Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, September 7, 2017

Official Report 964KB pdf

---

Programme for Government 2017-18

The next item of business is a continuation of the debate on the Scottish Government’s programme for government 2017-18.

Our programme for government sets out an ambition of ensuring that our public services meet the changing needs of the people of Scotland, not least our ambitions for the delivery of high-quality health and care services for all. Our guiding principles are a belief in creating a Scotland where people live longer, healthier lives at home, or in a homely setting; where services are integrated around the needs of the individual and focus on prevention, early intervention and self-management; and where everyone can get the services that they need.

To help meet those principles, in December we published the health and social care delivery plan, which set the priorities for action throughout this session of Parliament. At heart, our approach is to invest and reform to meet the challenges that face our health and care services. We build upon a strong legacy: a record-high 90 per cent of Scottish in-patients say that overall care and treatment were good or excellent; and our accident and emergency services are the best performing in the United Kingdom.

It is vital to continue to increase investment. Building on our record levels of spend, we will ensure that the health revenue budget increases by £2 billion by the end of this session of Parliament. Within that, there must be reform—a deliberate shift in the balance of care. We will increase the share of front-line national health service investment in our community health services of primary and social care, as called for by Opposition parties in the Parliament.

To be blunt, that shift will not be easy, but it is necessary for the future. A stronger community health sector will give more timely support to people and, ultimately, relieve some of the pressures on our hospitals, but we need to ensure that performance continues to be supported. For that reason, we are investing in better services to meet rising demand. That is why, for elective care, we are investing £200 million to expand the Golden Jubilee national hospital and establish five NHS elective care centres.

Equally, we need to invest in the principles that we most value. Having examined the merits and challenges of extending free personal care for people under 65, we will take forward Frank’s law, as the First Minister announced. I pay particular tribute to Amanda Kopel, whom I visited this morning, and the people who have campaigned on that important issue. As a result, up to 9,000 people who currently receive personal care will no longer be liable for charges for the personal care that they need once the policy is implemented. I know that the policy has support across the chamber and I hope that we can continue to count on that support from all sides as we seek to ensure that the UK Government does not claw back any benefits from people as a result of the extension of free personal care.

We will build on our strong and capable workforce over this session of Parliament. We are well on our way to putting in place 250 community link workers in practices that serve our poorest populations, training 1,000 paramedics and ensuring that all general practices have access to a pharmacist. To build capacity for mental health care, we will deliver an extra 800 professionals to expand support.

We will strengthen the quality of services and introduce a safe staffing bill to enshrine safe health and care staffing in law, starting with nursing and midwifery. We will also continue to take forward national workforce planning. Following publication of the national plan for NHS staff this June, we are working with stakeholders to publish plans for the social care workforce and for primary care staff, including general practitioners.

Above all, we need to invest in the workforce, which is at the heart of our health and care services. The First Minister announced on Monday that we will lift the 1 per cent public sector pay cap. Our nurses and public sector workers deserve a pay rise.

However, investment alone is not enough. Our services need to change to meet the changing health and care needs of the Scottish population. That is reflected in our bold approach to mental health services. In March, we published our 10-year mental health strategy. To back our vision of a Scotland where people get the right help at the right time, we will improve support for children and young people. For example, in the coming months we will start a national review of personal and social education and the role of pastoral guidance in schools. We will also improve transition from child and adolescent services to adult mental health services.

We have announced investment in alcohol and drugs services—a key area of public health.

Many of my constituents—this is probably true in every constituency—are waiting 30 or 40 weeks for access to mental health therapies such as talking therapies. The cabinet secretary cannot think that that is acceptable.

That is why we published the new mental health strategy and are making a huge investment in the workforce, which is growing. We are investing in the workforce to ensure that we can reduce the amount of time that people are waiting, whether that is for acute services—for those who need them—or for primary care services. The vision for the new multidisciplinary team, with the new GP contract at its heart, is absolutely about ensuring that when someone goes to their GP, they can be signposted, then and there, to the right professional, whether that is a mental health worker or someone else.

We will also take action in areas of public health such as drugs and alcohol, as I said. As was announced in the programme for government, there will be an additional £20 million annually for alcohol and drugs services—of course, making the links to mental health, because we know that often mental health and addiction issues are combined.

Will the cabinet secretary say what reductions have been made in the drugs and alcohol budget in previous years?

We asked health boards to maintain the spend on alcohol and drugs services and—on performance—the waiting-time targets for alcohol and drugs services have continued to be met. However, in recognition of the need for more preventive work, the £20 million goes further than the £15 million to which Neil Findlay alluded—

Rubbish.

I would hope that Neil Findlay could bring himself to welcome the additional £5 million that will go into alcohol and drugs services annually, because it will make a real difference on the ground.

Other public health issues are highlighted in the programme for government, such as diet and obesity. We will limit the marketing of products that are high in fat, sugar or salt, and we will consult on a new diet and obesity strategy, to explore what more we can do. There will be radical action to tackle some of the big public health challenges.

I have spoken at length about health, to illustrate something that is true in our approach to all public services: Scotland deserves services that improve and deliver, and those principles are enshrined in our programme for government.

14:37  

I welcome the First Minister’s announcement on Tuesday that the Scottish Government has, at long last, agreed to implement Frank’s law and deliver free personal care for Scots under 65. I pay tribute to the one-woman campaign that is Amanda Kopel. In the time in which I have sought to introduce a member’s bill on Frank’s law, she has become not just a good friend but—quite frankly—an inspiration to me and many other members of this Parliament. I spoke to Amanda on Tuesday and I know how grateful she is for the support that she has received. I put on record her and my thanks to the Dundee Courier, and particularly its former political editor, Kieran Andrews, who supported Amanda from the outset in campaigning for this most important change. It is only right that I also take the opportunity to thank the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit for the help and advice that it provided to me as I sought to progress my member’s bill proposal in the Parliament.

As Ruth Davidson said on Tuesday, if the First Minister and the Scottish Government want to get Frank’s law working on the ground as soon as possible, they will have the support of members on the Conservative benches and, I think, of the whole Parliament. Let me say clearly to members on the Government benches that, for too many people in Scotland, Frank’s law is needed today and was needed yesterday, and we need action from the Scottish Government to deliver the policy at the earliest opportunity.

