Scottish Executive's Programme
The first item of business is the First Minister's statement on the Executive programme, which will be followed by a debate on the topic. The statement is quite substantial and I ask members who want to ask factual questions to press their buttons, as we will take one or two questions after the statement. Members should not press their buttons to speak in the debate now, but wait until the statement and the questions are out of the way.
We are now entering the final months of this session. Today I will look back briefly at what the Executive—the partnership between Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrats—has achieved and set out the remainder of our legislative programme for the months until April 2003.
Over the past three years, we have tackled the issues that matter to the people of Scotland and we have enacted legislation that makes a difference to their lives. We have put our partnership to practical use. We have worked with the people of Scotland as well as for them. We have consulted, we have listened and we have acted.
To date, a total of 36 Executive bills have been scrutinised, debated and passed by this Parliament. That achievement has been remarkable not because of the number of bills, but because of the impact of the legislation.
In the past year alone we have given more than 700,000 tenants in social housing greater rights and control and we have increased their protection from anti-social behaviour. We have taken the burden of financial worry away from more than 75,000 pensioners, so they can be confident that they will get the care and support that they deserve in their old age. We will implement free personal care for Scotland's elderly citizens on 1 July this year.
We have brought long-overdue recognition to the 600,000 carers whose daily work lies at the heart of our families and communities. We have increased protection and dignity for victims of sexual crime. We have allowed young people to plan their future with greater confidence by continuing to improve the efficiency and governance of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. We have introduced free off-peak local bus travel, which will start in October, for more than 1 million pensioners, to give them the opportunity to get more from their daily lives.
For all Scotland's citizens, we have increased accountability, participation and open government through the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill and we have underlined our commitment to first-class public services by legislating to improve the public sector ombudsman service.
We have made our water industry more efficient and accountable to this Parliament and we have created the statutory framework to ensure that the water that we drink and use meets the highest standard of quality.
On 8 July this year, we will see Scotland's first national park in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs established—a move to both protect and at the same time allow millions of Scots to enjoy our outstanding natural and cultural heritage.
Those have been some of our most recent achievements. Those actions impact directly on the people of Scotland. They reflect their concerns and have been scrutinised, debated and refined through consultation, the hard work of committees and the engagement of Scots.
The work goes on. In the months ahead, ministers and Parliament will work together through the bills that are before the Parliament's committees. We will work to tackle crime in our Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, with public protection as our key objective. We will deal directly with the challenge of high-risk offenders through the creation of a new court sentence—the order for lifelong restriction—and a parallel systematic assessment and management system of those who pose the greatest threat to the safety of our people.
We are putting victims of crime at the heart of our criminal justice system, providing them with the information that they need and the support that they deserve, as well as increasing their participation in the delivery of justice. The bill takes crime seriously by strengthening the protection for victims of stalking and harassment, increasing the penalties for possession and distribution of pornography and taking forward the debate on Scotland's response to young offenders.
The issue of youth crime is important to me. The ministerial group that is considering effective action for those young people who offend persistently brings together ministers from across departments. It is considering action as part of our overall strategy for tackling youth crime and it will report to the Cabinet before the summer recess. We will make that report public, we will take action on its recommendations and we will take that action quickly.
Earlier this month, we introduced the Local Government in Scotland Bill, which is critical to our determination to build better public services across the country. It proposes a comprehensive package of measures to transform how local government works. It will deliver the best value framework, will introduce a new power of well-being and will provide for community planning, which will give a focus to public services that puts citizens at their centre.
The bill offers an unprecedented opportunity to local government. It creates the framework to bring quality, continuous improvement and community involvement into the heart of what local government does. The bill is designed to allow our local authorities to do the job that they can do best, which is to provide the best-quality services on the ground, every day, to meet the needs of those that they represent.
Our commitment to improving quality extends across all that we do. That is why the public appointments and public bodies bill will propose the establishment of an independent Scottish commissioner for public appointments and the modernisation of the public appointment process. The fact that a statutory responsibility to promote diversity is built into the proposed arrangements will allow us to seek out the best of Scottish talent and to win that for public service. That talent and experience will add value to what we do.
Ours is a Parliament for all Scotland and the devolved Government represents and takes seriously the needs and aspirations of all our people. We are looking forward and we are committed to building a Scotland that is fit for the 21st century. In that Scotland, there will be no place for outdated feudal and land tenure laws and no holding back on sustainable development for our rural communities. Our Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will remove barriers, will create a fair and modern system of land ownership and access and will increase diversity. It will allow rural development to be planned, communities to be involved and the environment to be protected.
To sit alongside the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, the title conditions bill will be introduced next week. It will mark the final step in the abolition of the feudal system and will simplify the law in respect of real burdens on property.
Our commitment to sustainable development is a commitment for the long term. The water environment and water services bill, which we will publish before the summer, will introduce important reforms to secure the sustainable use of Scotland's water resources.
Our work in hand includes: taking crime seriously and increasing public safety; building public services through partnership with local authorities; opening up participation in public life to the diversity of talent that we have in Scotland; and protecting our environment and sustaining its development for future generations. However, there is more to do. As we approach the end of the first session of the Parliament, we still have commitments to meet.
For the Executive and for me, there is no more important goal than the protection of our children. It is the central prerequisite to giving our children and young people the best possible start in life. We will not protect our children through one measure alone. I am determined that where we can take action to strengthen the legal framework in favour of our children, we will take such action. We will do our job to minimise the risks that can face our young people.
In the autumn months, we will introduce a bill to increase the protection that we offer. The protection of children bill will increase the safety of Scotland's 1 million children who are under 16—children and young people who take part in youth organisations and clubs and who use education and leisure services and care and advice facilities.
The bill will have two important functions. It will set up an index of adults who are unsuitable to work with children and will disqualify those who are on that index from working with children. The bill will deliver a commitment that I made last year and will fulfil a debt that we owe to the people of Dunblane. Its sections will reflect the outcome of our consultation and will draw on the experience and expertise that lies in our communities.
The bill will of course aim to protect the human rights of those who might be placed on the index and I am sure that members will want to scrutinise the bill carefully to ensure that we reach fair decisions. But let me be clear. For the Executive, there is no greater human right than the right of every child to live in safety and without fear. I hope that the Parliament will endorse the widespread community support for the bill's key proposals.
For too long, people with mental health problems have been at the margins of our society's thinking and of the Government's action. The numbers are significant: mental health problems account for 30 per cent of all general practitioner consultations. The pain and anxiety that such people and their families face is real. Mental health is one of the three clinical priorities for the national health service. We are working to drive up standards of care and reduce the stigma that is suffered by those who are affected.
However, improving mental health services requires a legal framework that is fit for the 21st century and designed to meet the specific needs of the individual. Our proposed bill will create fairer and safer mental health law and bring new rights and new protection to many of the most vulnerable and isolated in our communities. The bill will enable our professionals to do their job flexibly and effectively. Last November, the Parliament achieved a real consensus in the debate on renewing mental health law. That debate and consensus showed this Parliament at its best. I hope that we will work together on the bill to create a modern framework that supports those who need care and the professionals who offer it.
From the outset, we have sought to use the opportunity of this first parliamentary session to take forward our commitment to the principles of social justice. We have taken real, practical steps in legislation and in policy to realise that commitment. Homelessness in all its forms is an affront to those social justice principles. Later this year, we will introduce a bill to tackle that issue head on. Working from the experience and expertise of the homelessness task force that we set up in 1999, we have responded to the task force's recommendations in the early legislative change that was incorporated in part 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.
Everyone in Scotland should have a decent, secure home. Action on housing is action that is central to the delivery of social justice. A warm, dry home contributes directly to better health for all. It is the place from which children can go each morning to school with confidence and security. Well-designed homes and estates act as effective barriers to crime and help to remove the anxiety and fear that damage too many lives today. The new bill will end the current obstacle course for those who need a decent and permanent home by providing additional support to those who need help to sustain a permanent tenancy and by making important changes to the legislative framework.
Improving the legislative framework for homes and tenancies is a commitment that we make to all of Scotland. The agricultural holdings bill will offer choice and security: choice to improve land use and security to develop and grow the business. The bill will build a healthy tenanted sector in which new blood and new ideas can thrive—a healthy tenanted sector to promote the agricultural industry and build in sustainability to our rural communities and environment.
Our commitment to sustainability will continue through the building bill, which will make the building control system more responsive to public and industry needs. The bill will ensure greater consistency in the application of building standards across Scotland by reinforcing local authority powers to identify and act on dangerous buildings. Sustainability is central to all that we do; it is woven through all our work. The building bill will provide an additional platform to help us achieve our goals now and in the long term.
In that bill and in the others that I have outlined, a central feature will be the critical partnership between the Executive and local government. In March, we published the white paper, "Renewing Local Democracy: The Next Steps", the consultation on which will end in July. Following publication of the white paper, this partnership Executive instructed work to be done to prepare the appropriate clauses to reflect the electoral reform options that were contained in the paper. We have given a firm commitment—which I restate today—that we will consider the responses to the consultation. After the summer recess, we will set out our legislative intentions on the future governance of local authorities.
Let me turn to deal with those areas in which I want to signal our intention to come forward with proposals before the end of this parliamentary year. We are developing proposals to improve the provision of education services for children with special educational needs. At its heart, that work is about closing the opportunity gap in a real and tangible way. However, we want to do it right. We are therefore consulting with those who need additional educational support and with those who provide it to ensure that our proposals are effective and workable in practice.
We are working in the same way to develop proposals for a white paper on planning to make public involvement more meaningful. We will update members on our progress in the coming months.
Members know that the review of adoption is under way. We will publish phase 1 shortly and phase 2 will start later this year. Taking forward the result of that review may well require additional legislative provision. If that proves to be the case, we have decided that the sensible way forward is to include any additional provision in the family law bill. We will therefore publish the draft family law bill when our approach to these areas is fully co-ordinated.
On nature conservation, we will bring forward a draft bill for consultation in the spring of next year and, on crofting reform, we will publish our white paper later this year.
In the months remaining, we intend to bring forward six main bills, including the annual budget bill, and two draft bills. We will continue our consultation and preliminary work in preparation for a further two, on crofting reform and planning. That is a significant work plan for the final year of the Parliament—for the Executive and for the committees. It is also an important one. In our devolved Government, we do not make laws for headlines: we make laws to improve lives—making a difference to the daily lives of those who sent us here, listening to their views and acting on their concerns.
Since 1999, our devolved Government has put in place legislative change and taken direct action to deliver the positive results that devolution could offer. We have delivered a programme of action and change that we have backed with significant investment. Our programme is about more than the laws that we pass: it is there in the programme for government, in the targets for action that we set ourselves and in the daily work of ministers.
We work from the strong and stable economy that our partnership in the United Kingdom brings. We will continue to push hard for the smart, successful Scotland that we need to improve growth and provide the prosperity to take forward our lifelong commitment to social justice and equality.
Going for growth and building prosperity means encouraging success and taking risks, so we will be consulting shortly to bring forward a draft bill to modernise personal bankruptcy laws and make them fit with the economic future that we are determined that Scotland will have. In that work, we recognise the importance of our transport infrastructure—here in the north-east and across Scotland in our road, sea, rail and air links. We are committed to making the long-term, sustainable improvement that our businesses and our people need. In the coming weeks, Iain Gray will meet Alistair Darling, the new Secretary of State for Transport, to discuss how we can work together to secure the improvements that Scotland needs.
We have a four-year legislative programme and we have action on crime, education, jobs and transport. Over the next five years, our investment in Scotland's health will increase by 50 per cent—but, right now, we spend more than the European Union average on health and still have the worst health record of our European neighbours. We need to put flexibility, choice and primary care at the centre of our health service, and we need to drive forward our commitment to improving this nation's health by investment and reform. This winter, we will publish a white paper on health reform, to introduce proposals to ensure that major investment produces maximum benefit.
Jim Wallace and I have one final proposal to put to members today. Across Scotland, every day, people have to deal with issues that plague their lives—vandalism, graffiti, neighbourhood disputes and litter on their streets. In this chamber, members from all parties know about those problems, share those concerns and want to act. Indeed, draft bills on litter and dog fouling are already in circulation.
When I became First Minister, I said that I would listen to good ideas, wherever they came from. Today, I offer to work with these members to look together at how we—Executive and Parliament, ministers and members of all parties and none—can most effectively deal with these issues and strengthen the legal framework. We have to give those who need them the powers to improve the quality of all lives throughout Scotland, in every street.
I know that that has not been done before and I know that that has not been how we have worked these past three years. It will be a new way of working, but it is the right way. There will be those who will not like it because they prefer controversy and disagreement. However, in every community throughout Scotland, people who open their door and are sickened by the mess that they see will benefit if we act together. There are issues for the people of Scotland that transcend party difference and political positioning. I hope that all parties will share that view and join us in seeking the best solution that we can—to make a difference.
Presiding Officer, I believe that this week in Aberdeen can be a turning point. It can mark a new way for how we work together, using the powers that we have for the good of the people whom we represent—the people of Scotland. I intend that we will move on, with confidence in our achievements and determination to do still more, making Scotland a better place for all—working with the people of Scotland to build a better future for tomorrow.
Members may ask a few short questions for the purposes of clarification only.
I welcome the First Minister's statement and thank him for providing a copy in advance. I welcome his statement on consensus. He said that he would listen to good ideas wherever they come from and I can assure him that the SNP has plenty of good ideas.
In the spirit of consensus, will the First Minister support a member's bill to introduce proportional representation for local authorities to ensure that we build a new consensus across the Parliament to change the way in which Scotland's councils are elected? If he will not support such a bill, can I assume from his statement that there will be no legislative proposals on PR before the 2003 elections?
The great quality that is required is to decide what are the good ideas and what are the bad ones. I assure members that we will take on board good ideas, but when we hear bad ideas, we will point out the faults in them.
On the subject of electoral reform for local government, one of the best things about the Parliament, which is widely recognised across Scotland and was specifically noted in the chamber on Tuesday, is our commitment to consultation in advance of legislation. We are currently consulting on renewing local democracy. That consultation is very important. Electoral systems should be decided not just by politicians, but should take on board the views of Scots throughout our country. That consultation will allow us to point the way forward.
I do not understand how any member can decide whether to support the so-called member's bill on the electoral reform of local government promised by Tricia Marwick—it was promised in November and still has not appeared. The Parliament cannot decide on something that it has not seen. If Mr Swinney wants to have a debate on those proposals, I suggest that he ask Ms Marwick to ensure that the bill is introduced quickly. That will allow us to have the debate and to vote on the bill before moving on to the next step.
