Scottish Executive's Programme
The next item of business is a statement by the First Minister on the programme of the Scottish Executive. As the First Minister will take questions at the end, there should be no interventions.
I would like to make a statement outlining our Government's programme for the coming year. I will set out the major elements of our programme and announce our legislative plans for the first year of this session. Together, they make up the package of action that we will take in the first stage of our four-year programme to deliver on the commitments we have made to the people of Scotland.
We want to build a Scotland that delivers social justice and creates opportunities for all its citizens to live and prosper; a country whose institutions are open and accountable and reflect the people's priorities; and a Scotland that rejoices in and celebrates the diversity of its peoples and cultures and is confident of its place in Britain, Europe and the wider international community. Our policies over the next four years will help us to deliver that vision.
We are at the start of the second session of our young Parliament. There are four years ahead of us and we have a lot to do. However, we do not start with a blank sheet of paper. We will work to build on the progress that we have already made for the people of Scotland. Through the introduction of free personal and nursing care, we removed the burden of financial worry from more than 75,000 pensioners, allowing them to be confident that they will get the care and support that they deserve. More than 700,000 tenants in social housing now have greater rights and control and increased protection from antisocial behaviour. Legal changes increased the protection of victims of sexual crime and ensured that their dignity would be preserved. We abolished the financial barrier of tuition fees for more than 100,000 young people in Scotland. We began the essential major investment programme to rebuild Scotland's schools, provide new hospitals and upgrade local health care facilities. Through the establishment of Scotland's first national parks, we ensured the protection of the natural environment so that millions can enjoy our outstanding natural and cultural heritage.
In our first four years, we made a start, but there is much more for us to do. In the next four years of this young Parliament, we will introduce legislation that, together with other action by ministers, will drive forward our agenda to change Scotland for the better.
Scotland needs the stability of a strong and determined Government and a vibrant Parliament to deliver the change and improvement that people deserve. The partnership agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats provides a clear, ambitious and radical agenda for the second session, based on growing our economy, modernising public services and building stronger communities. Those three critical building blocks will help us to create an ambitious and prosperous Scotland.
There is a great deal of work to do in the second four years of our Parliament. I am determined that we build on what has been achieved but I am also determined that we work with urgency on delivering the change and progress to which we have committed ourselves and which the people of Scotland expect from us.
Before I go any further, I want to restate the top priority of this new devolved Government: there is nothing more important to us than growing the Scottish economy. Scotland must generate more wealth to fund and resource excellence in our public services. There are more jobs in Scotland today than there have been at any time in my adult life. However, there are still almost 100,000 people out of work.
We need economic growth to create good jobs and put Scotland on a path to full and fulfilling employment. Governments cannot legislate for economic growth, but, with the powers of devolution, they can create the conditions for economic growth. We will invest in skills by increasing the apprenticeship programme to 30,000 places and providing substantial resources for higher and further education. We will support businesses in grasping the opportunities of the new economy, invest in research and development, support new entrepreneurs and sustain the vital link that transforms the ideas of the laboratory into new product manufacture.
Above all, we will value enterprise, promote an entrepreneurial culture and recognise the need to support risk taking. We will deliver education for enterprise in every school and legislate to provide support for the enterprising. In this parliamentary year, we will consult and bring forward legislation to modernise the laws of personal bankruptcy and diligence in Scotland to strike a better balance between supporting business risk and protecting the rights of creditors.
An effective and reliable transport system is also central to a thriving economy and strong communities. Modern Scotland needs an up-to-date, efficient and integrated transport system. By the end of 2006, our expenditure on transport will reach £1 billion per year, more than two thirds of which will be targeted at public transport. We have an extensive programme of infrastructure development—from Aberdeen to Airdrie, involving both road and rail—that will fundamentally improve the transport choices for hundreds of thousands of travelling Scots. The plan is agreed, the money is in place and the work is under way. In those investments—as elsewhere—we will evaluate spending commitments for their economic impact, their social impact and their value for money.
However, building new roads and laying new track is not enough. We want to make public transport easier to use and more accessible to those who need it most. We will therefore consult over the summer on our proposals for a new strategic transport authority and publish a white paper before the end of the year. The new authority will work within a framework of policy direction and budgets set by ministers. It will be responsible for the co-ordination of the Scotland-wide concessionary fare schemes that we will introduce for elderly, disabled and young people. It will deliver improvements in our transport infrastructure and a fully co-ordinated approach to Scotland's transport system.
People deserve and expect public services that are of the highest possible quality and offer the greatest possible choice. They expect investment to produce results. We are determined that the record levels of investment that we are making will be matched with the reform and improvement that is necessary to meet the needs of individuals and communities throughout Scotland.
We will go with grain of Scotland's best public service traditions and we will deliver the change that is needed. We will continue to progress the reforms we introduced for children's services, especially in child protection and the support that is available for looked-after children. We will support mentoring programmes and introduce a national recognition scheme for our young volunteers. We will work to tackle harassment from loan sharks and introduce fairer credit schemes. We will increase the supply and quality of Scotland's social housing stock and develop the range of housing choices and investment opportunities necessary to modernise social and public housing throughout the country.
Most of all, our partnership agreement outlines an ambitious and comprehensive programme of action to improve the effectiveness of our health, education, criminal justice, police and fire services over the next four years. That programme will be supported by legislation.
The next three years will see record investment in Scotland's health service, but patients must feel the benefits and see improvements in waiting times. As a next step, to devolve responsibility and cut through bureaucracy, we will introduce a national health service reform bill before the summer recess. The bill will abolish NHS trusts and establish community health partnerships as the foundation for devolved delivery of health care. It will provide a new structure for public involvement and ensure that local health services match the needs of individuals and communities. As part of a range of measures in the bill, we will place a specific duty on health boards to promote health improvement and ensure public involvement in health care to secure the step change that we need in Scotland's national health.
Patients, their families and clinicians will welcome those changes. In order to reassure them that the changes will be delivered locally, we have established a national framework, which will provide consistency and quality of care through standards, inspection and support. Through the bill, we will also provide the final step that is needed to ensure that the health service delivers quality to all its patients: we will introduce new powers for ministers to intervene—as a last resort—to secure quality of care. I hope that those new powers will never be needed, but we will not hesitate to use them in the interests of patient care.
Reforming our health service means improving conditions for and the practice of our health staff. We are working to implement the changes that have been agreed for health staff through the national agenda for change agreement and the introduction of the new consultants contract. General practitioners will be asked shortly to decide on their support for the proposed new contract. Should they agree, a primary medical services bill will be introduced in June to provide the necessary statutory framework for the new contract to be implemented with effect from 1 April 2004.
The bills that I have outlined will build on our work over the past four years to modernise the NHS in Scotland and to secure improvements in public health. In the future years of the Parliament we will continue our drive for improvement and quality health care with further reforms, as laid out in the partnership agreement. In particular, we will systematically extend free eye and dental checks to all by 2007. We will match investment with reform—not for its own sake, but to rebuild Scotland's health service, to drive down waiting times, to increase patient choice and to drive up standards.