It is more than 10 years since the Scottish National Party Government took full charge of Scotland’s NHS, so this is an appropriate moment to assess the SNP’s record in running our health services in Scotland for more than a decade. A legitimate place to start that assessment is the SNP’s 2007 manifesto, which, I am sorry to say, is littered with now broken promises.

The targets pledged in 2007 for waiting times from referral to treatment and for cancer patients have been consistently missed. An NHS redress bill has failed to materialise. There was a promised reduction in antidepressants, but instead antidepressant use has soared. A pledge to ring fence mental health funding in the funding to health boards and local authorities was abandoned. Health checks for all men and women when they reach the age of 40 have been discontinued. The list goes on.

Similar analysis of the SNP’s 2011 and 2016 manifestos reveals a further catalogue of let-downs. Not only has the SNP failed to deliver many of its manifesto pledges of improvement, this summer has seen a wide range of indicators confirm that our health service is moving backwards under this failed SNP Government: in the past year, the A and E waiting-time target has been met in just six weeks out of 52; the 18-week referral-to-treatment target has not been met for more than three years; waiting times for vital diagnostic tests are increasing; more than one in 10 cancer patients are waiting too long for treatment; out-patient waiting times are growing—the number of out-patients waiting longer than a year for treatment has jumped by more than 400 per cent in the space of just one year; performance on seeing in-patients and day cases is deteriorating; and five out of six targets for stroke patients are now being missed.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you. I want to make some progress.

In addition, over a quarter of adults are waiting too long for psychological therapy.

The list goes on. The Government is set to miss its target for getting GP services online. Delayed discharge is still costing hundreds of thousands of lost bed days. The proportion of significant and high-risk backlog maintenance in the NHS estate has increased under the Government. At the heart of so many of those problems across our health service is the sad reality that we have a worsening and severe NHS workforce crisis. The Scottish Government has had warnings about that for years, but it took it more than a decade to publish an NHS workforce plan.

Decisions that were made by SNP ministers during their time in office have exacerbated the workforce crisis—they need to have the humility to accept that. It was Nicola Sturgeon, the then health secretary, who made the very poor decision in 2012 to cut the number of student nurse placements. She argued at the time that the cuts were a “sensible way forward”, when the Royal College of Nursing was warning that the move was not sustainable and would impact on patient care.

More recently, in the 2016 budget, the SNP cut funding for alcohol and drug partnerships by £15 million, as Neil Findlay mentioned. Therefore, many members of the Parliament found it a little ironic to hear the First Minister announce on Tuesday funding for alcohol and drug services, when it is her Government that has put those services in such a difficult position over the past year.

Scottish Conservatives recognise that there is an ever-increasing demand for health services in Scotland, that we face significant demographic challenges and that, at the same time, we need to shift NHS investment into prevention, innovation and community services.

In the run-up to the 2021 election, we will continue to expose the Government’s ever-growing record of failure on our NHS, but we will also work with NHS staff and health experts to provide positive alternatives that will offer a new approach that we will ask the people of Scotland to endorse in 2021.

14:43  

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests.

The SNP Governments over the past 10 years have consistently been the champions of public services, and nowhere is that more evident than in our NHS. The Westminster Government has embarked on a hostile campaign of cuts and enthusiastic opening up of services to private bidders, so we have been fortunate in Scotland that our health service is devolved, which has allowed our Government to follow a more productive, inclusive and person-centred approach than that in the rest of the UK.

Despite the restrictions of Barnett, the SNP Government has protected the front-line health budget and used the money wisely. The Government has actually increased spending, with the annual health resource budget up by 40 per cent—£3.6 billion—from 2006 to today. By the end of this session of Parliament, health funding will have increased by almost £2 billion on top of the £3.3 billion that the SNP had already delivered. We are investing £116 more per head in health than the UK Government is, and we continue to invest in our primary care and community services.

Since 2007, the SNP Government has increased staffing in the NHS, with 12,000 more full-time equivalent staff than were in place when the SNP took office in 2007. Staffing is projected to grow by another 1,400 full-time equivalent staff in the coming year.

Will the member take an intervention?

I would like to make a little bit more progress, Mr Findlay.

However, this is not just about putting more money and more people into the existing system and hoping for the best. We are building a health service that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century—one that will increasingly be about prevention and which looks to put the patient firmly at the centre of care.

Scotland was the first country in the world to implement a national patient safety programme, and hospital safety is continuing to improve. Figures show that between January to March 2014 and January to March 2017, hospital mortality has fallen by 8.4 per cent—it is a world-leading programme.

The integration of health and social care is another example of how this Government has revolutionised health service delivery. Although integration is in its infancy, it is a model that is being looked at by others, not only in the UK but elsewhere.

As the First Minister outlined on Tuesday, the Scottish Government will look to limit the marketing of foods that are high in fat, sugar or salt. We need to work on the causes of ill health, and diet and lifestyle are massive contributors to a whole range of health problems, including diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

In addition, the SNP Government will implement a new soft opt-out scheme for organ donation, which will benefit many people each year who otherwise would not have life-changing or life-saving transplants. Where once families and friends would watch loved ones suffer and even die on an organ donation waiting list, now patients will have a chance at a new life. This Government will also work to implement Frank’s law on free personal care for those under 65 who require it.

I am proud to say that our health service will adapt to address wider issues around promoting health and wellbeing; tackling inequalities; and supporting parity of esteem between physical and mental healthcare. We recognise in Scotland that we need to have holistic systems to tackle problems that have multiple contributing factors and, because of that, the Scottish Government will, in every year of this session of Parliament, increase the share of the NHS budget that is spent on mental health, as well as on primary health, community health and social care. An additional £107 million for health and social care integration, previously announced in January, will ensure that more people can be cared for in their homes instead of in hospitals.

At the Unison Scotland nursing conference last week, I heard about the inspiring nursing 2030 vision for the profession in Scotland from the chief nursing officer for Scotland, Fiona McQueen. She spoke of a nursing service that will be increasingly about prevention, addressing issues around promoting wider health and wellbeing, tackling inequalities and supporting parity of esteem between physical and mental healthcare.