I thank the First Minister for the courtesy of providing us with advance notice of his statement. I have two brief questions. First, in view of the recent revelation of the dominance of Scotland's quangos and public bodies by members of the Labour party, will the First Minister take the opportunity in the public appointments bill to require candidates and appointees to such bodies to declare their membership of political parties?
Secondly, I noticed that the First Minister referred to developing proposals in relation to special educational needs. That is an important area, as we both know. Will he assure me that the proposals will continue to guarantee the grant-aided funding of the seven national special schools, including Donaldson's College, the Craighalbert Centre and the Royal Blind School, the financial independence of which has been threatened by the proposals in the Riddell report?
It is not true to say that the majority of public appointments in Scotland are Labour party members, activists or—as far as any of us in the chamber knows—supporters. It is certainly true to say that of those who have declared a political affiliation, there are fewer Conservatives than Labour party members. That is hardly surprising given the support for the Conservative party in Scotland.
Although it is possible for the two Opposition parties to make cheap jibes about the public appointments process in Scotland, it is important for the Government to take action to ensure the independence of the public appointments system. The bill that is making progress through the Parliament will make that difference. It will make independent the commissioner for public appointments in Scotland. It will make independent the assessors who advise those who make the recommendations for those appointments.
During that process, I will be happy to consider what additional safeguards might be required to secure public confidence. The public needs to have confidence in people who serve on those public bodies in Scotland that perform an important duty. We are determined to ensure that the system provides them with that confidence. Most people give their service voluntarily and they deserve more support from the Parliament.
On special schools, members know that work has continued ever since the Riddell report was published. Sam Galbraith and I and now Cathy Jamieson have been working, in the chamber and beyond, to discuss the issue before coming to a reasonable and responsible conclusion. I am not going to pre-empt the results of those discussions today any more than I would have accepted automatically the Riddell report's recommendations, which proved controversial among the schools and parents who should be our primary concern.
I welcome the First Minister's commitment to working with the people of Scotland inside and outside of the chamber to improve people's quality of life. Much of the means of achieving that is provided through local government services. Will the First Minister let me know how he proposes to consult with our local government colleagues to achieve the best quality of services, so that we are working co-operatively and not antagonistically?
As I understand it, the member's High Hedges (Scotland) Bill, which has already been introduced to Parliament, involves giving local authorities additional new powers that are more relevant for the 21st century. It is important to involve local authorities in discussions on those matters.
We should ensure that members of all parties who have already declared an interest in those matters should come together before the summer and discuss how to proceed with that work. This morning, I spoke to the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and I am sure that COSLA will be delighted to join us at an appropriate time.
I welcome the announcement of the white paper on health reform. Can the First Minister confirm that health promotion will receive an increasing share of health spending, and that the white paper will consider the most effective ways of achieving and delivering that?
Over the coming months, we will have to consider what, if any, legislative changes will be required to ensure that we get maximum benefit from our investment in health over the next five years. There is a key role for those involved at a local level—in GP surgeries, health centres, well woman and well man clinics—who are delivering the service to the majority of people. Those people have a key role to play in health promotion.
As we consider the reforms that might be required, we want to ensure that those local health services drive the health service rather than being driven by the needs of our hospitals and by other services that previously might have been seen as more significant.
I welcome the commitment to grass-roots issues that cause most concern, including the moves against child pornography. There has been a touch of humility today, which is long overdue.
We must have a question.
If we listen to the public, we will not go too far wrong.
I have a question about one issue: 130,000 Scots have told the Parliament what they want to be done about chronic pain such as back pain and cancer pain. The Health and Community Care Committee has asked for funding for clinics throughout Scotland. Will the First Minister make that one of his priorities?
I welcome Dorothy-Grace Elder's recognition of the importance of basic issues in the Parliament and the need for us to legislate where we can in order to improve quality of life in our communities.
I know of the work that Dorothy-Grace Elder has done on the issue of chronic pain. I am aware of the interest that was generated on the Parliament's website by the debate in the chamber. The Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, keeps the matter under constant review, and I assure Dorothy-Grace Elder that he will continue to do so.
Following the Dunblane massacre, everyone will welcome the proposals to further protect our children, but what safeguards will be put in place to protect adults from appearing on the proposed central register as a result of malicious accusations?
That is an important matter, and I touched on it in my statement. The consultation that we conducted last year highlighted two important factors that were causing concern across Scotland, both of which will be reflected in the final proposals when they are produced.
First, we need to make sure that we include in the register every area of work where adults who are unsuitable might be working with children. We need to make sure that the bill encompasses all areas that may worry parents and children themselves; but we also need to make sure that those who are placed on the register have proper rights of appeal, and that the system is independent, trusted and has the confidence of the people of Scotland. We will ensure in our proposals that that is the case.
We move now to the debate, because I must protect the interests of members who want to speak, and many wish to do so. The screens will be cleared, so I ask members to stop pressing their request-to-speak buttons.
The screens are now cleared, so members who wish to take part in the debate may now press their request-to-speak buttons.
I say at the outset that the SNP will support in Parliament a number of measures in the legislative programme that the First Minister has set out today. The measures on protecting children will have wide support. The measures on mental health, which I suspect arise from the Millan commission—which has been supported in the chamber and was supported previously at Westminster by my colleague Margaret Ewing—will be of great importance and we will support them. We welcome, too, the measures on special educational needs, although we express concern at the length of time that it has taken for them to be brought before Parliament. It will be the SNP's natural role to scrutinise the legislation that the Government presents, and we will do that fully within the parliamentary system.
This is the third debate on the Scottish Government's programme and priorities in nine months. Even for new Labour—a party that is synonymous with spin and reannouncement—holding a debate every three months to relaunch the Administration is a bit much. It is not as if the Executive's programme or priorities ever change. The Administration tells us that Labour and the Lib Dems are
"working together delivering stable Government for Scotland".
It is a gey funny kind of stability. In three years, we have had a First Minister turfed out of office, three social justice ministers, three finance ministers, three education ministers and three enterprise ministers, but in a remarkable outbreak of stability, we have had only two health ministers. The product is the same; only the sales team keeps changing.
Perhaps the purpose of today's debate is to bring the other members of the Cabinet up to speed. In particular, it must be useful for Jim Wallace to find out what the justice policy is today. Never can there have been such a shambles over an issue as serious as youth crime as that which we have witnessed in the past three weeks from the Executive. Whether it has been the making of policy on the hoof, the leaking of an announcement or the making of a public retraction, the aim has been clear; the policy is nothing to do with tackling youth crime and everything to do with Labour trying to run the justice department on its terms, rather than on Jim Wallace's terms. What a way to carry on a Government.
Does Mr Swinney acknowledge that more than a year ago the Executive put £25 million into a four-year programme to tackle youth crime through a programme of restorative and reparative justice and that therefore to suggest that we are responding to the issue immediately is sheer mischief-making?
If Richard Simpson listened to his back benchers every so often he would realise that they say exactly the same thing about the Government. What I said is the reality of how the Government has handled youth crime. The First Minister's plan to imprison parents has proved to be a gimmick too far, even for this Executive—it has led to some stirrings within the coalition. The mighty Liberal Democrat party is restless. It has led to a reawakening—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the speech.
That has led to a reawakening of the great Liberal parliamentary tradition of elegance—I mean eloquence. [Laughter.] There is no elegance in the U-turns that the Liberal Democrats must make every day. The tradition of oratory of Gladstone and Lloyd George has been replaced by the comments of one sadly anonymous MSP, who said of Mr McConnell's idea of jailing parents:
"This is absolute and total rubbish. They can get stuffed."
That brings a new meaning to "Working Together for Scotland". The First Minister found out the hard way when he tried to get tough; he ended up getting stuffed by the Liberal Democrats.
However, Cathy Jamieson has cleared up the matter. She says that jailing parents is not the first option or the last option. What option is it? Is it the middle option, or is it the option of a panicky First Minister who blurts out the first thing that comes into his head to cover the lack of coherence in his youth justice strategy?
The youth justice fiasco is symptomatic of an incompetent and incoherent Administration. When the spin is taken away, the failure is laid bare by summing it up with one damning fact: when the Executive came to power, nearly one in three children in Scotland lived in poverty and today, nearly one in three children in Scotland live in poverty. The figures rise each year. I can think of no more compelling argument for urgent political change in our country. [Interruption.]
Order. Members are getting very excited. Let us listen to the speech.
The Executive does not want to hear many points about the programme that it has failed to deliver for the people of Scotland.
However worthy of support it is, once all the legislation is passed, we will have to ask ourselves this question: will Scotland be turned into the best country that it can be? The answer will be a resounding "No."
I will describe how we can achieve the political change that Scotland requires. We can achieve that in two ways. We can use the Parliament's powers in a smarter way to create a better Scotland than the one in which we live today. However, creating a better Scotland is not enough. We must make Scotland the best country that it can be and to do that, we need the full normal powers of independence. We must deliver those powers for Scotland.
First, I will consider what we can do under the current devolution settlement. My party's philosophy on public services is different from that of the Executive parties. We believe that in the public services, the patient and the pupil must come before private profit. That means that new schools and hospitals should be built for the benefit of the community, not of private financiers. The SNP would finance those new buildings through a not-for-profit trust and we would reject the private finance initiative. [Interruption.]
Order. Just a minute, Mr Swinney. Before anyone intervenes, I say that the First Minister was listened to properly and that members must listen to the leader of the SNP, too.
If Mr Swinney rules out the use of PFI, how would he build all the new hospitals and schools? Would they all shut?
We will build the new schools and hospitals by funding them through a not-for-profit trust. We will reject the private finance initiative. In the process, we will save the public purse hundreds of millions of pounds, which can be invested in front-line care services for the people of Scotland.
Under PFI, hospitals are forced to make huge repayments to private consortiums, which makes the scheme ludicrously expensive and bad value for taxpayers. Last week, Professor Allyson Pollock—an independent academic who is an expert on PFI—said in the BMJ British Medical Journal:
"the high cost of PFI schemes has presented NHS trusts with an affordability gap. This has been closed by external subsidies, the diversion of funds from clinical budgets, sales of assets, appeals for charitable donations and, crucially, by 30% cuts in bed capacity and 20% reductions in staff in hospitals financed through PFI."
We would replace PFI with a not-for-profit trust that would bring with it the guarantee that every hospital that it was planned would be built under PFI would be built under a not-for-profit trust. That would stop the bed cuts and bring an end to reductions in staff numbers.
Our goal is to ensure that the national health service in Scotland is restored to being a genuinely public service. The restoration of that service, along with the democratic controls that go with the changes in the health service that we want to put in place, will restore a genuine sense of ownership by the public. It will also give much greater control to local health service co-operatives in controlling their budgets, in commissioning care, in delivery and in responding to local requirements.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, Phil, I am running short of time and I have a great distance yet to cover.
An SNP Government would herald improvements not only in health, but across public services. In addressing education, the SNP would drive down class sizes to a maximum of 18 for the youngest children, which would give our children the best start in life. The SNP would begin that improvement in the most deprived areas.
In the fight against crime, the SNP would extend the existing legal responsibility of parents for the actions of their children. We would introduce compensation orders so that the victims of crime are not left to pay the costs of damage to their property.
In those and other ways, the SNP would use the existing powers of the Parliament to create a better Scotland. We would ensure that the NHS was once again a genuine public service. We would give Scotland's children the maximum opportunity to learn and we would introduce sensible workable measures that would make the streets of Scotland safer. I am under no illusions—we will create the best Scotland only when Scotland is equipped with the normal powers of independence. The Scottish Parliament has been a job worth doing, but it is a job that is half done.
Today's programme for government fails to address the core problem that leads to so many other problems and difficulties for people in Scotland. That core problem is the lack of any real power to turn around the Scottish economy and to reverse the steady relative decline that Scotland has endured in the United Kingdom. In the past 30 years, Scotland's economy has grown more slowly than has the economy in the rest of the United Kingdom and it has grown more slowly than the economies of our European counterparts. The only measure that the First Minister announced in the programme for government to improve the performance of the Scottish economy is the introduction of a review of our bankruptcy laws. As welcome as that introduction might be, it is not the kick-start that the Scottish economy requires in order to improve our performance.
I remind Mr Swinney that, between 1993 and 1997, the Scottish economy grew at a far greater rate than the economy in most areas of England. At that time, the Scottish economy was the fourth highest in the UK.
During that period of Conservative rule, Scotland had a massive price to pay in economic terms for the failure of the United Kingdom under Conservative Governments. If the Scottish economy had grown at the same rate as the Irish economy over the past 30 years—[Members: "Oh!"] Members may say, "Oh!" but Ireland is a small, independent country that is able to generate vibrant economic growth. We cannot do that here because Labour takes its orders from London. That is the problem that we have in the Scottish economy today.
The Executive does not trust itself or anyone else in Scotland with the powers that would enable it to tackle the performance gap, boost growth and increase the money that is available for public services. An SNP government in an independent Scotland that was equipped with full economic powers would put Scottish business at a competitive tax advantage. An SNP government would reduce the taxes on growth and so give Scottish firms and the Scottish economy a major boost. In a hugely competitive global economy, all other countries seek constantly to give their companies that sort of clear advantage.
In such an environment, we simply cannot afford to sit on the sidelines, shrug our shoulders and pass the responsibility to somebody else. With independence, Scotland could break out of the dependency culture that discourages decision making and innovation. The SNP would set a target—a national target—for us all to unite behind; one that would bind together all our policy initiatives with the clear purpose of doubling our appalling trend rate of economic growth and giving a clear theme and purpose to government in Scotland.
Boosting economic growth is not just about increasing incomes—
Will the member give way?
Well, my time is—[Interruption.] I have got—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr Swinney is in his last minute.
The Presiding Officer has told me that I am in the last minute of my speech. [Interruption.]
Order.
The former Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning had every opportunity to change the Scottish economy, but she failed to do so. Because she could not deliver when she was in office, she now wants to intervene in order to change the record.
Boosting economic growth means more than simply increasing incomes and the tax revenue that is available for public services. Such growth, allied to a progressive tax system, is the key to an effective anti-poverty strategy in Scotland and to generating the opportunities, ambition, hope, confidence and self-esteem that are necessary to tackle poverty and deliver social justice. Although the Executive says that it is committed to cutting child poverty, it does not want the powers to boost economic growth that would allow it to achieve that objective.
We know for a fact that this country has underperformed in the UK and that other countries have outperformed our abilities and achievements. However, they have been able to do so because they have taken control of their own futures and have decided to take responsibility for their own decisions. The SNP will not listen to Labour's bosses in London who take the big decisions, but will instead trust its own people. The SNP is prepared to trust the people of Scotland to ensure that it delivers ambition, high esteem and prosperity. We will deliver the very best for Scotland through our political agenda of independence.