I have said before that the first four years of the Parliament were characterised by the improvements that we delivered for our older citizens. The partnership agreement allows us to ensure that the next four years will be remembered for the steps that we will have taken to protect our young people, to increase their opportunities and to give them the best start in life. We will review and improve bursaries, student loans and other support for young Scots over the age of 16.
Our schools play a vital part in the lives of our children and, through them, in building the future of our country. The partnership agreement sets out a comprehensive agenda to build on the foundations that have been laid over the past four years. We will increase our major building programme, continue our investment in teachers and educational professionals to raise standards and take the next vital steps to reduce class sizes and reform the curriculum to increase pupil choice. We will continue our drive to devolve decision making in education to those on the front line, increasing the head teacher's role in the school and rewarding excellence in the classroom. Increased recognition will be given for professional skills and responsibilities, and there will be increased choice for pupils and increased information and accessibility for parents. All those measures are part of our drive to increase standards, choice and specialisms within a modernised comprehensive Scottish education service.
With those increased opportunities come increased responsibilities. Our goal is excellence in education for every child. Our framework is national standards, independent professional inspection and a clear focussing of that expertise on those schools throughout the country that need most support to meet the best standards.
In the first year of this session, we will introduce two education bills. To complete our national improvement and support framework, we will introduce legislation to provide new powers for ministers to intervene, on the recommendation of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, to ensure that action identified by the inspectors is taken by local authorities. No child in Scotland should suffer as a result of inaction or ineffectiveness on the part of any school, any local authority or the Government. The proposed powers will allow us to ensure that they do not do so.
To support our commitment to quality and excellence for all children, the bill on additional support for learning will end bureaucratic hurdles, introduce a new mediation and tribunal service, give parents and carers a greater say, and provide the necessary flexibility to ensure that children with special needs get the education that best meets their needs.
The Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill is being introduced today. It is a technical measure that will allow us to respond fully to the recent changes in the United Kingdom benefits system and to ensure that all those who are currently entitled to free school meals do not lose that entitlement.
Last year we published a consultation paper, "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future", which set out proposals for modernising and updating current fire service legislation, which dates back to 1947. We are committed to introducing reforms that will lead to a safer and more efficient service and, following further consideration after the current fire dispute is over, we will publish a bill in the first year of this session to meet those objectives. We will increase local decision making, enhance public protection and give fire authorities and fire brigades a statutory responsibility for fire prevention and community fire service work.
Scotland's growth and development in the 21st century must have greater regard for our environment than they had in the past. I am determined that our environmental record will improve significantly in the next four years. Our commitment to the environment and to environmental justice runs right through the partnership agreement. As a start, the next 12 months will see the introduction of three new pieces of environmental legislation.
First and foremost, we must keep our own house in order. Protecting Scotland's environment can no longer be the responsibility only of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The decisions, actions and initiatives of each minister must be sustainable. We will consider properly the environmental impacts of all new strategies, programmes and plans that are developed by the public sector. To do that, we will legislate to introduce strategic environmental assessments—an important tool that will help prevent the repetition of past unsustainable actions.
Secondly, in March we published a consultation paper and draft bill on nature conservation, which have been widely welcomed. Later this year, we will introduce a substantial piece of legislation to give effect to those proposals. The legislation will introduce a new general duty for public authorities to further the conservation of biodiversity, thoroughly overhaul the sites of special scientific interest system and introduce further reforms of the law on wildlife crime.
Thirdly, in June Ross Finnie will publish a consultation paper on water services. Later in the year, he will introduce a bill to establish a regulatory framework for water and sewerage services that will safeguard public health, environmental protection and fairness to customers.
In addition to that legislation, we will continue our initiatives to support sustainable rural communities and, in particular, to promote Scotland's interests when reform of the common agricultural and common fisheries policies is discussed in Europe.
We will govern well for all of Scotland, town and country, island and mainland. The partnership agreement will deliver for both urban and rural communities. Today I want to stress a very special issue that relates mainly to our rural communities. We believe that the Gaelic language is important to all of Scotland and is a unique part of our culture and heritage. To underpin the support that we give to the language, we will legislate to give Gaelic secure status—enshrining the Gaelic language in Scots law for the first time. As promised, the draft Gaelic language bill will be published in time for the historic 100th Mòd, which will take place this autumn. The legislation will be one part of our plan to introduce a national language strategy to guide the development and support of Scotland's languages, including British Sign Language and ethnic community languages.
A forward-looking, successful country needs a democratic framework that works well for all its people and local government is an essential part of that framework. Our actions to date show that we believe in elected local government and recognise its crucial importance in the delivery of quality public services and increased opportunity for young and old across Scotland. We will take steps to increase democratic participation, to modernise voting arrangements, to remove unnecessary restrictions on people who want to become involved in local government and to recognise properly the contribution that they make.
A local governance bill will be introduced before the end of the year. The bill will introduce the proportional single transferable vote system of election for the next local government elections and will take forward our other commitments by removing unnecessary political restrictions on standing for election and establishing an independent remuneration committee for councillors.
I move on to the issue of building stronger communities. Crime currently hurts. It hurts decent, hard-working people and eats away at the social and economic fabric of our communities. We in the Government are on the side of ordinary decent people and against those who profit from their misery, exploit their honesty and abuse their trust.
In the first session, we delivered record police numbers and provided new powers for the police and the courts and additional rights and protection for victims of crime. We also developed and began to implement a comprehensive new youth crime action plan. However, there is much more still to do.
In the past four years we have driven a major reform of our criminal justice service—a reform spearheaded by our Crown Office and court services. We will continue with that work and in June we will publish a consultation paper setting out wide-ranging proposals for the reform of the High Court, following the review that we asked Lord Bonomy to carry out and the report that he produced. The consultation will pave the way for the introduction in the autumn of a court reform bill that will modernise practice and procedure across the whole range of High Court business, speed up processes and cut down on wasted time for victims, witnesses, the police—crucially—and the courts themselves.
We announced in the partnership agreement that we would set up a new sentencing commission for Scotland to review sentencing and make recommendations. In the coming weeks, we will consult the judiciary and others on the remit and membership of the commission. As a first priority, we will ask the commission to review the use of bail and remand and to review the arrangements for early release from prison and supervision in the community for short-term prisoners. Importantly, the commission will consider and determine the action needed to secure improved consistency, appropriateness and effectiveness in sentencing across Scotland. Although setting up the commission does not require legislation, we will introduce any necessary legislation to implement its recommendations during the lifetime of this parliamentary session.
It is in the area of supporting witnesses and tackling antisocial behaviour that we must act and act quickly. We must be in no doubt about the importance of that issue to people living in the communities that we represent. Too many communities and too many lives are hurt by crime. Over half of all offenders in Scotland reoffend within four years. Too many of our police officers are wasting their time waiting for trials or wasting their professional skills in work that others could do.