She outlined the future of nursing in Scotland, where nursing will continue to develop as a personalised, rights-based service, embedded within a caring and compassionate professional relationship with individuals and communities. Nursing will continue to take into account wider physical, psychological, social, family, and community life, and nurses themselves will be prepared for increasingly technological environments.

In stark contrast to Westminster’s treatment of nurses, the SNP Government has maintained bursaries and free tuition for nursing and midwifery students. It has also ensured better pay and conditions for NHS Scotland staff as a whole, with entry pay in NHS Scotland £881 higher than in England and more than £1,300 higher than in Northern Ireland.

I have listened with great care to the member’s comments on the NHS in Scotland. Is it her view that everything about the NHS in Scotland is positive? So far, I have not detected any kind of criticism at all. If the member represented people in the north-east, from Grampian, she would know that they are not very content with the NHS.

I thank Mr Rumbles for his intervention. Of course the NHS is not perfect; I did not say that it was. However, we have to acknowledge the extraordinary work that NHS staff do and the service that they provide to our communities. Every time that someone makes comments such as those made by Mr Rumbles, it hurts nurses and NHS staff.

I warmly welcome the First Minister’s announcement that the 1 per cent public sector pay cap will be lifted. Band 5 nurses here are between £225 and £309 a year better off than those in England, and let us not forget NHS Scotland’s policy of no compulsory redundancies, in stark contrast to the position in England, where there have been 20,000 redundancies since 2010 alone—20,000 redundancies.

However, the biggest threat to our NHS and public services is Brexit. Its effects are already being felt, even before we have left the European Union. Already, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has reported that only 46 EU nurses registered to work in the UK in April this year, down 96 per cent on July last year, when there were 1,304 applicants—and this at a time when we need to recruit nurses.

I welcome and applaud the SNP Government’s consistent commitment to our NHS and to public health. The programme for government builds on the world-leading healthcare that we deliver in Scotland. It shows a commitment to funding and to evolving what healthcare means in Scotland. It recognises the value of the healthcare workforce and it places patients at the centre of care, where they should be.

14:50  

One thing that this programme for government tells us is that the widely held view that this Government has achieved little in 10 years is really beginning to hit home and hurt. The First Minister has trawled campaign demands to concede, necessities to make a virtue of and other party’s policies to pack into a programme that is designed to give the impression of frenetic activity. Of course, while doing that, she has been sure to minimise any mention of the pursuit of independence, lest we are reminded that that is all that the past 10 years have been about. [Interruption.] I hear groans from the SNP benches, because independence is again the purpose that dare not speak its name.

In all of that, there were bound to be some things to welcome, such as low-emission zones, Frank’s law, lifting the public sector pay cap and raising the age of criminal responsibility. However, when it came to the self-declared number 1 priority—improving education and closing the attainment gap—the most remarkable thing was that there was nothing new. To be fair, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has already laid out his plans and made it clear that he intends to bulldoze them through, no matter what anyone says. We could have hoped that he had listened to sense and changed course, but no—his contribution to this debate made it clear that everyone is out of step except John Swinney.

Mr Swinney declared himself baffled by a conundrum and a contradiction: how could anyone want reform in schools, yet oppose his reforms? It is simply because they are the wrong reforms. They involve regional directors, appointed by and answerable to Government, implementing a national framework that is developed by Government and which features standardised tests that have been designed by Government and are delivered in schools whose budgets have been decided centrally by Government, with everything being overseen by a national education committee that is appointed and chaired by the education secretary himself. The real conundrum is how on earth the education secretary expects anyone to believe that that is devolution and local autonomy. It is centralised command and control.

However, the biggest contradiction at the heart of this misguided reform agenda in education was evident when the First Minister said:

“Our premise is simple but very powerful: the best people to make decisions about a child’s education are the people who know them best—their teachers and their parents.”—[Official Report, 5 September; c 13.]

She is right. However, the decision of parents, teachers and headteachers is that the Government’s reforms are wrong, misguided, damaging and unwanted. Educationists agree with that, as do the Government’s SNP colleagues in local government. Further, just as we went into recess, the Government’s international education advisers warned it against

“becoming too focussed on changing the structure of the education system when, arguably, the more important aspects are the culture and capacity within the system.”

Teachers, parents, educationists and the international advisers not only agree that the Government is barking up the wrong tree but all agree on the real change that is needed: more resource, more capacity and, above all, more teachers. That comes as no surprise, after 10 years of cuts to education. After all, this Government has spent £1.25 billion less on education during its time in office than it would have spent if it had simply maintained spending; it has 4,000 fewer teachers in schools than it would have had if it had simply maintained numbers; and every year it is spending £491 less per pupil in real terms than it did when it came to power. The programme’s only new education funding is £1 million for school libraries. That is welcome, but it amounts to around 50p per pupil per annum. That is not going to make up for £1.25 billion.

In the same way, lifting the pay cap is not going to be enough for teachers, who have seen their pay eroded by 16 per cent in real terms. Only today, we have seen research from the University of Bath that shows that teachers in Scotland have working conditions that are considered extremely poor, and that 40 per cent of teachers in our schools are planning to leave the profession within the next 18 months.

This Government has taken our teachers for granted for far too long. The truth is that making the reforms to education that we really need—restoring teacher numbers and making teachers’ terms and conditions attractive enough to solve the recruitment crisis and stop those teachers leaving the profession—would require actual boldness and ambition on tax: the richest paying a little more. Instead, the First Minister says that she will have talks about talks about tax.

We have had all this for nine years with the council tax. We had manifesto after manifesto making promises. We had cross-party commissions and cross-party consensus, but we still have the council tax. It all turned out to be a smokescreen for a Government that pretends to be progressive but hides from the hard decisions every time.

The First Minister said that she was prepared to be controversial. If by that she means pursuing education reforms with no support, no evidence, no resources and no prospect of improving outcomes, I suppose that that is controversial, in that it flies in the face of all common sense, evidence and professional advice. However, it is not what we need, and our children and grandchildren will pay the price.

14:58  

Before I say the things that I want to say, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not comment on the previous two Opposition speakers.