I allowed Mr Swinney an extra minute because of the barracking he received. I hope that we will not have any more of that during Mr McLetchie's speech.
I call Mr McLetchie.
Waay!
Thank you.
The First Minister has lost little time in destroying one of the Parliament's early traditions by depriving us of the annual September debate on the Executive's legislative programme. However, some things never change. Although we will be able to support some of the programme's measures such as the mental health bill and the reform of personal bankruptcy laws, I feel that this latest hotchpotch of laws will be no substitute for a coherent programme that addresses the concerns of people in Scotland. The lack of such coherence is still the Achilles' heel of the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive.
Instead of signalling a fresh start, Mr McConnell's reign as First Minister has seen a continuation of the confusion and lack of direction that has characterised the Executive from day one. Of course, Mr McConnell has added some novel twists of his own. For example, his deep commitment to the principle of individualism is truly original. In his Executive, only one voice counts and his favourite sound is the echo, particularly from his Cabinet. That explains the presence of so many discordant voices on his back benches. However, in other respects, the record is the same drearily familiar litany of broken promises and dashed expectations.
The First Minister promised that he would "do less, better". However, he has succeeded only in elevating dullness to a theory of government when there is clearly a need for reform. He promised that he would talk "the language of priorities". However, all we have seen is an ever-lengthening list of priorities in which everything—and, as a result, nothing—is a priority. Moreover, although he promised to end the culture of spin and to deliver action, he is even more addicted to meaningless soundbites than were his predecessors.
The truth of the matter is that the First Minister has tried and, as he showed today, continues to try to blur the lines of responsibility between the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament in order to evade his own responsibility and that of his Administration. However, despite such attempts, the public is becoming increasingly aware that the Executive—the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties—are the real culprits in the continuing failure to improve our public services.
In fairness, there are some rays of light and hope, and it is no surprise that they are to be found where the Executive has adopted Conservative policies or moved in our direction. For instance, the Executive has made much of the apparent reduction in waiting times for NHS patients as a result of Malcolm Chisholm's new waiting times unit. However, a key factor in achieving that reduction is the 2,000 operations that are being performed by the independent sector on NHS patients. That demonstrates clearly how greater co-operation between the NHS and the independent sector benefits all patients in Scotland. The frustration is that, although the Scottish Executive is willing to go so far, it will not cast off its ideological blinkers and extend that partnership for the benefit of all NHS patients by entering into a concordat with the independent sector, as has happened down south. We have been advocating that in this Parliament for the past three years.
It is no coincidence that, where the Scottish Executive has made tentative strides in our direction, it has achieved a modicum of improvement. I just wish that it would acknowledge its debt and have the courage to go the whole hog; however, humility is not something for which the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are noted. Indeed, their brass neck was demonstrated by Malcolm Chisholm's recent announcement about devolving power to general practitioners and primary care teams within the health service. Although we have yet to see what that would mean in practice, in essence it appears to be remarkably similar to our successful fundholding system, which empowered GPs and patients and led to many practical improvements in primary care in Scotland. It is the same fundholding system that Labour wasted millions of pounds abolishing for purely ideological reasons in an act of political vandalism. Instead of trying to finesse a political U-turn, Malcolm Chisholm should apologise for his failure and for the failure of his predecessors to build on our reforms, and for the time that has been wasted and the money that has been lost over the past five years.
Will Mr McLetchie tell us how many general practitioners took up the option of fundholding?
More than 50 per cent of GPs took up fundholding options in Scotland before the system was abolished. It is a fact that, as a result of fundholding, many substantial improvements were made in the services that were available to patients in local surgeries, which are now under threat because of the act of political vandalism that abolished a system that was succeeding.
Will Mr McLetchie give way?
I am sorry, but I do not intend to give way again at this point. I will come back to Mr Chisholm later.
The problem is that the Executive has no clear understanding of the problems in our public services and so cannot come up with a coherent set of solutions. Any superficial changes that it makes are not born of conviction or of recognition that its whole top-down, micromanaging, centralising approach has failed. Instead, the Executive is driven by pure political expediency and by the desperate and frantic search for something to save its members' collective political skin. That piecemeal pick-and-mix approach will not deliver sustained improvements in the performance of our public services. It is pure opportunism and is based on a political vision that can see no further than 1 May 2003.
What is even more frustrating is the sheer dishonesty that is at the heart of the Executive's approach. We welcome genuine converts, but the Executive's rhetoric often far outstrips the reality of its actions. It is a pattern that we have seen time and again. As evidence accumulates of the Executive's failure to tackle the problems that face people in Scotland, Mr McConnell tries to pretend that that has nothing to do with him, but then launches a phoney crusade to sort the problem out.
We have seen that most recently in education. Growing concerns about standards in our schools have been met with a call for a great debate and the extraordinary sight of Cathy Jamieson calling for greater diversity and choice. In the interests of a better education policy for Scotland, I am prepared to suspend my disbelief. We have been saying for some time that the one-size-fits-all approach that is associated with comprehensive education is failing too many children in Scotland and that we need a more flexible and diverse system to meet their needs.
However, it is one thing for Cathy Jamieson to say such things as a response to criticisms of Executive policies, but it is quite another to put those ideas into practice, particularly when they are contrary to the political principles on which she has founded her entire political career. After all, it was not so long ago that Ms Jamieson was a staunch defender of clause 4. [Interruption.] She still is—that is interesting.
The Executive may talk about greater diversity in education, but it must be judged on its actions and not its words. Currently, the Executive stands condemned for bullying a small and successful primary school in Dunblane back into local authority control against the wishes of parents, teachers and the local community. That is hardly evidence of a genuine belief in diversity and choice. Who was the playground bully? None other than the First Minister in a previous ministerial incarnation.
The same gap between rhetoric and reality is evident in health. The Executive talks about a pragmatic modernising agenda and partnership between the public sector and the independent sector, but it has done little to implement that in respect of the health service. Indeed, its much-vaunted policy of "Scottish solutions to Scottish problems" amounts to a rejection of the limited but welcome moves that are being made south of the border, such as devolving real power to hospitals, granting franchises to improve management performance in underperforming hospitals and signing a proper concordat and arrangements for partnership with the independent sector. The words "Scottish solutions to Scottish problems" are simply code words for no change and no progress. As in education, such failures—which are born of dogma in the delivery of our public services—bear most heavily on the most vulnerable members of our society.
The latest bandwagon on which Mr McConnell has jumped is youth crime and youth justice. It is amazing how a few heckles in the Labour heartlands can push issues up the agenda and waken some people up to reality. In fairness, at least that is preferable to the Liberal Democrats' attitude. They express their usual high-minded disdain for the concerns of ordinary people who seek protection from young thugs who terrorise their neighbourhoods.
Will the member explain his policies? Are they the same as those that Phil Gallie has espoused in Aberdeen? Does the member propose that there should be a referendum on flogging kids?
I will explain our policies in a moment.
The discord between the parties in the Executive hardly bodes well for a coherent approach. Oxford has Morse and Lewis, New York has Starsky and Hutch, Gotham City has Batman and Robin, but we have Jim and Jack. "Let the criminals go," Jim says. "Lock up their mothers," Jack says. The big softie meets the wee pretendy hard man. I hold out little hope for the deliberations of the Cabinet committee with a crime-fighting duo such as those two.
If Mr McConnell is serious about tackling youth crime, is he prepared to look with an open mind at practical measures such as more secure accommodation, sin bins, compulsory grounding and community service orders, which the Conservative party has advocated for the past three years? If there is to be a genuine review of youth justice, why do not we start by ditching the ridiculous proposal to extend the children's hearing system to 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds at a time when that system is patently failing to cope with younger offenders?
The member has a minute left.
It is all very well to bluster on about jailing mums and to talk about youth courts and inclusion or exclusion orders, but the public wants action here and now from the Executive. They do not want promises in Labour's next election manifesto—we all know what happens to most of those. Why cannot the Executive put in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which is before the Parliament, measures that are under consideration by a Cabinet committee? Is it because members of the Executive cannot agree among themselves? Is the partnership Government now a paralysis Government?
It is extraordinary that members who speak so much in the chamber about social justice fail to understand that that can be built only on a foundation of effective justice and of law and order in our communities. Without that, efforts will be frustrated, money will be wasted and lives will continue to be blighted. Because of the failure to tackle the fundamentals of health, education and crime, the Executive's programme is disappointing and will disappoint. It is the flawed and incoherent programme of a tired and fractious Administration that is at odds with itself. It needs a rest; next year, we can give it one.
It is a great honour to speak in the chamber here in Aberdeen. It is my home city, the area that I represent in the Parliament and the city in which I live.
Sometimes people say that one can sense the future. When I entered my first university lecture theatre, about 100 paces from here, when I got married in the university chapel, about 120 paces from here, or when I used to study in the university library, which was in this very place, never would I have believed that we would be sitting here today in the Scottish Parliament.
Given what I said about my wedding, it would be wrong of me to say that this is the greatest moment for me in my association with this ancient university, but it is certainly a very special occasion. [Members: "Is your wife here?"] Yes, she is.
This is the sort of speech in which I could drift a very long way from the Executive's programme for government, although I hasten to add not as far away from the chamber as many SNP members are this morning.
Before I move on, it is appropriate on our final day in Aberdeen to pay tribute to all the people and organisations—in particular Aberdeen City Council and our hosts, the University of Aberdeen—that have made our visit such a success.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a Parliament that represents all Scotland, not only one geographical area or one group of people. That was one of the key themes of the First Minister's statement on the Executive's programmes for the coming 12 months—or, more accurately, for members of a nervous disposition, for the 335 days until 1 May 2003.
Much has been achieved. For most members, it is outstandingly good news to learn that this week, in among her punishing schedule of jubilee engagements, the Queen has given royal assent to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. The Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership—and many other members of the Parliament—are justifiably proud of many other policies. Those include the introduction from 1 July of free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of tuition fees and the reintroduction of student grants for young people from Scotland's poorest families, which is of special importance in this city as it is the home of two of Scotland's great universities—the University of Aberdeen and the Robert Gordon University—as well as Aberdeen College, which is the largest college in the country. Those policies have led to a very significant increase in applications throughout Scotland, including here in Aberdeen, for places in higher education.
Will Nicol Stephen give way?
No thank you. I must move on.
Those policies prove that the Scottish Parliament is starting to make a difference to many thousands of Scots. We must now build on the early successes if we are to develop a Parliament that builds Scotland's confidence.
I will focus on three key areas. The first is the elderly. The proposals to deliver free off-peak travel to every pensioner in Scotland build on the measures for free central heating and free personal care. Today's proposals on crime and justice and the record number of police officers throughout Scotland will give older people extra security in their homes.
Secondly, the proposals on land reform and agricultural holdings and the proposed white paper on crofting reform, along with the publication of a bill on nature conservation, emphasise that this is and must be a Parliament for all parts of Scotland—for the rural communities, the north-east, the Highlands, the Borders and the islands, every bit as much as for the central belt of Scotland. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Deputy First Minister will make it clear what progress will be made on Nora Radcliffe's proposals to tackle wildlife crime.
The minister has not yet mentioned proportional representation. Will he do so? If not, is it a case of PR RIP?
I am happy to mention proportional representation. I emphasise that there is agreement on the issue in the Executive and between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. We have agreed on the next steps and we will put the matter out to consultation. [Laughter.] We have agreed more than that—we have agreed on the drafting of measures to allow us to implement the consultation proposals. Members know that we will outline the next steps in September. That is the agreement.
I move to the third area that I want to emphasise. As Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, I believe that the most important matter on which we must keep up the momentum is that of our young people. The groundbreaking national agreement on pay and conditions for teachers is not the only major progress that we have made on that issue. I was first elected to Grampian Regional Council 20 years ago this month. In 1982, the council was Conservative controlled. At that time, there was the disgrace of purpose-built nursery units lying empty in the north-east because the Conservatives refused to fund their opening. We will deliver nursery places not only for all four-year-olds in Scotland, but for every three-year-old whose parents want one.
We will deliver on our new commitments. We will help to protect young people by delivering an index of adults who are unsuitable to work with children. We will progress with our proposed changes to the record-of-needs system for children with special educational needs. We will revise the legislation on adoption. We will progress significant reviews on the simplification of the assessment system in Scotland's schools and on education for work and enterprise.
Getting enterprise education right is crucial to Scotland's future. Aberdeen is the home of Sir Ian Wood, whose John Wood Group will have a public flotation for the first time in the next few days, of Moir Lockhead of FirstGroup, of Martin Gilbert of Aberdeen Asset Management, and of other leading entrepreneurs such as Ian Suttie, Jimmy Milne, Stewart Milne, and, on the global stage, Euan Baird of Schlumberger. There could not be a better place to emphasise the importance of enterprise in our schools.
We are determined to make significant progress on the condition of Scotland's school buildings, many of which suffer all too plainly from decades of neglect. I have seen outstanding schools in Scotland that operate in disgraceful conditions. The importance of major new investment in our schools is clear and the Executive is determined to deliver on that. We will not destroy the opportunity with the type of destructive dogma that we have heard yet again from the SNP.
I will briefly refer again to Aberdeen and the University of Aberdeen. The week has been a good one for Aberdeen's politicians, not only in the Scottish Parliament. It is an issue for debate whether the new Secretary of State for Transport would rather be here in his old university or taking up his new office at Westminster. More important, the week has been a good one for the people of Aberdeen and the north-east. The big issues that affect the north-east have not been ducked: we have discussed the oil and gas industry, the need for a city bypass and the local drugs problem.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I am about to finish.
We have also heard about and celebrated the successes of the north-east. I am clear that, without the successes of the Scottish Parliament, the Food Standards Agency, for example, would not be located in Aberdeen. More needs to be done. That is why we are having the debate and why we have had the week in Aberdeen. Aberdeen has been proud to host the Parliament. Our message to everyone who has come here this week—especially to my 100 plus colleagues who do not represent the north-east—is simple: haste ye back.
As there is a long list of members who want to speak, I ask members to speak for around four minutes. I call Des McNulty, to be followed by Andrew Wilson.
Whatever disagreements there may be between the political parties, most people accept the First Minister's definition of jobs, education, health, crime and transport as our key priorities. Effective action on those priorities is not always achieved through legislation. Equally, we cannot always determine the subjects on which we will legislate and the content of legislation purely on the basis of the issues that are bothering people the most at any given time.
The legislative programme that the First Minister has announced—especially the bills on the protection of children, on sustainable environmental management and on a new framework for mental health treatment—will be widely welcomed. The bills represent an important set of legislative tasks for the coming year. By the end of the first session of the Scottish Parliament, we will have a solid body of legislative achievement. The contrast with what was possible prior to devolution is striking.