Our commitments to education and opportunity will work on the root causes of crime. However, as a priority, we will deal swiftly and effectively with those who commit crime, and redress the balance in our communities in favour of the hard-working, decent people, who deserve to live in peace and safety. Victims come first, and vulnerable witnesses should receive the attention and support that they need. Therefore, before the summer recess, we will introduce a bill to provide new statutory protection for vulnerable witnesses—including automatic special provision for children under the age of 16, abolition of the competence test, and improved support for victims and witnesses.
Our commitment extends to victims of antisocial behaviour. We will move quickly to crack down hard on antisocial behaviour and we will continue our reform of the court system and children's hearings to speed up justice. We will support effective police officers and build a system that puts the interests of the victim first. We will work hard and act resolutely to build stronger, safer communities where antisocial behaviour is not tolerated and where the perpetrators are held directly accountable for their actions. It is not only the serious crime that attracts the headlines and damages our communities. Constant acts of vandalism, theft, intimidation and graffiti grind people down and destroy neighbourhoods—and where they come first, the drug dealers quickly follow. That cannot be tolerated any longer. It will take time to reverse the decline that we have seen in people taking responsibility and showing respect, but change that we must. I want to see respect for others back in our communities.
Before the end of June, we will publish our proposals on antisocial behaviour, which we will then introduce in a bill in the autumn. The measures in the bill will include new antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s; community reparation orders; powers for the courts to make civil orders requiring parents to act in the best interests of their children, with appropriate sanctions if they do not; the introduction of electronic monitoring of children as an alternative to secure accommodation; and the banning of the sale of spray paint to under-16s. We will give local authorities additional powers to tackle nuisance fireworks and fly tipping, and to deal with noise nuisance and graffiti. Government does not create safe communities on its own. We all share that responsibility and our rights must be matched by our responsibilities. The measures in the bill will be complemented by the additional action that we will take to introduce a quality-of-life guarantee to secure clean streets and a decent local environment for all.
Other proposals and initiatives to implement our programme of reform for the police and the criminal justice system as a whole will follow later in the life of the present Parliament. We will publish proposals for establishing a single agency to deliver both custodial and non-custodial sentences in Scotland and to cut reoffending rates. We will consult on those proposals—in particular with colleagues in local authorities, who have a direct interest. We will establish an independent police complaints body and we will follow up an overhaul of High Court procedures with an equally thorough and wide-ranging review of the summary justice system.
Taken together, the three bills that we will introduce in the first year of this session mark our determination to provide important new protection for victims and vulnerable witnesses; to overhaul the operation of the High Court, removing blockages and improving efficiency; and to act swiftly to crack down hard on offenders and on offending.
Finally, we will introduce the annual budget bill to ensure that we can finance the public services that Scotland needs, and Margaret Curran will clarify our plans on charity regulation later this afternoon.
Before the summer recess, we will introduce four new bills on education, health and justice—the people's priorities. We will publish proposals for dealing with antisocial behaviour and the reform of the High Court, because it is time to act. In our first year, we will concentrate our legislation on health, education, crime and the environment—just as we said we would.
Today I have outlined only the first steps that we will take in the next year. We will move quickly and, with the Parliament's help, will make good laws and administer well. However, those first steps alone—either individually or together—will not be enough.
The partnership—the coalition of Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats—will govern well. We will use well the resources of hard-working taxpayers, invest for the future and always aim to maximise the value that we can get for every pound of public money that we spend.
Our real partnership is with the people of Scotland. We will listen to them, pay attention to their concerns and be accountable to them for our actions.
We will take devolution forward to the next stage, deal directly with the challenges of the next four years, reach out to the communities of Scotland and work with the Parliament and all its elected members to build a new Scotland—a country of the 21st century that is at ease with itself, confident in its talents, protective of its people and its environment and, above all, ambitious for its future. We will build the kind of Scotland that all can be proud to call home.
The First Minister will now take questions. The next 58 minutes are not about making mini-statements; they are about posing clear questions and providing answers on the issues that the First Minister's statement raised. I invite those members who wish to ask questions to press their request-to-speak buttons. Mr Swinney has about four minutes.
I thank the First Minister for his statement and for the advance copy that he made available to us.
I give a warm welcome to a number of the measures that are in the Government statement. The introduction of the Gaelic language bill, the determination to have a strategic transport authority and the commitments to strategic environmental assessment, to proportional representation for local government and to the abolition of national health service trusts are all welcome. Of course, they formed part of the Scottish National Party's election manifesto. We are glad that the partnership has taken some good ideas from the SNP. We will be able to support other commonsense measures in the fullness of time.
I am disappointed that the First Minister's statement said nothing about the measures that the Government intends to take to guarantee the payment of compensation to hepatitis C sufferers who have been contaminated as a result of errors in the national health service. I am also concerned about the absence of any reference to measures that the Government intends to take to tackle poverty. That was a notable absence.
I have three specific questions for the First Minister. First, the First Minister was long on detail on every aspect of his programme, with the exception of the economy. We have had 40 years of low economic growth and we now have zero economic growth—the lowest economic growth rate in Europe. The Government's breakthrough measure is to modernise the laws of personal bankruptcy and diligence. That will hardly stimulate economic growth in Scotland. It tells us all that we need to know about the Executive—it is high on ambitions but has no powers to deliver the real economic change that people require.
The First Minister said that Governments could not legislate for economic growth. However, real Governments can legislate to reduce business burdens, deregulate and cut the business costs that companies in our country must endure. What specific measures that his Government has not tried in the past four years will the First Minister introduce in the next four years to deliver economic growth of which this country can be proud?
Secondly, the Government says that it will tackle crime and disorder by reducing violent and drug-related crime and cutting reoffending on the very day that it is announced that violent crime and drug crime are at a 10-year high. Will the First Minister give Parliament a commitment today that he will increase not only the number of operational officers but the total number of police officers on Scotland's streets? That would reflect the consensus that exists among the SNP, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on the need for a real-terms increase in police numbers within Scotland.
Thirdly, will the First Minister take this opportunity to respond to the comments made by a number of his Westminster colleagues over the weekend? They made remarks to the effect that the introduction of proportional representation for local government would be calamitous for the Labour party's power bases in Scotland and that they would do everything in their power to derail the measure. Will he take the opportunity to tell those Labour MPs that PR for local government is a devolved matter and that his Government is determined to introduce it? Will he give a guarantee to Parliament that his Government will do so in time for the 2007 elections? Quite simply, will he tell those Labour MPs to mind their own business?
I believe that the policies of the Labour party are generally in the best interests of Scotland, but I certainly have no intention of putting the internal interests of the Labour party ahead of governing Scotland. I give an assurance that we will see through the commitment that I have given today.