Miles Briggs was quite happy to specifically identify what he thinks are issues with the Government’s record. However, he would not take interventions from me or my colleague John Mason because, quite bluntly, he knew that we were going to ask him about his party’s record in its time in charge of the UK national health service, which is much worse than anything that is happening in Scotland. The UK NHS is the health service that is in real crisis. The word “crisis” is used a lot up here and down there, but the crisis in the NHS is in England, not here.

I could give a speech that was made up just of responses to Iain Gray’s speech, but I have a lot to say. I will sum up Iain Gray’s speech: “Let’s not have any change to education. Let’s just throw more money at it.” That is what he said.

Spending time in the constituency over recess is one of my favourite aspects of being an MSP, although returning here to Holyrood was going to be a pleasure—right up until I heard those last two speeches. All the same, I have never been happier to be back in the thick of it than after reading the SNP’s programme for government. It is a bold, exciting and visionary programme that we have in front of us. You can tell that from the reaction of most of our opponents. We just heard it: “This bit’s good, but you stole it from us. The rest’s rubbish. It’s not enough. How’s it to be paid for? Why only now? Blah, blah, blah.”

Yesterday, we had the Ruth Davidson and Adam Tomkins comedy double act. They told us that we should build seven new towns and thousands more houses a year than we have in the pipeline—and we are meant to take them seriously.

Folks, before they were a comedy act, they used to be magicians. Ruth was the magician and, of course, Adam was the glamorous assistant. Their speciality was to make council houses disappear. Man, they were good at it. Their only problem was that they never mastered the art of bringing them back or replacing them. Their proposed policy looks like a belated attempt to make them reappear as if by magic and, of course, at no cost.

While Ruth and Adam have been playing vaudeville halls up and down the country, this Government has been getting on with the day job—and how. The programme consists of so much that I could spend another 10 minutes just speaking about it, but I will focus on education.

Parliament may not have been sitting over the summer and the schools may only have just returned, but despite what we hear Scotland’s education sector has had much to cheer about over the past few months. I hope that everyone will join me in congratulating all pupils who sat exams this year and thanking their teaching staff and their parents for the vital support that they provide.

Scotland’s teachers, as they always do, have gone the extra mile to ensure that our children and young children leave school with great qualifications and are well equipped to progress into higher education or enter the world of work.

Will the member take an intervention?

Of course.

Mr Dornan is right: our teachers have gone the extra mile. Does he understand that, in return, they do not want his warm words—they want decent pay and conditions to do their job?

Yes. My committee, the Education and Skills Committee, has just brought out a report on workforce planning. I am confident that many of its recommendations will be taken up. Iain Gray pretends that he can get hold of a magic money tree. I do not know how many promises or wishes he made in his speech—

Will the member give way?

No.

For the third year in a row, the number of higher passes gained by pupils surpassed 150,000, and a record number of Scottish pupils earned a university place on exam results day. Those are achievements that I am sure all parties across the chamber can commend.

Since the SNP’s electoral success in 2007, I am proud that we have been able to achieve so much. There can be no doubt that Scotland is in a better place thanks to a decade of SNP Governments. The problem is that we forget just how dismal it was when we came into power in 2007. The Labour Government was in such a state that it was giving back money to Westminster because it did not know how to spend it.

The most recent programme for government is certainly the First Minister’s most ambitious yet and it is welcome that the major reforms to our education sector remain a priority.

The programme for government gives the First Minister and her Cabinet the opportunity to look forward, refocus their efforts and refresh their agenda. However, it is also an opportunity to build on the strong foundations laid in the past.

The Government can be proud that free early learning and childcare has been increased from about 400 hours under Labour to 600 hours now, which will be almost doubled to 1,140 hours by the end of this session of Parliament. We can be proud that £750 million will be invested through the attainment Scotland fund, which will drive forward improvements on educational outcomes in Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas. We can be proud that the Government has rebuilt or refurbished 651 schools, more than 250 more than the previous Administration managed. We can be proud that tuition fees were scrapped in full—not Labour-scrapped by merely shifting when the fee is paid—which can save students up to £27,000 in comparison with the cost of studying for a degree in England.

I regularly point out the doom and gloom espoused by the Opposition parties, and the past few days and the past few speeches have been no different, but I am always incredulous, and find it a wee bit sad and predictable, when those on the Labour benches moan when we speak of teacher numbers, just as Iain Gray did in his speech. Labour acts as though it is the only party to be trusted when it comes to education. However, recent events show once again that that could not be further from the truth.

Local authorities have been responsible for sacking teachers and classroom assistants. If members want any evidence of that, they need only look at the situation in North Lanarkshire. Labour—propped up by the Tories I hasten to add—was in the door two minutes when it cut 198 teaching assistants; then it comes greeting about the SNP and the Scottish Government. Unfortunately for Labour, the electorate is not stupid.

For the past 10 years, the SNP has been busy governing for the people of Scotland. I am not sure what Labour has been doing, besides holding countless leadership contests, of course.

Members should make no mistake: as the convener of the Education and Skills Committee, I know full well the challenges that lie ahead for the Scottish Government. However, I have full trust in the cabinet secretary and the major reforms that he is undertaking, and in the fact that he will take the committee’s recommendations into account.

I was delighted to meet the cabinet secretary only last week at Hillpark secondary school in my constituency to hear more about the Scottish Government’s teaching makes people campaign, which is pushing for university undergraduates and people working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics to enter the teaching profession.

As I said, the Education and Skills Committee has released a report on teacher workforce planning after hearing a mountain of evidence from teaching professionals who advised, among other things, that more must be done to attract our brightest and best to become teachers. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s views on our report once he has taken the time to consider our recommendations.

Mr Dornan, it is time to wind up. You have had seven minutes. Please wind up.

I share the Scottish Government’s ambition of creating a world-class education system in which everyone has the opportunity to succeed and the gap between our least and most advantaged children is closed. In my own view, nothing that the Parliament or Government does will ever have greater importance.

I look forward to getting back down to business with my committee. I have no doubt that this outstanding programme for government will make it more likely than not that our children will be able to reach their maximum potential.