I welcome the emphasis that the First Minister has placed on measures to improve the quality of life and the cross-party approach to the issue that he is proposing. Earlier in the week, we heard about some of the problems that communities are experiencing as a result of youth disorder. It is generally recognised that the law enforcement and justice systems have failed to address adequately the harassment, intimidation and vandalism that make lives a misery. In that debate, Johann Lamont argued that the emphasis of the law enforcement and justice systems needs to be shifted in favour of the rights of victims. She said that vital components of an appropriate response to crime are
"the way in which a person is treated when they report a crime, the police's response and how people are kept informed of what has happened to those who perpetrate crimes."—[Official Report, 28 May 2002; Vol 4, c 12171.]
To tackle youth crime effectively and to address the major concerns that people have, we must involve families and communities far more in those tasks. The justice system can be criticised for being offender centred, with little or no role for the people who are most affected by offending behaviour once the professionals have taken charge and the system cranks into gear. Likewise, the education and health services have traditionally been dominated by professionals who determine what is appropriate for pupils and patients. We can no longer leave the parent at the school gate or confine our efforts to improve health to the treatment of the sick. If it is properly handled and managed, community involvement can be a crucial dimension in achieving effective solutions and the rights of parents and families in the community at large must be respected.
The Executive has done a great deal to progress that agenda, through measures such as the creation of new community schools. However, more active engagement of families and community members in the delivery of specifications for services is vital if we are to meet the needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland. The fact that constituents are looking to the Scottish Parliament to address issues such as dog fouling, high hedges and other matters that reduce their quality of life highlights a breakdown of the informal norms or rules that used to condition behaviour in local neighbourhoods.
We may differ on what we consider acceptable and unacceptable. In many ways, we have become a more tolerant society, less prejudiced regarding religious and ethnic differences and more open to change. However, we have perhaps also become less considerate of others and less willing to look out for others. The trend to which I am pointing is not universal. Like many members, I can point to outstanding examples of community service and involvement in my constituency. It may be inappropriate to talk about litter as a national problem in a city where the streets are remarkably clean. Nonetheless, there is a trend towards behaviour that, although not illegal, is to the detriment of the interests of others in the wider community.
The Parliament has the power to legislate, and the First Minister is making an important change in saying that he will support what individual members such as Keith Harding and Scott Barrie are trying to achieve. That must be accompanied by a general willingness to empower communities much more. Modernising our public services must mean much more than using computers; it should include making services more responsive to the needs and wishes of local communities. One of the great strengths of the Parliament has been the impact that local organisations, representative bodies and experts of all kinds have had on policy making and the legislative process. The Transport and the Environment Committee, of which I am a member, has responded directly to concerns about telephone masts, aquaculture, the dumping of human and animal waste, and ferry services—to name but a few issues.
Other committees have done likewise. Our democracy is all the richer for the work that has been done. However, we have more to do and the community dimension is crucial. Scotland is a small country, but it has a rich diversity of interests and circumstances, from remote rural areas to major urban centres. If we are to succeed, Parliament must demonstrate that it is listening and is acting to deliver meaningful and measurable improvements in people's lives. The First Minister outlined a programme of legislation and announced consultation steps that will prefigure legislation. Those are important steps towards delivering the real changes that I believe we are all here to deliver.
I am all for vigorous and atmospheric debate. The Executive flange is quiet at present, but the demeaning behaviour of some members at the start of the debate did no favours to the Parliament. Labour members—[Interruption.]
Order.
Labour members and high-paid ministers should observe some decorum. The tape of proceedings will show that they were honking like howler monkeys on a bellyful of cider rather than behaving as serious politicians addressing the nation's questions.
The serious issue that I want to open with—[Interruption.] If I may say so, ministers should closely examine their behaviour.
Those of us who believe that Parliament should focus on the strong issues that affect this nation should reflect on what the First Minister said in his statement. He said that the whole programme works from
"the strong and stable economy that our partnership in the United Kingdom brings."
Mr McConnell has left the chamber, but let us examine that "strong and stable economy." In the last quarter, growth was 0.1 per cent. Over the year, the long-term trend was one third of the UK annual rate. Business liquidations are up and business start-ups are down. The construction industry and manufacturing are in recession. Our level of research and development is half the UK rate. Since 1995, we have created one job for every 175 that have been created in the UK. Our employment rate is lower than the UK's. If we had kept pace with the UK, there would be 51,000 more people in employment in Scotland today. The number of new deal starts is down. In the year to April, unemployment was up by 14,000 and employment was down by 21,000.
Mr McConnell described all that as "strong and stable". How can we hope to have a serious debate about Scotland's future when our supposed leader—the First Minister—cannot examine the problem? It is no wonder that Wendy Alexander walked; the complacency and lack of interest of the Executive is evident for all to see. In the face of utter mediocrity in our economic performance, Mr McConnell plays faction politics with his ministerial portfolios. I wish Mr Gray well in his new job. It is not his fault that Mr McConnell offered Mr Gray's position to Mr Wallace before alighting on Mr Gray. However, Mr Gray's first statement that it must be steady as she goes—with an economy that is failing—does not make the people of Scotland confident.
The harsh reality, as John Swinney said, is that the UK and Scotland are in relative decline.
Will the member give way?
I would be delighted to give way to one of the quieter members of the Executive flange.
I am glad that one of the quieter members of the Scottish National Party is giving way.
Mr Wilson talks about economic stability. His party is committed to lowering taxes and is apparently committed to abolishing public-private partnerships. However, the SNP is also committed to increasing public spending. Can Mr Wilson explain, for the benefit of members, where the SNP's money is going to come from?
That usefully points to the nub of the debate. The people of Scotland have two options. One is to buy into continuous and guaranteed relative decline under the status quo, in which growth declines compared with that of the rest of the UK and the money available for investment declines with it. The other option is to go for growth, place Scotland at a competitive advantage and invest the results in our public services. In the 19th century, the UK was first in the world, but today it is 19th. Scotland has followed suit and is declining relatively within the UK.
The status quo, which is many members' reason to be, is not sustainable. If members buy the status quo, they buy guaranteed relative decline and we will all be here in four years' time doing the same thing that we have done today: talking about high hedges and dog fouling and dealing with the symptoms of the nation's decline rather than getting to the roots of the core problems that face us. Devolution has given the people of Scotland great expectations, but it has not equipped us with new powers to deliver. To do that, we must recognise and accept the problem and behave like serious politicians rather than immature ones. [Interruption.] The Labour members make my point for me.
We must garner a national consensus behind the need for growth and a focus on an enterprise economy, so that we can deal with not just the symptoms but the core problems. As John Swinney said, the issue is one of trust—trust in ourselves and trust in the people of Scotland. The SNP sets no bounds to that trust or to the powers that the Scottish Parliament must have. The Labour party does. If the Labour party trusts the people with responsibility for elderly care, why not with responsibility for pensions? If it trusts them with roads, why not with railways? If it trusts them with education, why not with the tax powers to ensure that it is properly funded? Unless we equip ourselves with the real powers that real countries have, we will be here in four years' time with bad behaviour and irrelevant points rather than a focus on what the people want. Gaining those powers requires independence.
Like Nicol Stephen, I was a student at the University of Aberdeen. Of course, that was in the good old days of the Conservative Government, before we had tuition fees and graduate taxes. However, before I am overcome by nostalgia, I will deal with the Executive's programme and what it offers rural Scotland.
What does the programme offer rural Scotland? The conclusion must be that it offers nothing of any value. This week, the revised farm income forecast for 2001 was announced. It made depressing reading. Since 1997, farm incomes have plummeted. There cannot be a farmer in Scotland who would not trade his income today for the one that he had under the previous Conservative Government. On Friday, I was speaking to farmers in Fife who expressed dismay at the current state of Scottish agriculture and could see little hope for the future. They see the Executive doing nothing that might help them. What galls them in particular is the fact that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development spends his time introducing bills that will increase the burdens on the farming community rather than reduce them.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill opens up access to lowland farms and will increase the costs on farmers. Whatever the Executive believes, that is the view of the farming community.
Will the member take an intervention?
I might let George Lyon in later.
I am simply asking for clarification.
No.
The draft agricultural holdings bill should have been a piece of legislation that delivered long-overdue modernisation of the law in that area. A consensus as to the way forward had been reached between the National Farmers Union Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation. However, the minister has thrown a spanner in the works by introducing a tenant right to buy. That is causing huge concern in the agriculture community across Scotland. As I speak, land agents across Scotland are desperately trying to find ways to terminate existing limited partnership agreements, fearful that any sort of tenancy will eventually be granted a right to buy. Landowners who wish to preserve the integrity of their estates are refusing to let land under any arrangements.
In the foreword to the draft bill consultation paper, the minister writes:
"The industry's adaptability and rejuvenation will be aided by encouraging new blood and new ideas into agriculture. Stimulating a healthy tenanted sector is an important step in attracting that new blood and those new ideas."
Those are fine words, which were echoed by the First Minister today. However, I presume that they were written before the right to buy was included in the bill. It is as clear as day that the bill is already having precisely the opposite effect.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take an intervention as I know that George Lyon has a deep personal interest in this matter.
Murdo Fraser fully supported the introduction of the right to buy for tenants of council houses. What is the difference between council tenants and farm tenants?
George Lyon was not a council tenant, but he is a farm tenant. The fact is, the council houses belonged to the state and the state was quite right to change the contract between landlord and tenant. In relation to farms, the landlord and the tenant are private individuals.
The introduction to the consultation paper goes on to say:
"Landowners need to feel able to let land with assurance".
That is another failure, because no landowner is letting any land as a result of this bill, with assurance or otherwise. The introduction also says:
"Greater certainty over the length and terms of leases … should also help to cultivate a positive, forward-looking relationship between landlord and tenant."
That would be fine, but the bill does nothing to encourage positive and forward-looking relationships. It does quite the opposite. All the evidence is that the right-to-buy proposals in the bill will be a disaster for the tenanted sector. Even Ross Finnie agrees with that. During a ministerial statement on the matter in May 2000, he outlined the Executive's opposition to right-to-buy proposals in these words:
"We are trying to move towards a situation of greater diversity, in which more leases will be offered. Neither the consultative group that existed before we took office nor that which was set up afterwards proved that instituting a tenant's right to buy would do anything other than dry up a limited supply. We were not persuaded that that was consistent with our aim of getting new tenants."—[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol 6, c 695.]
I could not agree more. Why the change of heart? Could it have something to do with the lobbying by George Lyon who, as a tenant farmer, stands to benefit from the right to buy? We should be told.
The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is likely to have a more sinister and damaging effect on Scottish agriculture. If the letting of land is no longer acceptable to landowners, many will put their land on the market for sale. The sudden deluge of land on the property market will reduce land values. Why are land values important? They are important because farmers use the value of land to support their bank borrowings, especially in difficult times such as those that we have now. If land values fall and banks start to call in their borrowings, that will have a catastrophic effect on Scottish farming. Has the minister considered that?
The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is another misguided measure from an Executive that does not understand rural Scotland. Scottish farmers look to the Executive for help in their present time of crisis and all that the Executive does is introduce a bill and tenant's right to buy that, at best, are distractions from the real problems of rural Scotland.
The Executive thinks that, when the elections come next year, it can tick the box that is marked "rural Scotland" and say, "We've dealt with that. It hasn't cost us anything, but we have legislated and demonstrated our concern." I have news for the Executive: rural Scotland can see through its cynical ploy. In three years, it has done nothing for rural communities. There is nothing for them in the legislative programme that the Executive announced today. They will not forget that at the elections next year.
Before I make my main comments, I will comment on Andrew Wilson's speech, in which he rather sanctimoniously lectured the Parliament. Anyone who knows the Parliament well knows that Mr Wilson is one of the most regular contributors of snide and childish jibes. Therefore, for him to—
Order. I understand why Mr Muldoon felt motivated to say that. However, it is not dignified to continue to pass reproaches and rebukes across the chamber all morning. We all have a duty to be courteous to one another. From now on, I will rule out of order any member who is deeply disrespectful to other members. That also applies to some of the asides that have been winging their way around.
I am sure that the Presiding Officer heard many of the remarks of which I was thinking.
My main comments are about why the Parliament exists and what it is delivering. The Parliament already has a strong history of delivery. We have had a strong legislative programme. We have not concentrated on the periphery of what is important to the people of Scotland.
On transport and the environment, we have passed the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which, among its many provisions, ensures that local authorities have a stronger role in developing local transport networks. It also provides for free bus travel for every pensioner—an important measure that will be implemented in October this year. We have also legislated to build a Scottish water industry that is fit to compete and to provide the improved standards of water and environmental protection that Scotland needs.
In areas other than transport and the environment, we have abolished tuition fees and reintroduced student grants in Scotland. Our Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 is a major piece of legislation that improves the rights of homeless people. The First Minister built on that today. The act has also transferred further powers to local authorities to develop housing in their areas.
Those issues are not at the periphery of Scottish politics. They are not unimportant. Anyone who suggests otherwise is running a political agenda in which the people of Scotland are not interested.
The legislative programme with which we go forward includes a water environment and water services bill. That bill, which will be introduced in the summer, will be built on the principles of sustainability and improving the quality of Scotland's water. It is an important bill that is central to the interests of the people of Scotland. The First Minister unveiled a further bill with which the Transport and the Environment Committee will deal: the building bill. That, too, is central to the principle of building a sustainable Scotland in the future.
Bristow Muldoon has mentioned the Transport and the Environment Committee. Now that Westminster has recognised the folly of lumping transport with other departments, does he agree that it is time that we had a dedicated transport ministry to deal with transport problems in Scotland?
Ministerial portfolios are not the important thing; the important thing is what we do with the powers that we have. The ways in which we have tried to develop transport policy in Scotland are the right ways. We are promoting public transport to a far greater extent than was ever the case under the Conservatives and we are starting to rebuild Scotland's transport infrastructure.
On resources and what we do with the powers of the Scottish Parliament, I believe that the record of what we have achieved and delivered in the years of the Parliament's existence is strong. We have delivered on the priorities of the Scottish people. There have been record increases in resources to the national health service, contrary to the many misleading stories that some members run around Scotland telling. Transport is receiving extra resources—I hope that it will continue to receive a high profile in the forthcoming spending review and that the Executive can deliver on the priorities in the transport delivery report.
The priorities of the Executive parties are clear and have regularly been set out by the First Minister: tackling Scotland's poor record on health; improving the way in which our young people are educated; improving Scotland's economy; developing a transport system; and dealing with the problems of crime about which many of our communities are concerned.