On the other more important issues that Mr Swinney raised, I am delighted that Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats will have the opportunity—which he will not—to introduce the measures that he welcomed at the beginning of his question. I look forward to making the right decisions on abolishing NHS trusts, introducing secure status for Gaelic, introducing a strategic transport authority, introducing strategic environmental assessments and reforming local government.
It is critically important that we have the resources to do those things and that the Parliament operates effectively, instead of on a collision course by trying to secure further constitutional change. We need to focus on the people's priorities and deliver on the issues that Mr Swinney welcomed as well as on the other issues that I have outlined.
If Mr Swinney disagrees that the investment of £1 billion a year in Scotland's transport infrastructure, the development of infrastructure projects and the development of a better approach to the transport system in Scotland would have an impact on the Scottish economy or on jobs or on business, he is not listening to Scottish business or to the Scottish people.
If Mr Swinney disagrees that introducing enterprise education into every school in Scotland, creating an entrepreneurial culture and allowing all young Scots to be ambitious and realise their ambitions, would help not only Scottish business or the young people themselves but Scotland's growth rate, he is not listening to Scottish business or to the Scottish people.
If Mr Swinney disagrees that Scottish business benefits from the stability that we currently enjoy, from our low rate of unemployment and high rate of employment and from all the other benefits that we receive from being part of the current UK macroeconomic system, he is not listening to Scottish business. We will grow the Scottish economy not by having a constitutional battle with London but by investing in skills and in Scotland's transport and infrastructure. We will build on the conditions that allow Scottish businesses to grow.
In a similar vein, if Mr Swinney does not believe that tackling crime on our streets, creating opportunities for our young people, improving our education service and creating jobs are the things that will tackle poverty, he is very wrong indeed. To lift people out of poverty, we need an education system that serves all our children, in particular our looked-after children, who have been failed by the system in the past. We need to have a situation on our streets whereby people who live in deprived communities do not have to put up with the crime and antisocial behaviour that currently blight their lives. That will help to tackle poverty. By creating jobs and growth in our economy, we will do more to tackle poverty than any of the measures that Mr Swinney might want to outline.
On hepatitis C, we will see through our commitment from the previous Administration by pursuing the case that we are making to ensure that there is some compensation for the victims of hepatitis C.
Finally, let me answer Mr Swinney's point about police on the streets. There is no point in increasing the number of police officers in Scotland if they spend more time in the courtroom and less time on the streets. That is why—and on 1 May the Scottish people recognised this—we need more than election slogans from the Opposition parties about more police officers on the beat. We need real reforms that will put police officers back on the beat and give them the opportunity to do the job that they want to do. There will be an increase in the number of Scotland's police officers, but there will also be a dramatic increase in their operational effectiveness. That will do more to tackle crime than will any Opposition election slogan.
I thank the First Minister for providing an advance copy of his statement to Parliament.
The size of the challenge facing the Administration has been graphically illustrated by today's appalling crime figures, which I understand did not merit any discussion at today's Cabinet meeting and which show just how ineffective Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been in tackling such a serious problem.
Will the First Minister tell us why, with the ink barely dry on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which was passed at the tail-end of the previous parliamentary session barely three months ago, we now need another bill to tackle antisocial behaviour? If the First Minister is so concerned about that issue, why did he not support Conservative amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that would have toughened up the whole approach to youth offenders? One example is the use of electronic tagging that the First Minister now says is necessary but which he and his colleagues voted down during stages 2 and 3 of that bill. Is it not true that the phoney criminal justice debate that we had during the election campaign was an attempt to manufacture artificial differences between Labour and the Liberal Democrats for the purposes of the election campaign rather than a serious attempt to address the problem? We all know that both parties are equally inept on justice issues.
We could do with a legislative load in the new parliamentary session that is lighter than that which we had in the previous one. However, once again it looks as if quality will be sacrificed for quantity. When will the First Minister realise that it is not the quantity or length of bills passed by the Parliament that will restore public confidence, but sensible measures that improve the quality of life for people in Scotland? That does not always mean a plethora or torrent of legislation, as the late Mr Dewar often pointed out. For example, if we really want to improve the performance of the Scottish economy, then instead of all the management-speak and gobbledegook in the partnership agreement, why do we not do the simple thing and cut business rates to England's levels and slash business's burden of regulation and red tape?
I recommend a similar and radical approach to our public services. Our health and education services need genuine devolution of power that would give patients and parents more choice while trusting the professionals to deliver for them. Why is the First Minister moving in the opposite direction from the Prime Minister and taking power away from our hospitals rather than giving the option of genuine independence as foundation hospitals?
In education, if the First Minister is really as keen to devolve power as he says he is, will his plans reduce the figure of more than £1 billion of education spending that is still in the hands of local authorities throughout Scotland and that never reaches the classroom?
For all the partnership agreement's tedious length and occasional flash of worthiness, the Parliament will agree that it is a timid document that fails to address the fundamental reforms that are necessary to improve our public services. If the First Minister and the Scottish Executive want to succeed, they will have to be a good deal braver than that.
As we are in a new parliamentary session, it might be time to hear a new speech. If Mr McLetchie had paid any attention to my statement on the programme, he would have noticed that there was no reference to quantity. All the way through my statement there were full references to the content and quality of the bills that we will introduce. Mr McLetchie might be surprised to find that there might be slightly less legislation, but it will be good legislation on the people's priorities, as we promised. It will happen and it will happen quickly.
It is a bit rich for the party that complained all the way through the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill about the size and length of that bill, and about how complicated it was, to criticise us for not including in it many more measures, which would have added to its length and complexity. The difference between the tokenistic stunts and amendments that the Conservative front bench proposed on these issues in the previous session and our proposals in the antisocial behaviour bill is that our proposals will be workable. They will work in practice and will be effective in the streets.
I do not agree that raising the issue of crime and antisocial behaviour on Scotland's streets is part of a phoney debate. It is not phoney for those old-age pensioners who are trapped in their homes every night and cannot go to their local park because of how the local youngsters would treat them. The debate is not phoney for local youngsters who want to enjoy their own community but cannot do so because people of their own age ensure that the local environment is not fit to allow them to relax and enjoy the parks and leisure spaces of an evening. It is not phoney for us to raise the issues of sentencing and consistency and the need to tackle them in year 1 of the session. The debate is not a phoney one but a very important one that needs to be tackled properly, accurately and factually by members.
Finally, on business support, the proposal to cut business rates, to which Mr McLetchie referred today, was made during the recent election campaign. At the election, the people of Scotland rejected the Tory proposal, which was supported by the Scottish nationalists, to cut support for business, training and skills and the budgets of our enterprise companies and to reduce business rates instead. That would be wrong and it was wrong in the eyes of the people, who voted on 1 May for investment in training, skills, transport, research and business support. That investment will turn round the Scottish economy's growth rate. The turnaround will not be made by cutting such investment for a short-term gain in tax cuts for a few.