15:05  

There is an old joke, cited since at least 1924, in which an Englishman asks an Irishman for directions. The payoff line is when the Irishman replies, “If I were you, I wouldn’t start from here”. Given the choice, I expect that, in framing this programme, the Scottish Government would not start from where 10 years of underachievement has put it—but that is where it is, and I will examine the justice elements of that programme.

I advise the member that it is all in the delivery.

Thank you, and I look forward to delivering my speech.

First is the commitment to crack down on drug driving, implementing specific driving limits for legal prescription drugs and an outright ban on illegal drugs. Good. That works and it saves lives. Since 2015, 14,000 people have been convicted of drug driving south of the border, compared with 74 in Scotland. That is, of course, an initiative from the Scottish Conservatives and I genuinely welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has listened to us.

We also welcome the move to extend the use of electronic monitoring of offenders in the community and enable the use of new technology where appropriate.

I am surprised that the member thinks that the issue of drug driving is a Conservative policy point. When we said that we would decrease the drink driving rate in Scotland, we also said that we would then turn to the drug driving rate, which is exactly what we are doing. Once it is implemented, Scotland will have the most progressive and robust legislation on drink driving and drug driving of any part of the UK.

That is precisely why I looked to welcome it and why Douglas Ross brought it up and the Scottish Government responded to it in February of this year. I was going to say that I welcome the maturity in taking on our good ideas, but I am delighted that Mr Matheson failed to show it.

We cautiously welcome the bill to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12 and align it with the minimum age of prosecution. It would be churlish to point out that Mark McDonald already announced that piece of legislation in December 2016. Indeed, more than half of the legislation proposed in programme has been announced previously.

Yet I am concerned. Why is the Scottish Government not standing up for victims? The Government could have taken the opportunity to introduce a genuine restorative justice programme to tip the balance back in favour of victims who too often experience a justice system that offers them nothing.

We also see no effort to ensure that life means life for Scotland’s most dangerous criminals. Under the current system, families of murder victims cannot rest easy knowing that the criminals are sitting in their cells, waiting for the day when they will be let back into the community. We would change that system, and we will bring forward plans for a member’s bill on the subject.

I am also concerned about the main justice headline grab in the programme, which is to extend the presumption against custodial sentences from sentences of three months to sentences of 12 months. The people of Scotland will be horrified to hear the sorts of offences that the SNP believes merit a presumption of a non-custodial sentence. The most recent figures show that more than 100 people were given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months for attempted murder or serious assault. Yes—17 per cent of those who were convicted of attempted murder or serious assault got fewer than 12 months. Under the new programme, they could escape jail altogether.

There is more.

Will the member give way?

I am afraid that I have no time.

The Scottish Government, together with Police Scotland, repeatedly states that tackling domestic abuse is a top priority, which is quite right. However, of those whom I mentioned earlier who were guilty of attempted murder or serious assault, a considerable proportion were convicted with a domestic abuse aggravation. It is bad enough for victims of crime to see their tormentor back on the streets immediately after sentencing, so how much worse must it be for a domestic abuse victim to have to let their aggressor back into the home following a serious assault? Had the proposed presumption against imprisonment been in place in 2015-16, 27 people who were convicted of sexual assault would have been spared incarceration.

The SNP may claim that community-based alternatives are robust, but a third of community payback orders were not even completed in 2015-16—and the figure is rising. The SNP may claim that its aim is to reduce reoffending through rehabilitation, but why then has purposeful activity in prisons been slashed by 300,000 hours in the past year alone?

Will the member give way?

I am sorry; I have no time to do so.

Currently, more than 1,000 prisoners in Scotland are not engaged in work or purposeful activity. That is 17 per cent of Scotland’s prison population.

The SNP does not like being accused of presiding over a soft-touch justice system, but that is exactly what is being delivered. Prison serves four key purposes: to punish criminals; to deter would-be criminals; to keep the public safe; and to rehabilitate those who have taken a wrong turning in life. Under the plans and the programme for government, three of those basic tenets have been cast aside. Choosing to empty prisons rather than use them to keep the public safe is the wrong approach, and the misguided proposals will do nothing to make Scotland safer.

In many ways, not least in justice, the programme is a tired programme from a tired Government. The Government is short on ideas and short on innovation, but long on bluster and back-bench sycophancy. Following 10 years of tears, the SNP would not choose to start from here but, thanks to losing sight of the day-to-day issues that the people of Scotland care about, it is where it is.

It is not a programme for government; it is a syllabus for soft-touch sentences.

Thank you for keeping to time, Mr Kerr.

15:11  

I very much welcome the programme for government, which has fairness, equality and ambition at its core. The Opposition parties—particularly the Tories—have failed to identify that.

I will reply to some of the comments that have been made.

I was a member of the Justice Committee, and I think that the work that has gone on in prisons, particularly with young men and on rehabilitation and trying to stop the revolving door, has been fantastic. What Liam Kerr said puts a shadow on the prison officers who mentor young men and on the young men themselves. We should be proud of what is happening just now. We want to get rid of the revolving door.

Liam Kerr used the word “rehabilitate” at the very end of his speech. It is not about trying to catch press coverage; Liam Kerr should consider the fact that we are doing a good job. If he or anyone else was doing that work to stop the revolving door for young people in the justice system and in the prisons, we should applaud that; we should not decry it.

That is not how I wanted to start my remarks. I have visited prisons, and I think that the work that is being done in them is very good. However, we can do more, and we are trying to do more.

I want to talk about the Social Security (Scotland) Bill, which will establish the first social security system in the UK based on the statutory principle that social security is a human right. We must emphasise that. Eleven benefits are being devolved to the Scottish Parliament: the disability living allowance, personal independence payments, attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefit, the carers allowance, the sure start maternity grant, funeral expenses, cold weather payments, winter fuel payments and discretionary housing payments and some powers relating to universal credit—for example, the splitting of the payment of moneys and rent. A huge bunch of powers is involved. Unfortunately, we do not have the full powers—I wish that we did.

Sandra White has just listed a whole raft of powers. When will the SNP Government start to use those powers to make a difference?

I find that rich coming from James Kelly and the Labour Party. If the Labour Party supported us on full powers for the Scottish Parliament, we would have not just 11 benefits—we would have all of them. I will therefore take no lessons from James Kelly. We will put that forward as the bill goes through. The people who are affected are quite happy about the way it is going. They have all said in evidence that things cannot be pushed too quickly because the mistakes that have been made by—[Interruption.] Labour members may laugh, but the mistakes that have been made with universal credit show that we cannot push things forward too quickly.