Those priorities can be set against the priorities of the main Opposition party, the Scottish National Party: borders, embassies and—according to Mr Andrew Wilson—the question whether we should support England in the world cup. It is no wonder that, in the words of one SNP member, that party is demotivated and confused.
It is not often that I quote Jack McConnell but, in the context of this debate, it is highly appropriate that I do. On Tuesday, he identified key areas on which the Government is to act: crime, health and enterprise. He said:
"Their solutions require more than good laws: they need leadership—leadership that is consistent, fair and responsive."—[Official Report, 28 May 2002; c 12131.]
I agree with that, but the Government is offering only legislation. We need good laws, but they are not enough. We should be able to take it for granted that Government is in the business of producing good law. Good law, however, cannot be interpreted as a substitute for good political leadership.
Much of what is in the statement is worthy and needed, and we welcome it. Let us not pretend, however, that it bears the hallmark of a McConnell political leadership. Much of what was announced would have appeared whatever the political hue of the Government of the day. Some proposals will, no doubt, win support from across the chamber. I cite the areas of family law and homelessness. However, the issue of homelessness is not just about law; it is about what we provide. That means targets for new, rented accommodation, for example.
We have a Government that does not want to govern. There have been 37 Sewel motions—laws handed over to London—which is almost as many as the bills that the Scottish Parliament has enacted. We need political leadership to break out of the spiral of decline, to energise our country, to raise the self-esteem of our people and to tackle the poverty and despair of Scots living in an economy that is not growing at the rate that it should. It is crucial to tackle the core problem of an economic system that is dependent on someone else somewhere else making the key decisions. That is not just about providing good law; it is about political leadership.
Poverty, the pressures of unemployment and a lack of self-esteem all lead to serious health and mental health problems and an alarming suicide rate among young men in this country. We need to tackle the mental health problems of our country at their root source, but not just by providing the much-needed and worthy law to deal with the consequences of the problem as it arises. That is the core difference between devolution, or administering to problems, and independence, which is about providing solutions to the core problems in the first place.
We need leadership, but that requires political direction and a clear route map of where the Executive is going. All we have had from the McConnell Administration has been a debate in January on the Executive's priority list, which was significant not because of what was in it—everything was in it—but because of what it left out.
We need consistent leadership. Where is the programme for government with the targets and indicators that we have had from previous Administrations? We have a Cabinet team with team-tag membership. On Tuesday, the First Minister mentioned consistency, but what consistency do we get from a Cabinet with such a membership?
Government is about leadership and good public service delivery, which should be at the heart of political leadership. As we have laid out, the SNP would provide leadership in public services by rejecting the privatisation of prisons and hospital services; by embracing the culture of professional and accountable public services that are free from threat and seek only the favour of the public whom they serve; by putting the public at the heart of everything that public services do; by making the delivery of public services as simple and transparent as possible; and by devolving power from Holyrood and urging public services to devolve power, too. We would need laws to define some parts of that—for example, bills to abolish hospital trusts and to provide for our own rail system. The important point is that good law would follow good political leadership that is based on clear values and a clear direction.
I will touch on the legislation that has not been included. Charity law reform is missing. We recognise the importance of people who provide voluntary and charity services—they should be a legislative priority. Where is the bill to provide proportional representation? We should have had political leadership to tackle the imbalance of representation and the complacency and cronyism in many of our councils, but that is missing. The First Minister said it all in his gaffe in answering John Swinney's questions on PR and taking up good ideas, when he suggested that he would have to decide whether PR was a good idea in the first place. The Liberal Democrats should note that.
We need good law, but this country is crying out for political leadership from its Government. It is crying out for a Government team that energises and liberates our country and our people from dependency. That means independence and the real powers of a real Parliament.
Today's debate is about delivering on the programme for government, which the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats came together to draw up three years ago. The First Minister was right to reflect on what we have achieved three years into this session, because we have achieved a great deal, including the abolition of feudal tenure, the creation of national parks, the abolition of tuition fees and the introduction of free personal care for the elderly.
There have been major acts on transport, housing and standards in schools. There have been reforms to our public services through the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill. There have also been a number of reforms to our legal system. Those are substantial pieces of legislation that we could not have had without the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, we could not have had them without the Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership Government.
If people graduated from university before the Scottish Parliament was born, what fees did they pay after graduation? What fees did the member pay?
Tuition fees have been abolished and we introduced grants. Graduate endowment, as members know, although they might want to mislead the public, exists to support students from poorer backgrounds. I thought that Tommy Sheridan would support that. Those who can afford to pay help those who cannot afford to pay. [Interruption.]
Order.
Every student in Scotland is paying less than they would have done before the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001 was passed. No student is paying more; every student is paying less.
There is more to be done. I will talk a little about local government, which is my area of interest. After decades of attacks on local government, particularly from the Tories, who are sitting on my extreme right, we are now seeing a new partnership between local and central Government in Scotland. The Local Government in Scotland Bill will give councils a central role of leadership in the communities. The introduction of community planning, the power of general competence, best value and a prudential system of capital finance will assist local government to play a much more effective leading role in our communities.
It is also essential that the reforms proposed in the white paper "Renewing Local Democracy: The Next Steps" are implemented. The Liberal Democrats have no doubt that the 2003 local elections will be the last under the present system. The Liberal Democrats are about getting things done. We succeeded in abolishing tuition fees and in getting free personal care for the elderly and we will succeed in getting PR for local government.
Those achievements contrast with the position of the SNP. Let us look at the SNP's record. On 22 November, John Swinney said of local elections:
"We could change that system today".
He went on:
"On my election as the First Minister we would usher in immediate legislation to ensure that the local elections in 2003 are held under a new system."—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; c 4159-60.]
On 21 November, Tricia Marwick said:
"The Bill is on the table."
I think that it must be under the table, as we have not yet seen it. On 18 December, she urged Liberal Democrat and Labour back benchers to back her member's bill on PR early in the new year. We still have not seen it. Where is the PR bill? Tricia Marwick invited us to back it, but we do not have it.
Iain Smith will be aware that our proposal for a bill that would introduce the single transferable vote—a Liberal Democrat policy—is on the table. He will also know that, because of the refusal of Liberal Democrat and Labour members to sign up to the bill, the parliamentary authorities have given no support with the drafting. I make a pledge that the bill will be in the system from next week. Will the member back it?
There was no bill on the table last November and there is still no bill on the table six months later. The SNP does not deliver—that is the truth.
Fiona Hyslop was right to talk about leadership—one can understand why she did, after that miserable speech from her leader. We have seen nothing from the SNP today. The people of Aberdeen could surely have expected the major Opposition party to come forward with its alternative programme for government. We got nothing from the SNP—it has been a desperate effort.
I conclude by giving members a few ideas of what might have featured in John Swinney's speech, which could explain why the SNP did not produce any proposals. We might have had the blame-it-on-the-parents bill, which Roseanna Cunningham would have introduced, and the don't-blame-it-on-the-parents bill from Mike Russell. From Irene McGugan, we might have had a bill to ban smacking; from Fergus Ewing, we might have had a bill on legalising smacking; and, of course, we might have had Mike Russell's uncertain-about-smacking bill. We might have had a bill in favour of Health Care International nationalisation, which would have been supported by Alex Salmond, and a bill on HCI profiteering from Nicola Sturgeon. We might have had a join-the-euro bill from Andrew Wilson and a don't-join-the-euro bill from Alex Neil. We might also have had a growth-will-look-after-itself (fingers crossed) bill from Andrew Wilson. An old SNP favourite is the jumping-on-bandwagon bill and let us not forget the important free-by-93 bill.
The Labour-Liberal Democrat partnership Government is delivering for Scotland and will continue to deliver for Scotland. We will complete our four-year programme for government in the next year. I welcome the First Minister's statement.
The Executive has set out another substantial programme for government, which builds on the achievements of the past three years. I welcome the proposals for protecting our children and for seriously tackling homelessness to ensure that a decent, secure home is a right for everyone. I also welcome the improvements for those who suffer from mental health problems and the commitment to improving educational provision for children with additional support needs. I welcome in particular the commitment to tackling the pervasiveness of pornography in our society, which, I believe, underpins gender discrimination.
I congratulate the Executive on its continuing commitment to equal opportunities and on its mainstreaming policy, which ensures that equality is at the heart of the Scottish Parliament's policy making, legislation, budgets and delivery of service, as the First Minister highlighted in his statement.
Examples of the Executive's commitment to engaging with women and to tackling gender discrimination include the women in Scotland consultative forum, which is a twice-yearly focal point for consultation between the Scottish Executive and women's groups, and Engender women's budget group, which consists of a wide range of partners and is a member of the Scottish Executive's advisory group on equality and budgets.
Some Executive policies that impact on women have already been introduced. They include the child care strategy, the domestic abuse prevention strategy, one-stop breast cancer clinics, the national information technology cervical screening programme, a commitment to rolling out Zero Tolerance's respect education programme across Scotland and better protection and dignity for victims of sexual crime.
I am pleased by the Executive's commitment to ensure that equality remains at the heart of government and is developed through the mainstreaming strategy. Our equal opportunities mainstreaming policy is something that we should shout about. Too often, we fail to get across to people what the Parliament is achieving. We need to be positive about our achievements.
I am also pleased that, here in Aberdeen, the Equal Opportunities Committee yesterday held a lunch and civic participation event on mainstreaming. The committee is currently undertaking a gender inquiry into best value in local government, the results of which, when they are published, I hope the Executive will welcome.
However, everything in the garden is not rosy. Scotland is still the sick man—or woman—of Europe. There are still problems of poverty, homelessness and alienation among sections of Scottish society. The Executive must continue to prioritise the inclusion of all our people so that everyone feels that they have a contribution to make. People must feel that participating in society and exercising their democratic rights are worth while.
Although I welcome the Executive's commitment to transforming local government, I point out that we still have a long way to go before we achieve gender equality in public service. In particular, we need to tackle the under-representation of women among councillors. Although the Executive has made huge inroads in overcoming years of underfunding of local government, there is still a need for better resourcing. If we really want equal opportunities to be mainstreamed at local government level as well as at national Government level, we must be willing to provide the extra resources that are required.
I make a plea to the Executive and to the Parliament to ensure that, before any of their contracts are decided on and awarded, those contracts include equality requirements. I hope that the Executive will encourage local authorities to do the same.
Finally, I have a long wish list of bills that I would like the Scottish Parliament to pass. In particular, I want to see a bill to ensure that, no matter where she might be, a woman has the right to breast-feed her baby. That would tie in with the strategy to tackle child poverty and improve children's health as part of a whole package. Since the members' debate that I secured last year, I have been working on a proposal for a bill that would make it illegal for anyone to stop a woman breast-feeding her baby. If we are to take children's health and the rights of children and mothers seriously, we should support such a bill. I hope that the Executive will welcome my outline proposal just as I have welcomed the programme for government that the Executive has outlined today.
Let me first of all welcome the important proposal for children's legislation that the First Minister outlined. However, I hope that, when the Deputy First Minister sums up, he will indicate how the Executive plans to allocate resources to tackle the crisis in child social work. The bill cannot work unless there is a sufficient number of child social workers, which there is not. As my friend Irene McGugan has pointed out again and again, there is now a grave recruitment crisis in social work. Without sufficient resourcing, the bill will not work. I suspect that much of the legislation in the programme will not work because the mechanisms to put the legislation into practice have simply not been resourced.
Presiding Officer, you and I are old enough—as are others, I am sure—to remember watching the men on the Kremlin wall at events during the Soviet Union's annual celebrations. There grew up a whole industry of people who could tell who was in and who was out just by looking at the photographs. In fact, the entire history of the Soviet Union can now be analysed by examining the extent to which the photographs were doctored. That is what is done in an excellent book, "The Commissar Vanishes".
Having decided to apply that technique to the Scottish Executive, I got hold of "Working together for Scotland: A Programme for Government". Indeed, how the ministers have vanished. Look at the sad picture of the Scottish Cabinet: Wendy Alexander, gone; Henry McLeish, gone; Sarah Boyack, gone; Angus MacKay, gone; Susan Deacon, gone; Jackie Baillie [Members: "Gone."]; Tom McCabe [Members: "Gone."]—gone, but not forgotten, of course.
Only one Labour person in the picture has survived and he has survived in various incarnations. We saw why in his statement today. He is an arch-juggler and manipulator; he can make something out of virtually nothing. That is what he did today. However, there is a problem with that, because without vision there can be no progress, and Mr McConnell's statement was completely without vision.
Will the member give way?
No. I am talking about the leader of Mr Jenkins's coalition, so it is important that he listen. That leader is a man whom even Mr Jenkins is prepared to follow to the barricades. That is an unlikely idea, I know, but there we are.
There was no vision, particularly on education and culture. I want to address both those issues. There was an announcement of possible legislation on special educational needs—the words were that the Executive was "developing proposals". The Education, Culture and Sport Committee considered that issue more than two years ago. There has been consultation, the results of which the Executive has had for six months. However, only now is the Executive "developing proposals". That does not show much urgency.
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry, I have only four minutes. I am interested in action, not words. I will not give way.
We need to consider what else has to be done in education. A vast range of things has to be done. On discipline in schools and on the rights and responsibilities of young people, we have heard nothing at all; on the five-to-14 action plan, nothing at all; on class sizes, nothing at all; and on teacher training—which has to be sorted out—nothing at all. In fact, there is no vision on education whatever. Education, education, education has become nothing, nothing, nothing.
There is also a huge problem in culture. Incredibly, the statement that we heard today was the fourth occasion on which no announcement has been made on any legislation relating to culture in Scotland. From the start right through to the end of the parliamentary session, the Parliament will have considered not one piece of legislation on culture. Many people who spent years campaigning for this Parliament because they thought that it would make a difference to the culture and values of Scotland are bitterly disappointed in the lack of action. There are whole areas that require action—including the outmoded national institutions and the outmoded and creaking bureaucracy of culture—but nothing has been done.
Most important of all is Gaelic. Last week, the ministerial advisory group reported. It criticised the paralysis of consultation since 1999 and it called for urgent action. Its number 1 recommendation was for a secure-status bill for Gaelic—something that the Labour party promised in 1999. However, the word "Gaelic" did not appear in Mr McConnell's statement—not a mention of it.
Mr Iain Smith, who fortunately has left the chamber, talked about not getting Tricia Marwick's bill. Tricia Marwick and I face the same difficulty: the Parliament has inadequate resources for drafting members' bills. However, the non-Executive bills unit is drafting a bill on Gaelic. If the Executive wants to take that bill on, it may—I am not precious about it. Mr McConnell promised that there was a new way of doing things. I say to him today that, if he is committed to Gaelic, let him offer to take on the bill to give the language secure status. In that way, we would at least have one bill in the first four years of the first Scottish Parliament in 300 years that dealt with the precious aspects of our culture.