I welcome the commitments to proportional representation, strategic environmental assessment—which is most welcome—and a nature conservancy bill. The commitment to transport infrastructure between Aberdeen and Airdrie is a good start, but it might usefully be extended to between Muckle Flugga and Melrose.
One or two things have regrettably been omitted from the Executive's proposals. After a regrettably short education consultation, many people in Scotland, particularly in education, might have wanted to see a greater commitment to giving a more central role in Scottish education to the arts—music, drama and art—and technology and design than we have at present. Commitments to such areas remain minimal in some places, particularly with regard to outdoor education and education in the outdoors.
Finally, I want to ask whether an omission in the introduction to the partnership agreement is a Freudian slip, a deliberate omission or simply an awful mistake. The penultimate paragraph states:
"We will evaluate all new spending commitments for their economic and social impact and value for money."
The final paragraph states:
"Our commitment to the environment is demonstrated in every section of this Partnership Agreement."
In education, the commitment to the environment is certainly minimal. However, the environment was missed out of the evaluation for spending commitments. Is that a mistake, a Freudian slip, or a deliberate omission?
I regard the impact on the environment as a key social impact and it should also be a key economic impact. That thread runs through the partnership agreement, which sees the environment not as an add-on but as a central part of the assessment that we make of our policies, legislation and spending. Therefore, there has been no awful mistake and certainly no omission, but an integration of the assessment of the impact on the environment and the long-term sustainability of our policies, which runs right through our policies and assessment of economic and social impacts. That is why those sentences go together in the document.
Robin Harper underestimates the impact of the education proposals that we are about to pursue. Several proposals were not included in the partnership agreement, for the obvious reason that it could not contain everything. Those proposals were announced as part of the budgets for the next three years and will make a difference in the arts, sports and the other areas of school activity that he mentioned. Not least of our proposals is our commitment to introduce free music tuition for every primary school pupil by primary 6. That is a fundamental change from a situation that has deteriorated in recent years. That will start to make the difference in developing young people's talents.
It is important to seize other opportunities, too. By releasing head teachers, teachers and parents to be more creative in the planned education for children, we have an opportunity to see more flexibility in the school curriculum, more opportunities for creative activity and less of a determination to pursue a formal educational agenda that has been restricting in its opportunities for young people in recent years. The proposals that I mentioned again in my statement to reform the curriculum and to free up those opportunities for young people will make the difference that Robin Harper wants. By developing the creative talents of our young people, we can fully develop their academic abilities and allow for other achievements. Only by recognising that will we move significantly forward.
I heard the First Minister talk in his statement about creating a Scotland to be proud of. However, I do not recognise in his statement the priorities that the Executive should address. Does he agree that we live in a country that is more unequal now than it was four years ago? We live in a country in which one in three of our children lives in poverty and one in four of our pensioners struggles to make ends meet each week. We live in a country that is blighted by low pay, yet in a speech of 30 minutes, the First Minister did not mention poverty, low pay or inequality.
Is the First Minister really concerned about creating a Scotland to be proud of? Should it not be a Scotland that is fairer and more equal? In that respect, will he agree to reform the utterly unfair council tax system, which rewards the wealthy and the well paid, but punishes pensioners and ordinary workers? Will he accept that if he is concerned about tackling poverty and inequality in the next four years, he should prioritise the abolition of an unfair tax system that adds to poverty and inequality in Scotland? Will he agree to the abolition of the unfair council tax, or is he too concerned with defending those who are already wealthy and well off?
Like some other speakers, Mr Sheridan should be a little more honest and not refer to the abolition of the council tax as if we could abolish tax systems and somehow still secure local government services. He failed to explain how he would fund schools, the opportunities that young people need and the facilities in the community that would allow young people to develop out of poverty and to have opportunities in life that allow them to take themselves and their families forward.
I am not here today to address the chamber with a statement on the Government's programme for the next four years and our legislative programme for the next 12 months by using a series of slogans and buzz words. I am here to talk about the actions that will make a difference, which do not include renationalising the Royal Bank of Scotland, which Mr Sheridan proposed two days ago. That would leave people in Scotland out of work and probably out of a bank account, too. The actions that will make a difference will be in our education service and our health service and will tackle crime and disorder on our streets. Mr Sheridan needs to get on the side of the people in Scotland who need better services, who need our streets cleared up and who need to be protected by the forces of law and order. They will get that from the Government and they should get that from the Scottish Socialist Party, as a parliamentary party.
We move on to quick questions and answers on single issues.
Mrs Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
I welcome the record investment that is to be made on health and agree that that investment has to be matched by improved service delivery. Primary care is one of the key parts of the national health service and many people are concerned at the lack of progress towards the GP contract. What will the impact on the programme of reform be if GPs do not agree to the contract?
Will the First Minister outline what community health partnerships will mean in practice? Will we see extra funding being taken out of the acute sector and being put into primary care? Will we see a true devolution of power to the people at the front line and to communities that are affected?
I will try to answer all the questions briefly before you stop me at some point because of time constraints, Presiding Officer.
We hope to go to a ballot on the GP contract in the next two or three weeks. If the ballot is successful, a bill will be introduced to progress the issue.
We are determined to abolish national health service trusts to get rid of the layer of bureaucracy that was created by the Tory Government. We want to ensure that there is more devolution inside the health service, not more centralisation. The community health partnerships of primary care teams that are based around GP surgeries and teams of health workers who work with GPs are central to the delivery of health services at the local level. Those partnerships will ensure that we can take a more preventive approach to health rather than one in which most of our attention and activity is focused on the acute sector. Given that that is a significant policy shift, I have no doubt that it will take time, but in that important shift we will see the money follow the solution.
In fairness to the First Minister and other members, I will take only one single-issue question from members from now on.
I welcome the fact that the First Minister stated explicitly that growing the Scottish economy is the top priority for the Executive. Does he agree on the importance of research, development and commercialisation of the bioscience sector? Does he further agree that it is somewhat ironic that the Opposition parties that spent the past four years girning about red tape are now urging legislation on the economy?
The people who criticise us for not legislating enough on the economy are the same people who will criticise us for having too much legislation on the economy, but that is part of the problem that we have at times in the chamber.
We need to ensure that we do the right things to help to grow the economy. In the same way that we will do that in respect of transport and skills, we will improve the research and development base of the Scottish economy. We need to drive up productivity and ensure that we take ideas and research from our universities and turn them into viable commercial products. We also need to ensure that we promote those products overseas and give our companies the best possible opportunities to increase their exports—all those measures are critical.
It is right to say that our bioscience sector is one of the major opportunities for the Scottish economy today. Our intermediary technology institutes will be one way in which we will ensure that the bioscience sector is a success.