If Mr Kelly were to ask some of the people we have had as witnesses, he would hear that the powers that are coming will come at the right time and the right pace. It is a pity that he did not support us and instead supported the Tories with regard to Scotland having the full powers. I will not take any lessons from him.

This Government and this Parliament have the opportunity to shape a distinctly Scottish social security system with dignity and respect at its heart. As I said in reply to Mr Kelly, it is a system in stark contrast to the regime of the Tory Government-run Department for Work and Pensions.

I am the convener of the Social Security Committee, which is central to the passage of the bill. More importantly, with the commitment from the Scottish Government to include those with lived experience, service users will also shape the bill, ensuring that the services and processes are designed to deliver a system that not only is fit for purpose but has a commitment to a human rights-based approach, as I mentioned in my opening remarks.

The Scottish Government believes that people should get all the help that they are entitled to, which is why the bill includes a statutory principle that reflects the Scottish Government’s commitment to maximise people’s incomes and to encourage the take-up of all benefits.

To date, the Scottish Government has committed to increasing benefits for carers to the same level as jobseekers allowance by introducing a carers allowance supplement by summer 2018—there you go, Mr Kelly. It will deliver the best start grant by summer 2019—there you go, Mr Kelly, there is another one—to increase support for low-income families with young children. It will introduce the funeral expense assistance benefit by summer 2019 to provide critical financial support to people at a difficult time. It will improve benefits for disabled people and people with ill health and, unlike under the Tory Government in Westminster, there will be no assessments carried out by the private sector, as reiterated by the minister, Jeane Freeman, at general question time today.

The Scottish Government will also work with the Department for Work and Pensions to introduce flexibilities to the way that universal credit is paid, and I am aware that there is a meeting of the joint ministerial committee on 14 September when that issue will be discussed. There will also be grants from the Scottish welfare fund and discretionary housing payments, as well as help with heating costs and the extension of the winter fuel payment to families with severely disabled children.

Most importantly, the Scottish Government will ensure that those who need support are aware of the benefits that are available to them with a campaign to maximise benefit take-up. That is important because we can provide the benefits and support, but if there is a lack of awareness of what is available, the system will have failed.

I am running out of time, but I want to raise one more issue. I would be interested to know the view of Tory members on the United Nations judgment on the UK Government’s attacks on disabled people. The international experts on the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities delivered a series of damning attacks on the UK Government over its failure to implement the UN disability convention, and the chair of the committee told the UK Government’s delegation that its cut to social security and other support for disabled people had caused “a human catastrophe” and that it was

“totally neglecting the vulnerable situation people with disabilities find themselves in”.

That report is damning; more than that, what is happening is criminal. I would like to hear a response from the next Tory member who gets up to speak.

15:18  

It is the fight against injustice that puts the fire in my belly, so I want to highlight two areas in the programme for government in which justice campaigners have brought about change.

In 2013, my colleague Jenny Marra and I visited Amanda and Frank Kopel at their home in Kirriemuir; it was not long before Frank passed away. That visit will stay with me until I die, because we were moved by the pain of Frank’s wife and family watching their husband and father taken by Alzheimer’s, and suffering the indignity of selling cherished items from a life in football to fund Frank’s care.

The announcement on Tuesday that the issue of care provision based on age not condition will be addressed is a victory for Amanda and her family. However, they did not do it for themselves and it is too late for Frank. They did it so that others would not suffer the injustice that they suffered. I say to the health secretary that there must be no smoke and mirrors on this issue and that it must be the start of addressing the overall crisis that we now have in social care.

From the campaign to ban transvaginal mesh, I know how difficult it is to get the mainstream media to talk about issues of women’s health and wellbeing, so I commend filmmaker Ken Loach, my colleague Monica Lennon, the Trussell Trust and all the other pressure groups that have brought the issue of period poverty into the public consciousness.

Will the member also commend Gillian Martin, women for independence and many of the other people who were raising the issue some time ago? I would hate to think that he was just being partisan.

If Mr Dornan had been listening, he would have heard me commend all the other pressure groups who have brought the issue to the public consciousness. It would be beneficial if he would listen.

The programme for government completely fails on the biggest issue affecting every community in every town, which is the unprecedented and sustained attack on local services through a deliberate policy of chronic underfunding. Since 2010, £1.9 billion has been cut from our councils. We know that the Tories loathe local Government and have never believed in the public provision of services funded by our collective taxes. That is why time and again they used the law to restrict the power of councils and councillors—rate capping, the poll tax, the sale of council housing, competitive tendering, the abolition of the regional councils, surcharging and more.

We expect that from the Tories—that is why they exist. However, in recent years the SNP has exceeded even the Tories, with a centrally imposed council tax freeze, centralisation of police, fire and other services, cut after cut, and now education reforms that Michael Forsyth would not have dared to introduce.

Council revenue funding is down by 11 per cent since 2010. In West Lothian, £96 million has gone, with another £66 million to go. Midlothian Council has to cut another £42 million and the City of Edinburgh Council has to cut an eye-watering £148 million more. I have not heard a word about that from any SNP back bencher and I do not expect to.

Tens of thousands of jobs have gone already. Clare Haughey mentioned that 20,000 jobs have gone in the English NHS. That is a scandal, but it pales into insignificance when we consider the number of jobs that have gone in local government. No one on the Government side mentions that. Jobs have gone in the environmental services that keep our streets clean and in social services that support the elderly, the young and the vulnerable. Grants to voluntary groups have been cut, then frozen, then ended altogether. Education support staff are put on temporary contracts that are then not renewed. Youth work has been cut. Staff are undervalued and grossly underpaid—

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you.

I welcome the end to the pay cap, but it has to be funded and go some way to making up for the seven years of wage decline. We need new cash, because it cannot be funded through more job losses and service cuts. If a factory shuts or jobs are lost in any sector, we see a task force, the partnership action for continuing employment team and other Government support. What support have our council workers received? Absolutely nothing.