As my party's local government spokesman, I will concentrate on two things in the Executive's programme. The first is the Local Government in Scotland Bill, which appears only to be an excuse for inaction and yet another example of the Executive and the Parliament making work for its own sake. The bill proposes: a statutory duty of best value, a system that is already entrenched in local government circles; a statutory footing for community planning, which councils already undertake but which should be a matter for local variation and not national direction; and a power of well-being—a watered down power of general competence—which no one has yet shown to be necessary: indeed, no one has shown what it might be used for.
The bill is of purely ornamental value. It is designed to make the Executive look good, but it serves no real practical purpose. I suppose that I can welcome the tagged-on measure to allow council meeting calling notices to be circulated by e-mail. That is a truly staggering achievement, of which the minister concerned must be very proud.
The second thing that I will concentrate on is the white paper on renewing local democracy. Unfortunately, four years after Neil McIntosh was asked to investigate local government reform, the white paper is all about keeping the coalition together. It does nothing to promote local democracy and accountability or to loosen the minister's ever-tightening grip on our councils.
The Executive is now embarking on yet another consultation, having already financed two costly independent reports. That reinforces the view that Labour is taking its Lib Dem lackeys for a ride, promising proportional representation tomorrow, while simultaneously buying off its cronies in Scotland's councils with pledges of higher pay. If ministers wish to increase councillors' pay, they should reduce the number of councillors and make the move self-financing by cutting and redistributing the so-called responsibility allowances, which have proliferated.
I take it that the Conservatives have had a change of heart over PR. Will they now support at least the principle of PR for local government?
I am just coming to that subject. There is no question of what we want—we want first past the post.
I have real concerns about relaxing the constraints on council employees becoming councillors, given the recent events relating to the Third Age Group in Fife. Introducing PR at council level will simply entrench power in the hands of a few politicians and institutionalise a kind of proportional cronyism that flies in the face of the stated wish to improve local democracy. Proportional cronyism has seen Lib Dem cronies as well as Labour ones added to quangos since the Liberal Democrats took a share in power. PR would do nothing to sever the links between the vested interests of councillors and the organisations that they grant fund.
Improving local democracy requires a fundamental change that only the Scottish Tories espouse. We want a shift in power from politicians and the institutions of the state back to the independent and autonomous institutions of civil society. Power should be in the hands of individuals, families and local communities. We want community councils to take on greater responsibility.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. I have heard the member speak too often.
Where possible, community councils should be given control of common-good funds. The Executive is not committed to decentralisation and giving more autonomy to councils. Its proposals are all about controlling and directing. The Executive's programme for local government will do little to address the ever-declining core services that are provided to council tax payers. Under the Labour-Liberal Democratic coalition—
Democratic?
No, that is one thing that the Liberals are not.
The council tax payers pay ever more while receiving less. The council tax has become yet another stealth tax. I relish the forthcoming local government elections and the inevitable return of Conservative-controlled councils in Scotland.
I am sure that I was not the only member to have the pleasure of watching the BBC news before 7 am this morning, when the caption under the picture of the First Minister read:
"Daphne Mackie, Burntisland Jubilee Party Organiser".
It might as well have been true. The sad reality is that today the First Minister has given us nothing tangible to tackle the real problems facing the ordinary citizens of Scotland. If I had been given the opportunity to ask a factual question earlier—I hope that the Deputy First Minister will take up this point when he sums up—I would have asked what target the Executive is setting in relation to child poverty.
The Executive was elected in May 1999 and inherited a level of child poverty of 30 per cent—300,000 children live in poverty in one of the potentially richest nations in the world. Today, after three years of the Scottish Executive, 30 per cent of our children live in poverty—300,000 children still live in poverty. How many children will be lifted out of poverty by next May, the end of the Administration's first full term? If the Executive is not prepared to set a target for the reduction of child poverty, it should not be in Government in the first place. A party should be in Government to tackle issues such as child poverty.
How many of Tommy Sheridan's constituents have been delighted by the chancellor's innovations such as the working families tax credit, which has made a difference of £200 per month to single parents—young, poverty-stricken people—in my constituency? There were not just one or two of them; hundreds of them were delighted at that measure. The statistics will take time to feed through the system. Does Tommy Sheridan accept that or does he still say that the measure makes no difference?
If Helen Eadie was honest with herself, she would accept that the working families tax credit is a farce. Tens of thousands of families who were already in the poverty trap are worse off because their income has been reduced by 80 pence in the pound. Where their income has increased, there has been a reduction in housing benefit and council tax rebates, so that their disposable income hardly changes. That is the experience of thousands of families and it is one of the reasons why I am disappointed that the First Minister did not announce that the Executive will support the School Meals (Scotland) Bill, which proposes free school meals for the children of Scotland. When we took evidence on the bill, we spoke to parents who had been encouraged to get jobs. They had taken up low-paid jobs, only to find that they lost benefits to which they were formerly entitled, one of which was the entitlement to free school meals. They now have less disposable income than they did before they took up employment. That is the problem with the working families tax credit: it does not tackle poverty, it maintains poverty.
Will Mr Sheridan explain the logic in requiring parents in my constituency, who neither need nor want public help to feed their children, to take up free school meals, instead of providing help for parents in constituencies such as the one in which I grew up, who do need and want public help for their children?
Brian Fitzpatrick has just displayed political illiteracy. There are 123,000 children who live in poor families and are denied free school meals. The bill would include those children. The right to a free, healthy, nutritious school meal, with milk and water, would provide the parents of the children in Brian Fitzpatrick's constituency with a route to tackling the obesity that is now the major cause of premature death across Scotland because of its links—
Will the member give way?
He is in the last minute of his speech.
I will take the member's intervention.
In that case, you will have 30 seconds left to speak.
I would be grateful if my colleague could explain how he would make my daughter eat a healthy, nutritious meal. The problem is not the cost. The bigger issue is nutrition, and making meals free will not make a difference. The proposal will export money out of my constituency into constituencies that do not require help with free meals but which do require help with healthy eating.
It would help if the debate was honest. It would be a rational—[Interruption.] The Labour members are behaving like children—the crèche is outside.
Order. Please close, Mr Sheridan.
It would be a rational debate if the member had said that there would be difficulty in getting children to eat healthy meals. That is a fact of life; there is no doubt about that. However, it is wrong to add that children will not eat healthy meals. It is a challenge and, unlike Johann Lamont, I want to do something about the problem instead of continually talking about it. That is why the First Minister, if he is serious about tackling child poverty and the poor dietary and health record of this country, should have mentioned that anti-poverty, pro-health issue instead of just talking a good game.
Given the earlier admonition from the chair, I begin by assuring the Parliament that, during John Swinney's speech, I for one was not honking like a monkey in a barrel of cider—a wonderful phrase from Andrew Wilson. However, I admit that after 15 years of listening to parliamentary debate, I sometimes wish that I was that happy monkey, rather than having to listen to the turgid stuff we sometimes hear in Parliament.
I begin by welcoming the part of the Executive programme that offers a protection of children bill. I particularly welcome Jim Wallace's offer to meet me to discuss my member's bill, which would offer protection to child witnesses by ensuring that the cases in which they are involved have to come to trial within a specified time scale. In the new spirit of the Executive working with members on their legislation, I look forward to Executive support for the bill, which unfortunately so far has not been forthcoming.
I also welcome the announcement of a mental health bill. It is excellent to see at last concrete evidence of the claim that has been made for a long time that mental health is one of the top three clinical priorities for the national health service. In saying that, I make a plea to the Executive to take urgent non-legislative action in relation to the on-going crisis in forensic psychiatry.
Almost every member of the Parliament is aware of patients in the state hospital at Carstairs who are ready to move on but who are trapped because of the absence of places in medium-secure units such as the one at Moray royal hospital in Perth. They will be aware that there are patients in medium-secure units who are ready to move on but who are trapped because there are no places in the community for them to move on to. They will also be aware that there are no places in the community for them to move on to because local authorities are cash strapped and do not have the money to provide the required places. Unless there is financial action by the Executive behind the legislative action, the situation will not be good enough. I hope that the Executive takes that message on board in a big way.
I welcome the commitment, such as it was, to make progress on PR for local government. PR is one of the issues on which the First Minister and I are fellow travellers, although I suspect that I am more comfortable with that than he is. Like him, I understand the barriers that exist not just on the Labour back benches but in the wider Labour party to making any progress on proportional representation, but those barriers will be overcome only if we have an open and honest debate about PR. I look forward to taking part in that debate when Tricia Marwick's member's bill comes before the Parliament. I look forward not just to debating it but to voting on it before the next general election, because it is time that closet PR supporters—wherever they may be—came out and declared themselves, in particular those in the Labour party.
I hope that when the debate takes place we will acknowledge the virtual political earthquake that has taken place across western democracies since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. The 21st century political landscape is completely different from that of the 20th century. In the 20th century we had a two-party system with a big party of the left, which was committed to the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with socialism, and a big party of the right, which supported capitalism.
That situation has been overtaken, so that now we have four mainstream parties that support capitalism, a smaller socialist party, a smaller green party and other small parties that have grown up around all kinds of issues. Electoral reform—proportional representation—reflects the new political realities of the 21st century in a way that the first-past-the-post system never can. I hope that the debate takes place at that level, rather than at the level of arguing about which party will suffer from PR.
The Executive programme tells us a lot about the place of this Parliament in the wider political settlement of what we might call Britain in Europe. Are we a Parliament that is prepared to take risks and to do things that do not sit easily with the people who run things from the sovereign Parliament in Westminster, or are we not? That is the question.
This is a programme of worthy legislation with which almost nobody in the Parliament will disagree, but this Parliament is at its best when it takes risks and tries to capture the imagination of the Scottish people, as we did with free personal care for the elderly, and as I hope we will do with free school meals for every school pupil in Scotland. A health time bomb is ticking away in this country. Only this morning we heard on the news that by 2030, half of all adults will be obese. If we do nothing about that, we will be in danger of letting the Scottish people down. The thing to do is to change policy direction in a dramatic way. Let us have free school meals for all pupils in Scotland. That will send out a clear message.
I associate myself with the remarks at the end of John McAllion's speech.
I wish to go back to 1997 and one of Tony Blair's more memorable and destructive contributions to devolution, when he dismissed the Scottish Parliament as a parish council—we should remember that we are talking about a national Parliament. I ask members, when they examine the proposed bills and the programme for government, to reflect on whether they are worthy of a national Parliament.
To my mind, a national Parliament exists to set strategic goals. It is about innovation and creativity. It is about doing big things, seeing the bigger picture and painting for the people of Scotland a picture of the world in which they could live—the possible Scotland. That is not what we have before us. We have worthy pieces of legislation, which will get my support and that of my party, but we do not have a picture of where Scotland could be. That is important. Everyone in politics seeks the vision thing and I suggest that the programme does not show such vision.
Equally, the philosophy that lies behind the programme is unclear. Does any thematic approach prevail? What are the Government's views? Does the Executive believe in bigger government or smaller government? Does it believe in intervention? Should not we have an idea of its philosophy? That is important, because all that we have had is the suggestion that we should "do less, better". The programme certainly does less. I leave it to members to judge whether it does anything better.
Another option has been expressed by two First Ministers in a most inelegant phrase—cut the crap. That is not a philosophy, but a statement of the obvious. Of course the Government should do that, but that is neither a reason for the Parliament‘s creation nor a reason for what we do. A vacuum is not being filled. The Parliament has a long way to go in selling itself to the people of Scotland and we had better start soon to paint the picture of a better Scotland.
Today's announcement on PR was farcical. The McIntosh report, which was published in 1999, involved extensive consultation, the length and breadth of the country. Every organisation, council and individual was given an opportunity to contribute and the McIntosh commission made a recommendation. After that, in April 2000, the Kerley report recommended STV. We then had another consultation. A working party on local democracy was established to boot the matter into the long grass and it reported in 2001. Another consultation was held in November 2001, and now some members have the cheek to suggest that Tricia Marwick's bill will not be properly drafted. The reason for those comments is that none of the members who claim to support PR took the time and effort to sign the bill so that it could be properly drafted.
When Iain Smith was given the opportunity today to make clear his commitment to signing the bill, he did not take it. Why? Is he scared of his masters rapping his knuckles? I do not know. If he genuinely believes in PR, he should say so.
Will the member give way?
The member has just re-entered the chamber. That is rude, so no thanks.
Today, the First Minister gave us a paragraph on PR. He said:
"We have given a firm commitment"—
at long last—
"which I restate today—that we will consider the responses to the consultation."
Gee, thanks. What would be the point in the Executive's holding a consultation if it did not consider the responses? Of course ministers should consider the responses. That is hardly progress.
The First Minister also said:
"After the summer recess, we will set out our legislative intentions on the future governance of local authorities."
I do not doubt that that will involve yet another consultation. When will the Liberal Democrats realise that Labour is pulling their chain? Labour is taking the mickey. When will the penny drop? Labour will not give the Liberal Democrats PR before 2003. At the heart of the Labour establishment, there is no intention to give up what Labour believes it rightfully owns—the fiefdoms in central Scotland. To put it in cynical political terms, why would it give them up? Naively, Liberal Democrats think that progress will be made, when everyone knows that it will not be.
The programme is not visionary; it is simply another relaunch. After three years of the Parliament, the coalition is already running out of good ideas. I want more vision and more commitment to a possible Scotland and to something bigger than hedges and dog dirt.
As an MSP for North-East Scotland, I associate myself with Nicol Stephen's remarks. I thank the people of Aberdeen and the north-east for giving us a good welcome and supporting the Parliament up here. They deserve our thanks. I have enjoyed the experience. For some of us, it is unfortunate that we must return to Auld Reekie next week.
The First Minister talked about how the work goes on. Work certainly continues on health care. The Conservatives will fully support the introduction of the mental health bill. That is a good proposal that has arisen from the Millan report. It will go some way towards helping our mental health services and dealing with the problems that they face.
We look forward to the bill that will follow the health reform white paper that was announced today. We are not sure when that bill will be introduced. I ask the Deputy First Minister to acknowledge that the Health and Community Care Committee has not yet received the mental health bill, which it will scrutinise in the autumn. Time is running out for this session—I think that the committee has about 20 weekly meetings left between now and the election. Is that ample time for proper consultation on, and parliamentary scrutiny of, proposals for a new reform bill—especially one that has not been trailed in the past few months and that does not have much of a strong basis?