It is astonishing that only one line in the First Minister's statement referred to Europe. Given the changes in the European Union that are currently being debated at European level, is that not negligent? Will he indicate precisely how he will ensure that the Executive and the Parliament can respond to the impact of the EU on Scotland and to the challenges that Europe poses? Surely the First Minister does not intend to leave the question of Europe to others elsewhere.
We have had a significant impact on the debate in the European convention in respect of the role of the devolved regional and national legislatures in the European Union. Recognition of that impact can be seen in the central role that Scotland plays in the organisation of the legislative regions across the EU. The Administration will continue to play that role and we will continue to be involved in that debate.
There is a need not only for the member states of the European Union to retain their important role in a union of member states—not a federal or united Europe. It is important that Scotland and Catalonia, Bavaria and the other important integral parts of member states have the opportunity to influence decisions about European legislation in advance of those decisions being made and that we have the opportunity to challenge those decisions once they have been made.
Is the First Minister aware that, in Scotland, there is an assault on a member of school staff roughly every 15 minutes? Given those circumstances, will he review and remove the target for exclusion reduction?
First, I should point out that the target for exclusion reduction has been misrepresented. No head teacher or teacher anywhere in Scotland should misread that target as a demand from, or desire by, anyone in national Government in Scotland to keep in the classroom or in the school children who are causing havoc and who are therefore creating difficulties for the other children. To portray that target in such a way is a serious misrepresentation.
However, we must also tackle school indiscipline. Although there are serious problems with school bullying and with individuals who disrupt classrooms, we also need to tackle a certain culture that exists in many schools. That is why we are introducing a comprehensive programme of action that will not reduce the number of school exclusions artificially, but will reduce school indiscipline itself. I am sure that our new Minister for Education and Young People will talk soon about that key objective.
I was pleased to stand on Labour's manifesto, which pledged to alleviate student hardship further through a review of the level of student bursaries. I am also pleased that the First Minister referred to that policy again this afternoon. Will he tell us more about the Executive's plan for that review?
A number of areas need to be reviewed, and we will address them systematically in the course of this parliamentary session. We need to review the level of student bursaries, the level of family income at which such a bursary becomes available and the level of income at which students repay their student loans. We must also ensure that more and more students in Scotland have the financial support that will allow them to continue their education. Although such things cannot be done overnight, I believe that we can make a difference. I hope that, in the course of this session, we can respond to concerns that have been expressed by existing and future students and their families, and that we can make more resources and back-up available to students who might suffer from financial hardship.
Although I welcome the First Minister's commitment to creating sustainable rural communities, is he aware that, as of today, not one penny of the £50 million of emergency aid that he announced in January has been paid to anyone in our fishing communities?
Moreover, will the First Minister respond specifically to the alarming comment that the UK fisheries minister Elliot Morley made earlier this month in Derby to an English fishermen's organisation? He boasted that "not a penny" has been paid to the Scottish fishermen and went on to say:
"I'm not sure it will be paid".
Will the First Minister give a commitment to investigate whether the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is trying to block European aid to Scotland?
I have no intention of giving any commitments to Mr Lochhead, given his history of total misrepresentation of negotiations and the situation with Scottish fishermen. Indeed, that history has been widely criticised by more responsible members in the chamber, as well as by Scottish fishermen.
We need to take a much more targeted approach to the matter. Over the next few months, we will have a difficult job in ensuring that the long-term interests of Scotland's fishing communities are addressed in the reforms and debates that are taking place. We have set ourselves the objective of implementing a package of compensation that is the biggest ever, not just for Scottish fishermen, but for anyone else per head in Scottish society. We will also ensure that, later this year, the right decisions are made in the long-term interests of Scottish fishing communities. That is what we will do.
Given much of our media's unfair portrayal of our young people as out of control, chaotic criminals who make the lives of others unbearable, does the First Minister regret in any way that the most substantial reference to young people in his speech was in relation to young people as criminals? Does he agree that, as politicians, we should be talking up the achievements and contributions to society of our young people, and is such an approach consistent with slapping electronic tags on them?
Where does one start?
Monitoring young people electronically is significantly better than locking them up, if it is better for them and ensures that they can stay in the community. People will know where those young people are, and they can be monitored to ensure that their behaviour becomes more acceptable.
It is not only young people who are involved in antisocial behaviour or the problems that communities face; many adults are involved in antisocial behaviour. Moreover, it is not only the parents of the young people who are involved in antisocial behaviour who are involved—other adults are, too. We need a comprehensive approach. My statement and the partnership agreement cover increased opportunities for young people at school; increased opportunities and facilities for young people in the community; increased opportunities for young people at college and university; increased opportunities at work through the apprenticeship programme; increased opportunities for young people's volunteering to be rewarded through a national recognition scheme; and increased opportunities for young people to get jobs. It is simply untrue to say that such an approach denigrates young people. The Government and Parliament have a duty to clamp down on the criminal behaviour that blights our communities, and we need to give young people the opportunities that they deserve and want. At the same time, we need to clean up our communities so that they can live in peace.
Will the First Minister give details about specific policies in the programme for tackling poverty, deprivation and inequality? For example, will policies be proofed for their impact on such matters, as they will proofed in respect of the environment? I am curious as to whether there is an inherent assumption that, given that economic growth is the top priority, it will lead automatically to the eradication of poverty, deprivation and inequality without direct Government intervention.
I believe that the policies that we have outlined to create more jobs, deliver higher economic growth, secure more opportunities for young people and improve our education service and our transport systems will lead not only to the creation of more jobs, but to poverty being tackled. In particular, I believe that education is a key route for young people to get out of poverty and deprivation and to give themselves the best possible chance in life. It is critical that we improve education in the schools that underperform most, because they contain most of the young people in question. Such young people deserve a better start in life than they currently have.
It is important that we make the right choices for our resources, which is why I mentioned a technical bill on free school meals to tidy up legislation and ensure that those who currently benefit from free school meals have the opportunity to continue to do so. It is also important that we do not support free school meals for people who do not need them precisely because we want to tackle poverty. [Interruption.] I say to Mr Sheridan that we want public resources in Scotland to be targeted to ensure that poverty is tackled. They should not be spread right across the board so that people who do not need subsidies are given them. Our Administration is serious about tackling poverty in Scotland—Mr Sheridan's policies would be very wrong.
In view of the First Minister's welcome statement that he wishes to see the creation of conditions for economic growth, will he assure us that the Executive will not support legislation in this Parliament for third-party rights of appeal against planning decisions? Such legislation would be vigorously opposed by the business community and would do nothing to support economic growth in Scotland.
We are committed, in the partnership agreement, to consulting on improving public involvement in the planning system; that is exactly what we intend to do.
The First Minister outlined in considerable detail his plans to speed up the court and children's panel systems. Does he agree that the public is best protected by diversion of children and young people from crime in the first place? Will he confirm that the basic priority is adequately to resource children's panels and hearings to do such a job? Will he say how that will be done?