I say to the Government that that cannot go on. It breaks my heart to see the services that were built up over the years by skilled public servants and dedicated councillors of all parties being systematically dismantled. It is the oldest trick in the book: underfund services to the point where they cannot function, accuse them of being ineffective and then hive them off or expect the third sector to pick up the pieces at a reduced rate.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

All the while, poverty and inequality increase. Walk the streets of this city any morning and you will see the rough sleepers, the homeless and those with mental health and addiction problems. A £10 million fund to address rough sleeping at a time when £1.9 billion has been ripped out of council services and integrated joint boards have had their drug and alcohol budgets slashed by several times that number is a tragic insult.

Councils are the front line of the fight against poverty and health inequality. Housing, schools, mental health projects, day centres, classroom assistants, libraries, youth workers, welfare rights and social work, community centres, home care, planning, economic development and transport are all that front line. The health service fixes ill health, but those services prevent it in the first place. Those are the services that civilise our society and they are being eroded to such an extent that senior council officers fear that we are heading to a point where it will be possible only to provide statutory services. That is a damning indictment of 10 years of a Scottish Government for which rhetoric triumphs over reality every time.

15:24  

It is a somewhat sad reflection of our political culture that the position of Opposition parties is always that Government programmes and announcements are disappointing and too modest and that parties that have been in power for 10 years or more have run out of ideas and steam.

However, speaking as someone who has been an MSP since 1999, when I read the programme for government and heard the First Minister’s statement, I was genuinely very impressed. There is a sense of refresh about it and it is an ambitious, bold programme that will make a real difference when it is implemented to Scotland’s economy, social justice and—something in which I have an interest—the future of Scotland’s environment; and it will generally improve the quality of life of people living in this country. I am impressed by this programme for government.

One of the opening remarks in the programme is perhaps an understatement in that it says that

“Brexit will continue to provide the backdrop to much that we do over the next year.”

There is a danger that the way in which the Brexit negotiation go will undermine many of the good intentions that the Scottish Government has and which the Scottish Parliament shares.

As a local MSP in the north of Scotland, I of course read The Press and Journal every day of the week. I noted this morning that it had two stories about the dangers that Brexit poses to the north of Scotland. In the farming pages, under the headline “Warning over cut in migrant workforce”, Minette Batters, deputy president of the National Farmers Union—the English NFU—said:

“An abrupt reduction in the number of EU workers able to work in the UK after we leave EU would cause massive disruption to the entire food supply chain”.

The other main story on Brexit in The Press and Journal this morning said, under the headline “Aberdeen may face brain drain due to ‘Brexodus’”:

“Aberdeen is facing a brain drain of EU citizens, with almost 50% planning to leave Scotland due to Brexit, it has been claimed. The figures come from an international study from KPMG, which showed Scotland faces losing nearly 63,000 EU citizens, mostly young qualified workers with highly-demanded skills such as IT and engineering.”

I suspect that the next year or so will be overshadowed by the Brexit negotiations and their impact on Scotland.

Last week, I was very lucky to have a good briefing from the income maximisation section that Moray Council set up recently, which is helping hundreds of families across Moray, particularly some of the more vulnerable members of our society, to cope with welfare reforms and to ensure that they get the benefits that they are entitled to. I was surprised to learn that 50 per cent of the funding for that very valuable unit comes from Europe. That just shows us how EU funding—never mind the labour issues that I have just mentioned—is an issue that filtrates through to all corners of our society and makes a real difference to people’s lives.

In terms of income maximisation, I welcome in the programme for government the idea of providing a financial health check to families on low incomes because of the impact that welfare reforms are having on our society. I also welcome the new social security agency that is being set up, which Sandra White mentioned, with 1,500 members of staff being recruited to work in it. I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that not all those 1,500 members of staff are in the central belt or our main cities but that many of them work in communities the length and breadth of Scotland, particularly in rural Scotland.

It was a very welcome comment that the new social security agency will have dignity and respect at its heart, especially when we contrast that with what has been happening with the UK Government, which has just been slammed by the UN for

“grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities.”

The social security system that we set up must make life easier for people rather than harder, which is what the UK Government system is doing, and it must support claimants and not pile on the pain, as is happening at the moment.

We have an issue in Moray, for instance, whereby many people have to travel to Inverness to have their assessments carried out. Those are people who are not capable of travelling because they have, for example, anxiety problems or serious mental health issues. Anecdote after anecdote has been sent to me in the past 24 hours about the stress that people in Moray have been put under because they cannot get assessments on their doorstep. I will be raising that issue with Scottish ministers and I hope that they will put pressure on UK ministers and raise the issue with the Department for Work and Pensions.

The situation in Moray is outrageous. I have heard that people are spending money on their own fuel to take clients to assessments in Inverness because they have no way of getting there under their own steam. I had people on the phone to me yesterday from some in my local communities who are really anxious because they simply cannot make the journey. That situation is characteristic of the social security system that we have from the UK Government. I very much welcome the fact that the system that the programme for government has announced will have much more compassion at its heart.

I hope that, over the next year, the Scottish Government will put pressure on the UK Government on a host of other issues that potentially might undermine many of our good intentions in the Scottish Parliament. For example, a constituent in Keith emailed me this morning to tell me that LloydsPharmacy wants to charge him an extra £50 for delivery to his AB55 postcode of a mobility scooter for his terminally ill wife, despite the fact that the website suggests that delivery to UK addresses is free. That is another situation in which compassion is utterly lacking in this day and age. LloydsPharmacy and other companies should be delivering medical equipment free to the north of Scotland and other rural areas of the country. I urge the UK Government to get on and sort out the regulation of the exorbitant and discriminatory delivery charges that we experience in rural and northern areas of Scotland.

I urge Scottish ministers to implement the programme for government, which is ambitious and radical, but we also have to make sure that Scotland’s voice is heard in order to influence some of the ridiculous and draconian policies and decisions that are being made by the Conservative Government.

15:30  

Last year, Nicola Sturgeon came before the chamber to outline a programme for government that contained 13 bills, of which three have been passed. This year, she has presented us with 16 bills—some of them repeats—that will join the queue. The first question is: how are we to take seriously a programme from a Government that has such a poor record of delivery?