When the bill is introduced, if it gives financial control to practices, local health care co-operatives, general practitioners or primary care teams and if it allows them to commission or purchase services on behalf of their patients, the Conservatives will remind the First Minister and his Executive that that is in line with the recommendations that were produced by Griffiths back in the early 1980s. Ministers may say that that is not fundholding, but it will be fundholding.
When Malcolm Chisholm was last asked the question, he said that the reason why it was not called fundholding was because the contracts would be electronic rather than paper based. However, if the primary care sector is given fiscal control and freedom to commission care for patients, it is the same thing—it is fundholding.
If that decision is taken, it will be a sharp recognition by the Executive that it has spent millions of pounds vandalising a system only to put it back with the addition of a few changed new Labour words. We will not be fooled. We invented the system and we know why it is there and what it is there to deliver.
It is interesting to note what the First Minister did not say about health in his statement. How will the Executive deal with the numerous failed manifesto pledges that date back to 1997? The First Minister's statement did not address how the Executive will deal with Labour's 1997 pledge to abolish mixed-sex wards. The statement did not include the new patient's charter, which the Executive and the Labour party have promised since 1997. It failed to announce the delivery of the dedicated minister for public health that was promised in 1997. It failed to deliver a ban on tobacco advertising, failed to cut waiting lists and failed to cut waiting times.
Today, quarterly figures were announced for acute health activity. I noticed that some Labour members outside the chamber were trying to trail the fact that the figures are a great victory as Labour has cut waiting lists. It has not done so. If one compares the figures from when Labour came into office with today's figures, one sees that fewer patients are being treated. People may wait less time, but members will remember that the Scottish Executive decided that it did not want to talk about waiting lists but would move on waiting times. The result is that fewer people are being treated.
The same number of people are waiting now as were waiting in 1999, but fewer people are being treated. What has gone up is the deferred waiting list—the black hole of waiting lists—by 7,000. The Executive is treating fewer people, but somehow waiting lists have come down by a little bit. That does not say much other than that the people who are on the deferred waiting list cannot get an appointment. They turn up at hospital only to find that it is dirty and have to be sent home. Then they disappear into a black hole.
We will not be fooled by the latest Scottish Executive press release that is probably winging its way around. The work will go on and the Conservatives will ensure that we are the ones who are pushing the agenda to empower patients and front-line staff to make the decisions that will ensure that choice and diversity are delivered in health care. We will do that for the sake of the patient and not for the sake of ideology.
A month ago, the First Minister visited my constituency for two days. As part of that 48-hour flurry, he arrived on Benbecula one morning to open a brand-new hospital on the island. He then went across the island to open an office complex that has been built to accommodate civil servants who have been dispersed from Highlands and Islands Enterprise's Inverness offices. After that, he moved northwards to open a junior secondary school on the island of Lewis. Before he departed for the Orkney islands, he opened a brand-new airport terminal in Stornaway. The visit is tangible evidence of the investment that has been put in place since 1997. It is a programme of investment and change that has accelerated since 1999.
During the time that the First Minister spent in the Western Isles, he met a great number of people, many of whom reinforced the importance of land reform legislation. Many people highlighted the fact that Scotland's devolved Parliament is going about the business of dismantling the ludicrous system of land ownership that exists in Scotland. Land reform has been an aspiration since the days of Keir Hardie. As an islander and a highlander, it is a privilege to be part of the generation of Labour politicians that is helping to deliver that reform.
Land reform is legislation that empowers communities. It puts citizens at the heart of the decision making that affects communities' lives. I welcome the announcement of a white paper on crofting reform. It demonstrates once more that the Administration appreciates the importance of crofting to the environment and to the social and economic well-being of the Highlands and Islands.
The Highlands is a dynamic region. I instruct those who may not be as familiar with the Highlands as I am to pay attention to those of us who choose to represent the Highlands in a positive way. They should not listen to the girning and carping of members who have been elected to represent the region but choose not to live there. That important distinction should be pointed out.
For the past three years, the Executive has been spending sensibly the £200 million of European transitional funding that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer secured for the region in 1999. That money is being used to meet our priorities right across the Highlands and Islands.
Earlier, I mentioned the dispersal of jobs. Although that does not require legislation, it needs an attitudinal change. Indeed, such a change has taken place since 1999. Civil service jobs should and must be dispersed across Scotland, as that will help to reinforce the First Minister's comment this morning that the Parliament is for all parts of Scotland.
I certainly welcome the measures on homelessness, child protection and mental health that have been announced. Of course, everything that the Labour-led Executive does is underpinned by its awareness of social justice. Defending the underdog and the vulnerable matters as much to the people in my island constituency as it does to the constituents of the Glasgow Baillieston MSP and Minister for Social Justice, Margaret Curran. I am delighted by her confirmation last night that she intends to visit my constituency, which she gave in her usual gracious way.
I want to assist Mr John Swinney, because I know that this morning has been difficult for him. He failed to mention the bills that would be a priority for a nationalist Administration such as the divorce from Northern Ireland, Wales and England bill; the issuing passports to visit relatives in England bill; the debt and borrowing to cover our £4 billion fiscal deficit bill; the closing schools and hospitals because the oil price has fallen bill; the reducing education to finance embassies bill; the printing currency without consequences bill; the neverendum bill; the correct colour of the saltire bill; and the which flag and where to fly it bill.
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute.
While the Executive gets on with the priorities of empowering communities, legislating to protect our young people and improving the lives of our elderly, the nationalists can get on with the festering, girning and whingeing they excel at.
I commend the programme of government to the chamber and urge all members to support it.
To begin with, I welcome the First Minister's announcement of the title conditions bill and the agricultural holdings bill, both of which complete the land reform agenda that the coalition Government has been pursuing over the past three years.
I will deal first with the agricultural holdings bill. In his speech, Murdo Fraser made a number of allegations and tried to suggest that I was unfit to argue the case for the bill because I had some sort of vested interest in the matter. As the agricultural holdings bill clearly attempts to shift the balance of power from the landlords back to the tenant farmers, many in the farming community welcome it. Mr Fraser tried to argue that the pre-emptive right to buy would cause tenancies to disappear. That is complete and utter nonsense. It is a great pity that he is not in the chamber, because he might actually learn something about farming.
If Murdo Fraser knew the first thing about the current farming scene—and about the rented sector, in particular—he would know that almost no tenancies have been offered to tenants over the past 10 to 12 years. Instead, tenant farmers have been offered partnership agreements, which are legal constructions put together by land agents and landlords to strip away tenants' rights under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. A tenant farmer who signs a partnership agreement with a landlord can be turfed out the next day with no notice or compensation whatsoever.
Worse than that, land agents have been coercing tenants into giving up secure tenancies and entering into partnership agreements, usually in return for some small financial compensation. In reality, those tenants are being stripped of every right under the 1991 act or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949. I make no apology for campaigning to end that abuse of the landlord-tenant system and to end the hated feudal system in Scotland. Indeed, it is a campaign that I intend to continue.
We have had a wide-ranging debate this morning, and we have heard a plea from Andrew Wilson to enter into a proper debate on the future of Scotland. Andrew is quite right to ask for that. Over the past three years, the coalition has put forward its priorities, its spending plans to back up those priorities and its legislative programme. What have we heard in that time from the SNP about those serious matters? Absolutely nothing. We have heard no priorities, no budget alternative and certainly no alternative legislative programme.
Andrew Wilson quite rightly suggested that the debate should be about the future of Scotland and its vision, but the SNP's position seems to be full of contradictions. He quite rightly argued—as he is entitled to do—for the Irish model of low tax, an enterprise agenda and low public-sector spending. At 33 per cent of gross domestic product, Ireland has one of the lowest rates of public spending in Europe. Andrew Wilson argued for that position, but time after time front-bench spokesmen for the SNP, such as Kenny MacAskill and Alex Neil, commit the SNP to higher and ever greater public spending. Indeed, the SNP leader, John Swinney, restated his party's position on the PFI—that the SNP would not use private finance to fund any capital investment projects in Scotland. I am sorry, but if he rules out the PFI, that means higher public-sector spending, because there is no other way to finance capital investment. Again, he has committed himself to higher public-sector spending.
How on earth can we take the SNP seriously in a debate about the future of Scotland when there are contradictions coming from its spokesmen?
I welcome George Lyon's praise for my contribution, but I do not recognise what he says I said. Ireland's economy is growing 10 times faster than Scotland's is at present. Does he accept that the money will not be there for investment if the economy does not grow, and that that should be the number 1 issue for this Parliament's attention?
As Andrew Wilson well knows after the time he spent in Ireland, one of the key reasons for the expansion of the Irish economy is the social partnership agreement between business, the unions and Government to lower the overall burden of taxation over time to allow the economy to grow. That is the key driver in the Irish economy. I do not see how one member of the SNP can argue for that position when its other front-bench spokesmen are arguing for the Scandinavian model of much greater public spending and much greater public-sector investment from the public purse. The SNP cannot have it both ways.
I wind up by adding to the list that my colleague Alasdair Morrison gave for the SNP's alternative legislative programme. He missed one bill out—the fast-track-back-to-Scotland bill, sponsored by Alex Salmond.
Over the past three years, the Liberal-Labour Government has delivered a substantive programme for government that will make a difference to every Scot's everyday life. The Liberal Democrats have played a major role in ensuring the success of Scotland's first Government, and we remain committed to ensuring that the success of the coalition is enhanced and delivered over the next 11 months.
Our Parliament recently celebrated its third birthday. Some critics might say that there is not much to celebrate, but today's debate certainly gives us the opportunity to reflect on what the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament have been doing over the past three years and where we go from here.
It is worth recalling the mood of optimism and national euphoria that existed in Scotland in May 1999, when the Parliament came into existence—the first Scottish Parliament for nearly 300 years and the first ever democratically elected Scottish Parliament. There were great hopes and great expectations on the part of the people of Scotland, but that mood of optimism and national euphoria has been replaced by a somewhat more realistic attitude. Some might go so far as to say that it has been replaced by cynicism.
Some cynics go so far as to say that the Scottish Parliament has done nothing at all for the people of Scotland, but I profoundly disagree with them. Admittedly, there have been disappointments. The Parliament could and should do more, but there have been some notable achievements. For example, financial support for students was mentioned. That support is far from perfect—the Executive did not even fully implement the Cubie proposals—but at least it is substantially better than the deal that was introduced by Blair's Government, which still applies to students south of the border. The Parliament has ensured a fairer deal on free care for the elderly, which will be implemented on 1 July. In addition, I wish the Executive well in the joint bid with Ireland to host the Euro 2008 football championships. Hosting the championships would greatly benefit not just sport, but the economies of Scotland and Ireland.
However, much more needs to be done to develop the Scottish economy and improve employment prospects for the people whom we represent. I was disappointed that the First Minister did not put more emphasis on the economy and jobs. In the Falkirk area, for example, unemployment is well above the national average and redundancies have recently been announced at BP, Exabyte Scotland Ltd and Dyson Refractories Ltd.
Recently, Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley and Falkirk Council drew up a Falkirk action plan to develop and diversify the local economy. The plan would help to create up to 4,000 jobs over three years, but would require an initial pump-priming investment of between £15 million and £20 million. In turn, that would help to attract additional investment of up to £200 million. However, the Executive has so far failed to provide or commit an additional penny of investment. I appeal to it and to the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Iain Gray, to come up with the money. It would be an investment in jobs and people and would demonstrate that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament are helping to build a better future for our people.
We now move to winding-up speeches.
The first anniversary of my election to the Parliament as the Labour member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is approaching and it is an honour to speak for the Labour party at the close of this debate. Like the First Minister, I recognise that work goes on and that there is more to do.
Our colleague Nicol Stephen rightly mentioned the warm welcome that we visitors have received in the north-east. Our colleagues Lewis Macdonald and Elaine Thomson, and partnership colleagues, make the case for the north-east and for an Executive that delivers for all Scotland's people. I hope that all of us will join them in thanking our hosts in Aberdeen. [Applause.]
In the spirit of consensus and the new politics, I hoped to say that Mr Swinney made an interesting contribution to the debate. Members will have noticed that when Mr Swinney refused an intervention from Phil Gallie—which is difficult to do—he remarked that he was running short of time. Truer words have never been said. His contribution was half-hearted.
Will the member give way?
Shortly. Perhaps the anticipation of that contribution explains the absence of nearly half of his parliamentary party from the chamber and Alex Salmond's reappearance outside the chamber.
Mr Swinney spoke about youth crime.
On running out of time, what target will Brian Fitzpatrick, as a member of the Labour party, accept from the Executive in respect of reducing child poverty? That party's figures show that 300,000 kids were in poverty when the party came into power and that 300,000 kids are still in poverty. How many kids will be in poverty next year?
As Mr Sheridan knows, but chooses not to share with the chamber, levels of child poverty are falling. Complex issues require multiple actions to address them. The one way in which we will never eliminate child poverty in Scotland is by a desperate attempt to recreate the economic and social circumstances of the Soviet Union in 1924, as proposed by Tommy Sheridan and his allies.
Ignore the children.
Tommy Sheridan didnae like that.
If we can return to Mr Swinney's comments on youth crime, members will remember the remarks made by his colleagues in the chamber, who described public concern on the issue as a press bogey. Thankfully, Mr Swinney now seems to recognise that it is no press bogey. I welcome the fact that there is acceptance of public concern on the issue and that actions are proposed. The concerns are as common to the people of Pollok as they are to the people of Strathkelvin and Bearsden and to people and communities throughout Scotland.
I welcome the statement on the work on youth crime. I look forward to working with colleagues, including the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, and the Deputy Minister for Justice, on that, and on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. We will have energetic discussions on the detail and direction of the bill, but I hope that members will unite around our proposals to put victims at the heart of our criminal justice system. Our proposals strengthen protection for victims of stalking and harassment. Parents and grandparents throughout Scotland, and all who care for Scotland's children, will welcome action against those who hold and distribute pornography.
David McLetchie has left us, but before departing he delivered a speech, in a very deep voice, which did not disguise the paucity of the standard Tory speech. The Tory party is now a rump of landowners and farmers, which is speaking yet again for its core concerns: private hospitals; one primary school; and landowners' interests. The Tories have not proffered a shadow budget or any shadow legislative programme. On the third anniversary of the Parliament, the Conservatives have no proposals and have nothing to say.
We know about the investment that we are delivering for the NHS in Scotland: Gordon Brown's budget booster for the NHS in Scotland means that we have maximum investment. The announcements today also deliver maximum benefit. The First Minister reminds us that we are proud of our NHS. In Scotland, we need to be proud of our health service and deliver on public health and health service reform.
