Parole Board for Scotland to release a prisoner after they had served half their sentence.
I suggest that we consider an extension of the approach that was taken under the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, which has not yet come into force, which would be for the sentencer, when passing the sentence, to prescribe the minimum term for which the offender would remain in custody. When the offender reached the end of the minimum period, he or she would be assessed with regard to their risk to the public and with regard to their engagement with programmes in prison aimed at reducing reoffending. If the offender posed little risk and had addressed their offending behaviour, he or she could be released under supervision. If they had not, a further period of custody, up to a maximum limit, would then be served.
That would require a change in sentencing policy, and it would need to be supported by a mandatory national programme of education, skills development and drug or alcohol rehabilitation that was available to all offenders—and, I think, standardised methods of recording engagement and accrediting prisoners for the skills that they gain or for the recovery programmes that they have engaged in. Where appropriate, that could continue—in fact, it should continue—in the community, after the offender has been released. The high prison population should be tackled through prevention and addressing reoffending. There are opportunities to investigate extending that further.
My second suggestion relates to the controversial issue of the abolition of the requirement for corroboration. Lord Bonomy’s review group on safeguards is due to report in April but, having attended one of the sessions, it is clear to me that his remit is still to investigate what safeguards to introduce when the requirement is abolished and not to consider whether the requirement could be modified to provide better access to justice for the victims of person-to-person crimes, such as sexual and domestic abuse. I wonder whether the new cabinet secretary would consider extending the remit of Lord Bonomy’s group to include that. I am sure that, if he did so, he would have the agreement of all Opposition parties.
Our third suggestion concerns the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012. We know that there are problems with the accountability of Police Scotland in particular. Those problems have surfaced since the single police and fire and rescue services were formed in April 2013. In particular, local accountability is far weaker than many of us were promised and I would like the new team to review how the 2012 act is working.
I am pleased that the new Scottish Government has adopted Jenny Marra’s proposed bill on human trafficking. I hope that it will be advanced with the same force and purpose that her original proposals were. However, I am disappointed not to see Neil Findlay’s proposed lobbying bill in the programme for government. I thought that the Scottish Government had adopted that too. If it is not being progressed this year, I wonder whether there will be time to progress it.
The previous Cabinet Secretary for Justice was also less sympathetic to the proposal by my colleague Patricia Ferguson for an inquiries into deaths bill. There are proposals for a fatal accident inquiry bill, but the consultation on that oddly seemed to spend a lot of time criticising Patricia Ferguson’s proposal. That is disappointing and I wonder whether the new ministerial team might be prepared to meet her to discuss the aims of her proposal and whether some of them could be incorporated into the new proposed bill.
There are many opportunities for consensus and collaboration. If the Government is serious about that, we are serious about genuinely taking part in discussion. We volunteer our views in good faith in the hope that the new Cabinet is prepared to listen to some of the things that we have to say and to discuss them with us. If it is prepared to do that, we are certainly prepared to take part in those discussions.
16:52
The Government’s ambition for radical reform remains undiminished and the programme for government detailed today is the springboard for the future.
The success of our nation depends on us all working together to deliver a stronger economy and build a fairer Scotland. Fairness and prosperity go hand in hand; we cannot have one without the other. That is why our commitment to introduce a Scottish business pledge is important. It ensures that, for public money and public support, we can in turn work with Scottish businesses to deliver on that agenda for fairness.
Fairness is fundamental to growing the Scottish economy. Therefore, in the programme for government, we are focused on more and better-paid jobs with a view to continuing our principal goal of sustainable economic growth. We are also focused on tackling inequality and passing power to people and our communities.
The debate has been colourful in part. There has also been much consensus. It is important to note the consensus across the chamber on the First Minister’s commitment that there should be no social care charges for people living with terminal illness in the latter stages of their lives.
It was welcome to hear the unanimity on the proposed human trafficking bill and Clare’s law. Our proposals for radical land reform are largely welcomed, I think, but we look forward to a spicy debate between Murdo Fraser and Christian Allard.
I noted that there was spontaneous applause across the chamber for the First Minister’s announcement on giving the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate the power to order ward closures when it is in the interests of patient safety.
It was also heartening to hear that there is support in the Parliament for the franchise to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, who did us proud in the recent referendum campaign. It is a great pity that those 16 and 17-year-olds will not be allowed to participate in the next election, which is the Westminster election next May.
On a personal note, I am proud to be part of a Government with the first woman as First Minister and a Cabinet that has a 50:50 gender balance between women and men. We are one of only three Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries that have such a balance and we have been commended by the United Nations for the Cabinet becoming a role model.
However, I want to be clear: this is not just about the position of a few women in a few positions of leadership; it is not about a few women climbing through the cracks or the gaps in the glass ceiling. This is about kicking open the door of opportunity for all women and others to achieve their full potential. I am very pleased that the First Minister has announced that we will work towards a voluntary target of 50:50 representation right across the public, private and third sectors.
Of course, we would very much welcome in this chamber the devolution of equalities legislation, which would allow us to take further action if need be—if voluntary measures do not succeed. The Government also wrote, well in advance of the referendum, to the UK Government seeking a section 30 order for the devolution of equality powers.
We know that public appointments are improving. We know that 42 per cent of applicants to public boards are women. However, we also know that there is much more to do, particularly when the number of women appointed as chairs remains far too low.
Much of the debate has focused on childcare—rightly so. Childcare is welcomed as the best investment for children and as a foundation stone to our economy, because we know that lack of access to affordable, flexible, high-quality childcare is indeed the biggest barrier to women getting into work.
I am proud that this Government, over the next two years, will invest £329 million in that area; that we will have 16 hours of childcare and early learning a week for three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds; and that by 2020, we will double that to 30 hours a week for eligible children. Of course, with independence, that 30 hours a week would be available to children aged between one and five years old. I express some caution about emulating the UK Government in its record on childcare, because when it comes to delivering for two-year-olds it appears to have overpromised yet underdelivered.
The First Minister spoke about her personal mission and about the importance of quality, free education, which was imperative to her being able to pursue her chosen career. That, of course, is an objective that is shared across the Government because many of us who are now in Government positions were the first in their families to go to university—children from working-class backgrounds who, 20, 30 or more years ago, took that step into higher education.
We want to do more to improve access to higher education for young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We know that the situation is indeed improving according to the latest Universities and Colleges Admissions Service statistics, but it is not improving fast enough and we will not demur from that acknowledgement.
We have set out our ambitions and we have set out our targets—a child born today should indeed have an equal chance of participating in higher education. The situation is similar with attainment. Education in Scotland is improving, but we have to address the long-standing issue of the attainment gap. We will pick up the pace and the programme for government has signalled that.
In this Government, we accept that there is always a case to do more within our existing resources and existing powers. However, there is also a case for more powers to come to this Parliament because the foundations of a strong and fair society are at the very heart of the debate about powers with a purpose. Take, for example, the attainment debate. At the very heart of the attainment debate is the debate about poverty. Poverty does not stop at the school gates. Eradicating poverty is indeed the greatest challenge, but it is also the greatest prize.
Thank you. The debate will continue tomorrow afternoon.
Previous
Programme for Government 2014-15Next
Business Motions