We need a balanced approach. We must, as part of tackling the wider problems of crime and behaviour in our society, ensure that the right systems are in place to deal with the very small minority of young people who cause problems, and we must ensure that young people who need to be referred to children's panels because they have been involved in minor offending or have social problems have a decent panel system that can serve their needs. The right follow-up is required to allow them to get a better start in life—such things are important.
It is critical that we ensure that young people have in our communities the opportunities, support and recognition to encourage them into other activities. The issue is not just about ensuring that young people who are off the rails, or who are heading off the rails, are diverted into other activities or into confronting their behaviour, nor is it about ensuring that they are punished for their behaviour. It is about ensuring that those young people avoid getting into such situations in the first place, which not only requires public institutions, local government, national Government and public bodies to provide facilities and opportunities for young people, but requires their parents—one or two parents—to ensure that those young people have the best start in life. We have a responsibility, as a Parliament and as a society, to say to all parents that they have that responsibility.
I hope that if we strike the right balance in ensuring that parents take more responsibility, in tackling the small minority of serious offenders, in ensuring that those who are either minor offenders or are starting to get into the system have better support, and in ensuring that the vast majority of young people have the right opportunities to divert them from crime in the first place, we will have the right package in place to ensure that our young people avoid getting into a life of adult crime.
Can the First Minister tell me what agreement he refers to in relation to the agenda for change for national health service workers? Was his statement not disingenuous given the current position of major trade unions? Given that there are many losers in the agenda for change—not least in terms of unsocial hours, overtime payments and worse protection arrangements—will the Executive use in full its devolved powers to agree and negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to NHS workers in Scotland? As part of that, will the First Minister—as he should—propose measures to ensure for NHS workers a minimum wage that is equivalent to the European decency threshold, and a maximum 35-hour week?
I hope that the member is aware that the minimum wage in the Scottish health service is above the national minimum wage. That is a good measure that we introduced and which should receive support throughout the chamber. It is important to recognise that additional investment in improved pay for anybody who works anywhere in the public sector runs alongside change, reform and modernisation to improve the service for those who need to benefit from it—whether they be parents and pupils, patients or the victims of crime. Investment must go with modernisation and reform. I believe that when we do that—as is being done through the agreed programme of the agenda for change—we will see a better health service as a result.
I welcome the First Minister's earlier answer that locally based solutions were the ideal ones to ensure that antisocial behaviour is tackled effectively. Can he assure Parliament that he will take account of projects such as the Drugs and Alcohol Project Levenmouth, which he visited recently? That project, uniquely, works with young people of school age who are either substance abusers or who live in families of substance abusers. It also works to great effect with the courts on the pilot drug treatment and testing orders in reducing antisocial behaviour and low-level crime.
Yes—that project in Levenmouth is inspiring. It deals with a relatively small number of people, but it transforms lives that were in a dreadful state. The people who work there deserve every credit for their activities. The young, and some not so young, people who are trying to get themselves away from a life of addiction also deserve every credit for the efforts that they are making—many of them successfully—to improve their lives and, in some cases, the lives of their immediate families.
I think that we got many things right in relation to drugs in Parliament's first session. Measures such as the new legal framework; treatment and testing orders; the new Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and the work that it has done to improve seizures of drugs; and the targeted efforts to ensure that we get the big drugs barons, seize their assets and repay those assets into the community were all very effective and important. However, a serious job must still be done in Scotland on rehabilitation services. A fresh and urgent priority for the second session of Parliament and this devolved Government is to ensure that rehabilitation services throughout Scotland become better than they are now and that they are not only more effective but more extensive. That is a particular issue in some parts of Scotland, such as the north-east. I certainly intend to see that through.
I welcome the commitments in the partnership agreement to expand the NHS work force, but I refer the First Minister to the NHS Quality Improvement Scotland report that was published yesterday. It states:
"Staff shortages continue to raise patient care risks."
In the light of that report, will the First Minister outline what initiatives he will take, not only to create extra staff posts in the long term but, much more immediately, to fill existing staff vacancies in our hospitals in order to ensure that we have adequate and safe staffing levels throughout the health service?
I think that Miss Sturgeon is aware that a range of initiatives are in place to try to secure more nurses in our hospitals and elsewhere, and to secure more doctors and dentists. Health boards are pursuing specific initiatives for different parts of Scotland and the Executive is pursuing initiatives nationally. I would be happy to write to Miss Sturgeon to remind her of those initiatives, if she wishes me to do so.
It is important to recognise that we do not need only to fill vacancies in the short term, but that we must increase the overall work force of the health service in Scotland, which is exactly what the partnership agreement will do. We do not need legislation to achieve that; instead, we must ensure that we put sufficient resources into the health service. The resources that will be provided in the next four years will provide the opportunity to increase the work force, but the resources must be matched with reforms in the health service to ensure that it is as effective as possible.
I thoroughly enjoyed the First Minister's statement on the Executive's programme—much of which I agree with—but it seemed to contain a sin of omission. Twenty-five per cent of the population of Scotland are senior citizens, but "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" contains 79 words appertaining to senior citizens. There seems to be an imbalance—a quarter of a million people of my generation live below the Government's poverty level, but that does not seem to be worthy of a mention from the First Minister.
I will make two points. First, I believe that we made great strides in the previous session of Parliament by ensuring that the quality of life for Scotland's pensioners was significantly improved through free personal and nursing care, free local bus travel and the central heating initiative. However, I believe that we must keep up the momentum, which is why it is important that we have a national concessionary travel scheme for elderly citizens. To achieve that, we must put in place a national transport authority, which we will do step by step during the next four years.
Secondly, it is important that we recognise that although many of the Executive's proposals might not be of direct or immediate financial benefit to pensioners, they will have a major impact on pensioners' lives. If the proposals for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour that I outlined in my speech will have more impact on one group of Scottish citizens than on any other, that group will be senior citizens. I look forward to John Swinburne's support for Parliament's adoption of those proposals.
I welcome the First Minister's NHS waiting-time targets for 2005 of six months for in-patient treatment, 26 weeks for out-patient treatment and 48 hours for access to GPs, nurses and health care professionals. Can he explain how he will achieve those targets?
We will achieve the targets through the commitment to investment and reform. We must increase the capacity of the service and we must ensure that it is reformed so that it can deal with people more quickly and effectively. That is why, in the past 12 months, we have concentrated on bringing down the longest waiting times. As everybody expected, that approach—which all members called for prior to the change in policy—has led to an increase in the total number of people on waiting lists. However, the approach will ultimately mean that people who have been waiting for months and months for important operations—all members meet such people regularly—will have their operations done within the target time.
The experience of the national waiting times unit, hospitals, health boards and GP practices in driving down the longest waiting times will stand them in good stead as they move the waiting times down even further towards the targets—in fact, they are guarantees—that we have set.