Alasdair Morrison reminded us of our party's historic commitment to land reform. That commitment is shared in Scotland by nearly all parties and by those of no party. We will have discussion, sometimes very active discussion, on the detail of the bill, but I welcome the progress that is being made. We know from where the opposition will come. It will come from the same folk who, for the same reasons, will oppose the proposed agricultural holdings legislation.
I commend to the chamber a legislative programme that delivers for the people of Scotland. It is my honour to do so.
This morning's statement was tangible evidence of the First Minister's declared intent to do less, but few will have any confidence that he will do it better.
The First Minister's offering was cold kail; a reheated, but lukewarm potpourri of stale reannouncements, restatements of what has gone before and what we knew might happen in the future. There is little, indeed nothing, that is new.
It is disappointing, when concerns about NHS provision are at an unprecedented level, that—apart from welcome measures on mental health—the First Minister had so little to say on health issues.
It is surprising, when the recent actions of the First Minister's colleague, Chancellor Gordon Brown, threaten to create massive problems for Scottish industry and business, that no measures are being suggested to mitigate that damage. Given that attitude, is it so surprising that social work is the only growth industry in Scotland?
It is astonishing, when the Executive's stance on youth crime is in disarray and total confusion, that Jack McConnell did not take the opportunity to clarify the position. These are difficult days for Scotland's parents. The message from the Executive is almost schizophrenic: on the one hand, parents can be sent to prison for moderately disciplining their children, on the other, they can be sent to prison for the misdeeds of their children.
What is the Executive's policy on youth crime? There are some good ideas, but they are Conservative ones. The Executive now enunciates the same ideas that the Conservatives proposed when the issue was first debated in Parliament six months ago. That is progress of a sort, but why did not the Executive support us then? There is a total lack of clarity. If the Executive is serious about tackling child crime, it should not remit the matter to committees or put proposals out for consultation or into some future Labour manifesto. The Executive should legislate now by amending the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which is before the Justice 2 Committee, to include the proposed measures. It is manifest from the Executive's failure to legislate that, at the end of the day, nothing will happen.
There is also confusion about the proposed agricultural holdings bill. I hope that the Deputy First Minister will, in his summing up, make it clear whether it is intended to include a pre-emptive right to buy in that bill.
The main problems are with what has not been mentioned. There is nothing to improve public services or democracy. The lip service that has been paid by means of the proposed public appointments and public bodies bill demonstrates that, on that issue, the Executive is going nowhere. The response to David McLetchie's question made it clear that, as far as Labour is concerned, our public bodies will in future still be stuffed full of Labour quangonistas.
There is little for anyone in this morning's statement: there is nothing for the beleaguered countryside but more meddlesome legislation; nothing for the towns but continuing crime and social order problems; nothing for business or employment; nothing for the young, as education standards fall and the McCrone settlement seems to be unravelling; and nothing for the old, as health care provision comes under increasing stress. Although waiting lists are not growing, the figures that were given this morning do not offer encouragement. There is nothing to encourage or inspire or to provide the hope that Scottish devolution can make the difference that we all want it to make. This depressing groundhog-day debate has exposed the Executive as lacking in ambition to the point of complacency. To paraphrase the poet Gray, ambition certainly does not mock their useful toil.
Is it not ironic that an Executive in which the personnel changes with such frequent and monotonous regularity should seem so tired? Is it not time that the First Minister examined in detail his electoral programme? Is it not time that he told his ministers to produce plans and projects that might improve the life of Scotland's people and make a difference? If he and his ministers fail to do that, the devolution project could be jeopardised.
The legislation that has been proposed is inadequate for Scotland's requirements. The Executive is tired and should be replaced; indeed, it will be replaced next year.
SNP members will not disagree that the Executive's priorities should be, to quote an Executive motion,
"to deliver first class public services that help create a Scotland full of opportunity, where children can reach their full potential",
but that is where we must part company, because, since day one, the Executive has failed to deliver those first-class services and has failed Scotland's children. It has also failed today to convince anyone otherwise, or to convince anyone that anything is about to change. What is needed from the Executive is not a trite restatement of its supposed priorities or a tick-box approach to government—but it appears that that is its philosophy, for which Duncan Hamilton was looking. Even with such a tick-box approach, there are the many gaps that members have mentioned.
A draft nature conservation bill is planned for next spring. I wonder whether the minister can confirm that the Executive will not legislate to increase penalties for wildlife crime, despite the fact that that was promised soon. The proposal for a draft bill next spring suggests to me that that is not going to happen.
The Executive should acknowledge its failure in respect of public services, and its programme should contain a genuine commitment to change. However, the words genuine and new Labour do not fit easily into the same sentence—and new Labour calls the shots here, regardless of what the Liberal Democrats like to think. Effectively, what we have heard is the Executive's new year resolution—a bit late in the year—which will, no doubt, go the way of all new year resolutions. It might try to hide the fact from the rest of us; it might even try to convince itself otherwise; but in reality all that the Executive is offering are more of the same empty pledges that have been made throughout the short life of the Parliament. Sometimes, it feels as though the only things that the Executive has delivered on have been SNP policies, which it first derides, then thinks about and eventually adopts. The Executive's refusal to acknowledge that shows that, when Jack McConnell talks about consensus, he is using a different dictionary from the rest of us.
Never mind how much has been spent here or what review has been undertaken there; what has actually been achieved, and has the Executive kept the promises that it has made? Let us consider just a couple of its justice pledges. A youth crime strategy was promised by March 2001, but the Executive has failed to produce one. No further evidence of that failure is necessary than the newspapers from the past fortnight. The recommendations of the youth crime advisory group, which were accepted, were funded at only 60 per cent of the level of finance that was necessary for their implementation.
One of the other pledges was to develop more effective community penalties for offenders. However, Tuesday's debate showed that despite the rhetoric, on which most of us agreed, the picture is one of failure. The prison population reached record levels in 2001 and the use of community disposals remains highly variable. For example, community service is used by courts in Dundee twice as often as by courts in Glasgow. Even the Minister for Justice expects continued failure, as he thinks that prisoner numbers will rise even further. If the Executive does not have confidence in its policies, why should it expect anyone else to have confidence in them?
What have we had? Broken promise upon empty pledge upon hollow words. Members should not take it just from me, however. We have heard today a guddle about PR. Frankly, the Lib Dems appear to be in a desperate state on that. They seem to be relying on Tricia Marwick's member's bill to deliver their key policy. What does that say about them and their input into the Executive? On health, I quote Gavin Tait, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon:
"Short termism, penny pinching, parochialism, and micro-management by government are all preventing rational and rapid development of the [health] service".
On children, I quote Henry Maitles of the University of Strathclyde:
"As the Scottish parliament enters its third year, virtually no impact has been made on child poverty".
On transport, I quote David Begg:
"We had one of the lowest levels of investment (as % of GDP) in transport".
Finally, as John Swinney pointed out, poverty—which underlies so much of what we debate in the Parliament and which is the root cause of so many problems—is one of the Executive's most abject failures.
Yet so much could be done. The Executive has adopted a huge number of SNP policies, whether it wants to admit that or not. Perhaps it should go the distance and adopt a few more, such as the idea of a public service trust. Maybe the Executive will introduce that anyway—maybe that is what it will use to get itself off the hook of the prison estates review and to make a real difference to Scottish health and education. John Swinney dealt in detail with the issue of public services. However, the biggest and best thing that Executive members could do, in adopting an SNP stance, would be to start to behave like grown-ups and take on the responsibility of grown-up Government. Some of John McAllion's comments were relevant to that.
Andrew Wilson did well to remind members of the facts about the economic reality facing Scotland; it is a reality of decline that the Executive seems to think is just fine by it. Well, it is not. The only way to make a change is to stop playing about with money handed over by Westminster and start governing Scotland the way it should be governed—as an independent nation.
One part of the problem is the Executive's incompetence; another is that Parliament does not have the power that is needed to transform Scottish society. The First Minister may have no ambition for his country, but if we want to create a Scotland that is full of opportunity rather than be content with a land of disappointment, and if we want to create the circumstances in which our children can reach their full potential, rather than be content with a country that is unable to fulfil its potential, then the only way forward is with independence.
I hope that I start on a consensual note by thanking all members who took part in what at times was a lively debate. There were many thoughtful contributions. There was also a general welcome, from all parts of the chamber, for what the First Minister said about the legislative programme. I echo those members who expressed our collective gratitude, as a Parliament, to the people of Aberdeen, to Aberdeen City Council and to our hosts, the University of Aberdeen, for making us most welcome in their city in this special week. [Applause.]
Some speakers—Nicol Stephen, Brian Fitzpatrick and even Dennis Canavan to some extent—reflected that what was announced today builds on solid and stable foundations. Parliament has passed a range of legislation during the past three years that addresses issues of great relevance to the people of Scotland and which has made a difference to them. Substantive acts have been passed on housing, transport, standards in our schools and health and community care. Those are important issues for the everyday lives of the people of Scotland. Parliament has legislated on those issues and parliamentary committees, with members from all parties, have scrutinised that legislation. I believe that Scotland is a much better country today because we have a Parliament that has passed that legislation.
We want to act on the First Minister's statement by building on the coherent approach and foundations of the past three years. In doing so, we want to reflect the priorities and ethos of the partnership Administration, promoting social justice while recognising that fostering a spirit of enterprise in Scotland helps us to develop the social justice agenda. The theme of helping the vulnerable in Scotland underpins much of what was announced today and much of what we have done in Parliament. One of the acts that Parliament can be most proud of is the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, which brings practical help to the 100,000 households in Scotland in which people care for an adult who does not have the capacity to take legal decisions.
It is worth remembering that south of the border the Law Commission for England and Wales published a parallel report to the Scottish Law Commission's report. The English report was published at the same time as the Scottish report, but the English report lies unimplemented on the shelf.
We are proposing a mental health bill, which has been welcomed on all sides and which will address the needs of some of the most vulnerable members of our community. A mental health bill will undoubtedly form an important piece of work for the Health and Community Care Committee this autumn. To pick up on a point that Ben Wallace made, we are not proposing a bill for health reform but a white paper, as the First Minister said.
There will also be a bill to protect children and a bill to provide additional support needs for children. Mike Russell asked how that might be developed beyond legislation. I know that Cathy Jamieson has been engaging in seminars for parents and professionals to ensure that much good work will have been done to underpin the work of putting the legislation on the statute book. In addition, we recognise that there is a shortage of social workers who are interested in having responsibility for children. However, as Mike Russell probably knows, the Executive is engaging with COSLA and individual local authorities to promote recruitment and retention.
The minister is correct to point out the fact that the benefit of having power closer to the people is that legislation can be dealt with more quickly. With that in mind, will he reflect on the fact that there have already been five pieces of consultation on the issue of proportional representation for local government and that there is set to be another? Will he confirm today that the sixth piece of consultation will be the final one and that it will be followed quickly by action?
I was going to deal with PR later but I will deal with it now. A consultation paper is available at the moment. It is important to stress that the electoral system that we use for our local authorities is not the plaything or the property of any political party. It is important that we move forward consensually. Andy Kerr has met with representatives of nine local authorities in the past few weeks to engage with them in that consultation. I must point out that, if we had waited for the SNP to introduce proportional representation for elections to the Scottish Parliament, we would never have had it. It was delivered only because Liberal Democrats and the Labour party worked together in the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
Homeless people make up another section of vulnerable people in our communities and a homelessness bill was proposed in the statement that members heard. Another great achievement of the Scottish Parliament is that we are on course to meet our target of eliminating involuntary rough sleeping in Scotland by next year. The indignity that is felt by people who do not have a roof over their heads is being tackled by the Executive and we can legitimately take some pride in that.
The minister mentioned the Executive's targets for homelessness, but what is the Executive's target for tackling child poverty? There were 300,000 children living in poverty when the Executive was elected and there are still 300,000 children living in poverty.
A number of people have mentioned the question of children in poverty. In 1996-97, 34 per cent of Scottish children lived in low-income households. By 2000-01, relative child poverty in Scotland had fallen to 30 per cent and to 21 per cent in absolute terms. It is clear that the Executive takes the issue of child poverty seriously. We have invested £24 million in a child poverty package to support lone parents into further and higher education and we are investing £475 million in pre-school education and child care. On early intervention, we are making available places for every three and four-year-old child. That is an effective way of tackling child poverty.
Des McNulty mentioned the importance of community involvement and spoke about the initiative that was announced by the First Minister of engaging people in all parties who have good ideas and who have introduced good members' bills. We want to do what we can to make those bills better and address issues that are important to communities. Andrew Wilson seemed to dismiss that sort of thing as small beer, but I have always believed that, if Governments and Parliaments are incapable of resolving the small issues that matter to people and which they deal with every day, people will have little confidence in our ability to address the major issues.
The Scottish Parliament has reflected the needs of all of Scotland, including our rural communities. I will answer Bill Aitken's question: a pre-emptive right to buy is to be included in the agricultural holdings bill, as I thought was already quite clear.
Alasdair Morrison and George Lyon talked about crofting reform. A white paper on the subject is due to be published. Alasdair Morrison talked about the tangible evidence of investment in his constituency and mentioned the new buildings that the First Minister had opened on his visit. Following that visit, the First Minister came to my constituency to open an air terminal and cut the first turf for an independent landing system.
Nicol Stephen and Roseanna Cunningham mentioned wildlife crime. I understand that many have been appalled by the recent spate of wildlife crime incidents. I assure members that we intend to act immediately and will lodge amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to provide the police with stronger powers of arrest in wildlife crime cases and give Scotland's courts the option to send offenders to prison, as this is one case in which alternatives to custody are not working. The message to wildlife criminals is clear: we will not tolerate the destruction of Scotland's magnificent natural heritage.
We heard almost nothing from the Conservatives other than that we should go the whole hog and follow them on health. That is the kind of health whole hog that Dr Liam Fox, the Conservative health spokesman at Westminster, talks about: persuading the public that the NHS is not working, convincing them that it cannot work and looking to fund it from savings from their pockets.
From John Swinney, we heard about independence. We all know the SNP's obsession with independence. In its document "Exploding the Myths of Independence", there are 211 mentions of independence. How many mentions of patients are there? There are none. How many mentions of nurses are there? There are none. How many mentions of doctors are there? There are none. How many mentions of ancillary staff are there? There are none. How many mentions of tackling crime are there? There are none. How many mentions of teachers are there? There are none.
That says it all: the SNP's obsession with independence does not address the issues that matter to the people of Scotland. The Executive is addressing the issues of importance to the people of Scotland. It is delivering and will continue to deliver in the year ahead.