I welcome the First Minister's commitment to free dental checks—which is on page 10 of the partnership agreement—as will my constituents. The NHS dental service in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is in a state of near crisis. One of the problems is that the Conservative Government, in its infinite wisdom, shut down the Edinburgh dental school, which is why we are short of about 500 dentists. Does the First Minister recognise that that shortage might undermine the laudable policy of introducing free dental checks? What proposals does he have to address the problem?
The Deputy First Minister says, "Loads", which is a good answer.
We need to ensure not only that we are providing the right incentives for dentists, but that the charging and repayment systems for dentists are right, especially in our rural communities, where a problem in the financial arrangements appears to be leading to dentists' no longer finding normal work in the national health service attractive. We also need to ensure that we address the capacity problem.
In the partnership agreement, we propose initially to ensure that we make additional provision in Aberdeen. However, we need to take a comprehensive look not just at the north-east, but at the whole of Scotland, to ensure that people have the opportunity to study to become dentists, to graduate and to move out into the community. I do not want to be perceived as wanting to turn potential students away from Scotland, but our dental schools are heavily used by an underprovided-for service in England, so we must ensure that we do not act in isolation to improve the opportunities for people to study to be dentists. We must also ensure that people in England have the same opportunity, thereby perhaps freeing up some places in our Scottish dental schools.
Will the First Minister give an assurance that the legislation for the regulatory framework for water and sewerage services will involve a radical review of water and sewage treatment, and that what will come from it will be the necessary investment that is sorely needed in some rural areas?
The proposals that will come forward will be designed to sustain the substantial investment that is taking place to ensure far better standards of water and sewerage systems throughout Scotland. We will also ensure that there is an efficient and effective system for the longer term. The proposals will be published by the Minister for Environment and Rural Development in due course.
Does the First Minister agree that it is important that we have a responsive and listening Government? The additional learning support legislation that he has announced causes some concern among parents who feel that they have not so far been listened to in the consultation process, and there are serious concerns about the implications of the record of needs proposals. Does he agree that special needs legislation needs special care? Will he give his personal commitment that the record of needs proposals will not compromise provision for special needs children?
I hope that the member recognised in my statement the sincerity of my view that all children with special needs—not just looked-after children, to whom I referred specifically—must receive the best possible quality of education to ensure that they have the best possible start in life and that they have every opportunity to develop their talents. I know from experience how important that can be for youngsters in many parts of Scotland. I also know how important it is that those youngsters and their parents have choice in their education provision.
For some, a mainstream education service is right and for others a specialist education service is right. That choice is fundamental and I defend it. It is also important that we listen to the consultation responses that we have received on the proposals that were made earlier this year. It is because we are listening to those responses and because we will consider carefully the final proposals that we will make that we do not plan to publish a bill on additional support for learning in the next few weeks. We will take our time to do it properly, and there will be further informal consultations of those who have an interest. We will thereafter produce proposals that, I am sure, will be fully debated in the Parliament at a later stage.
The First Minister stated that he saw no need for further constitutional change. Has he studied the European convention's draft proposals? If so, what impediments does he see in them to the wishful statement that he has made today?
As I said, the European convention's proposals and the proposals that will come from the European Commission in relation to improvements in the way in which it conducts its business will not satisfy every suggestion that I have made over the past two years about improving the way in which devolved Governments can participate in the European Union. However, there will be some improvements—not only in the European convention's proposals, but in the proposals on improved procedures that will come from the European Commission.
They will be important changes that will represent a big shift for some of the other European Governments that are not by nature decentralising Governments. There is a mixture of Governments in the European Union: some do not wish to give extra powers to their devolved Governments; others are like the UK Government, which has been keen to support our proposals. I hope that we can go some way towards improving our engagement, then take the opportunity to do so.
Mr Gallie is welcome to debate the constitutional status of institutions elsewhere, but we in the Scottish Parliament should stand up for Scotland and do the right thing.
I welcome the First Minister's comments on the importance of strong and safe communities. Does he agree that there are serious concerns in our communities about the impact of drug dealing, not only on those who are drawn into the misery of drug abuse, but on those who have to live with the misery of having drug dealers as neighbours? In developing further action in relation to drug dealing, will he examine in particular ways in which private landlords whose tenants are involved in such activity can be made to take their responsibilities seriously?
We have all come across problems that have been expressed consistently by people who are suffering in certain situations. One such situation, which seems to crop up time and again, relates to people who have bought a council flat in a stairway in which other flats, having been bought and sold, are being rented out to people who have been accused of selling or trading in drugs, and who are causing havoc in that stairway and the local community. That issue requires urgent attention, not just in relation to crime that is currently taking place—which we need to clamp down on—but in relation to the right of the people in a stairway to demand a certain degree of action from landlords who, by renting out their property, abuse their property and the people who live nearby.
Given that, at the recent annual dinner of the Confederation of British Industry, Gordon Brown said that the debate on tax has moved from harmonising internal rates to tax competition and being competitive in a global economy, why does the First Minister believe that Scotland can progress without the power to compete on tax?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have made that comment because he was proud of the fact that Scotland and the rest of the UK enjoy one of the lowest business tax regimes in Europe. I hope that Mr Mather will welcome that situation.
I welcome what the First Minister said about health reform, especially the intention to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in the health service and to put the patient at the centre of decision making. Does he agree that decision making has in the past been too centralised and that patients and front-line practitioners have not been sufficiently involved? Will he give a commitment that the Scottish Executive will not tolerate such an approach from the health service, even in advance of new legislation being passed?
I hope that health boards throughout Scotland will take seriously the agenda that we have set out. In many parts of Scotland, that agenda is working well. Clinicians from various backgrounds are working together in an integrated way to deliver a package of care that is bringing down waiting times, saving lives and ensuring that people have the quality of care that they expect in the 21st century. Our agenda is not simply to do with removing a layer of bureaucracy; it is to do with ensuring that in our hospitals, GP practices, local health care co-operatives and community health partnerships we have groups of professionals working together in an integrated health service that puts the patient, rather than the system, first.
That concludes questions to the First Minister.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I thought that I heard you say that, following the First Minister's statement, members would have an opportunity to question the First Minister, but not to make mini-statements. You said that four minutes would be allocated to the leader of the SNP and the leader of the Tory party. However, in effect, both of them made mini-statements in their four minutes, which is longer than the amount of time that some of us are given to make a speech in this place.
In the first session of Parliament, I pointed out that our standing orders provide for all members to be treated equally by the Presiding Officer, but that does not seem to be happening. It seems to be that the standing orders are being breached as flagrantly in this session as they were in the previous one.
I was perfectly satisfied with the questions that Mr Swinney and Mr McLetchie asked. The debate seemed to me to be balanced. If you look at the print out of who spoke in the debate, you will find a pretty good image of the Parliament's composition. As I said earlier, it is not possible to strike a balance in any one debate in the Parliament; it is a matter of swings and roundabouts until we reconsider the standing orders. I think that you will find that there is more than a cut for you between now and the recess.