That delivery is needed. There is little more important to people than having a roof over their head, yet after 10 years of SNP Government, we have too many sleeping on the streets every night—we can see that just yards from this building. We have 5,000 children who are classified as homeless. More than 10,000 households are in temporary accommodation; many of them are in bed and breakfasts—some for as long as 18 months. That is up from last year. Of those households, more than 3,000—that is also an increase—include children. The Government has failed the most needy in society.

The Scottish Conservatives have called for a nationwide homelessness strategy. All parties, bar the SNP, have called for that. We can give a cautious welcome to having an objective of ending rough sleeping, but aiming to do something and promising to do it are very different things from delivering.

Does Graham Simpson take any responsibility for the concerns that he has raised, such as those about people who are sleeping rough and people who are in crisis? Some of that might just have something to do with the welfare changes that his Tory UK Government pushed through. I see such issues all the time in my surgery and I think that he might see some of them, too. Will he be honest in accepting the responsibility of his party’s Government for much of that?

The SNP is the Government in Scotland. The homelessness crisis has been getting worse under the SNP, which has so far rejected proposals for a nationwide policy to deal with it. What is its response to the crisis? It is to set up a focus group and a fund, but with no clear message on what it actually wants to do.

People become homeless for all sorts of reasons. Helping them is not easy and I am not pretending that it is, but why not announce something that we know works—a housing first approach? In that, the first thing that someone who presents themselves as homeless gets is a home. To achieve that, we need more homes. That is why we in the Conservatives have been looking at how to achieve that.

Last week, Ruth Davidson set out some of our ideas, such as creating a new generation of new towns, backed by a new national housing and infrastructure agency and with a minister in the Cabinet leading the charge—not that I want to promote Kevin Stewart, Presiding Officer—or the idea of unlocking land and its value to put into infrastructure by using land value capture. Radical thinking of that kind is what is needed—not talking shops, but leadership. [Interruption.]

Can we hear the member, rather than have conversations across him? Continue please, Mr Simpson.

I apologise on Mr Fraser’s behalf.

We think—and Homes for Scotland agrees with us—that 25,000 new homes need to be built in Scotland every year across all tenures, but that is not happening. If we got on and built those new towns, we would have the chance to be forward thinking and to design them in a way that meets energy reduction targets. We could set energy efficiency targets that exceed the performance of most of what is being built at the moment and design streets that work for pedestrians, cyclists and—yes—motorists. We could design in the green spaces that people want. On the subject of cyclists, I welcome the increase in funding for active travel, and I look forward to seeing Humza Yousaf at pedal for Scotland on Sunday. I hope that he is not put off by the weather forecast.

We do not just need new homes; we need to improve existing ones. Thousands of properties are standing on a condition cliff edge. We need action to help people in tenements, for example, to improve the homes that they live in. We will have more to say on that in the coming weeks and months.

Part of the answer to improving poor living conditions—which can lead to breathing problems, skin complaints, depression and marriage breakdown—is to improve energy efficiency. The announcement of a warm homes bill is not new. Such a bill was announced last year, but there is still no mention of it including measures to improve energy efficiency.

Fuel poverty affects a third of households in Scotland. Last week, I, along with Alex Rowley, Liam McArthur and Mark Ruskell—I grant that that is an unlikely alliance—wrote to Kevin Stewart. We called on him to set a date in the warm homes bill for the eradication of fuel poverty. The programme for government says that the bill will

“set a new statutory fuel poverty target”,

which is not quite the same thing.

I realise that I am tight for time. I end by saying that we need to do more to tackle homelessness. We need to build more new homes, to improve energy efficiency and to improve existing homes. The time for talking is over—it is time for action.

15:36  

A number of speeches have been made and I will respond to points that have been made, as well as make some of my own.

There have been several mentions of the new Forth crossing, which I certainly welcome, but I would like to mention the completion of the M8, M73 and M74 project, which has been a huge success and is making life much better for many businesses and individuals in my constituency and beyond.

I am the deputy convener of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, so members will not be surprised that I want to talk about the economy. First, I would like to focus on some of this week’s events.

One of the key challenges for Scotland is our lack of population growth. It is incredibly difficult to grow an economy with a static population. It was Jack McConnell who took a lead on the issue, understood it and realised that we had to tackle it. We have seen a levelling off of the previous downward decline, and the population has increased slightly in recent years. That is more than welcome, but I suggest that any Scottish Government will find it difficult to match the economic growth in England if our population growth falls way behind England’s.

That is why it is all the more disappointing this week that the UK Government has not involved Scotland in its thinking about immigration post-Brexit. As well as having an impact on individual businesses, as colleagues have said, that will affect the whole economy. As Roseanna Cunningham made clear in her speech yesterday, the economy goes much wider than what can be measured by a simplistic measure such as gross domestic product. Factors such as the environment and inclusivity need to be included. There is no point in growing GDP by 5 or 10 per cent per year if only a very few people benefit from that growth. I was therefore a bit disappointed by yesterday’s speeches by Jackie Baillie and Dean Lockhart, who both seemed to put a simplistic emphasis on GDP, even though they are on the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee and know that the situation is much more complex than that.

“Productivity” is another word that is bandied around, but there is a danger of using it simplistically. At least on the surface, reducing the number of staff in a restaurant or care home might suggest that the remaining staff are becoming more productive, but is that what we want from a restaurant or a care home? Maybe we would rather have more staff in the restaurant to provide customers with better service, and maybe we would rather have more staff in the care home to look after the residents better.

I therefore very much welcome the emphasis in the programme for government on including a wide range of factors in the economy. First, there is the use of electric or low-emission vehicles. As the First Minister said,

“we welcome innovation and we want to lead that innovation.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2017; c 18.]

The target of having no new petrol or diesel vehicles after 2032 is ambitious, challenging and exciting.

The Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee also covers energy, and a number of us were impressed by the possibilities for having hydrogen-powered vehicles as well as electric ones. Although electric cars probably have a higher profile for the time being, hydrogen should be seriously considered, as it potentially gives options for storing energy, for refuelling vehicles faster and for use within the existing gas network. Related to that is the commitment to low-emission zones in the four biggest cities by 2020, which is a big step in the right direction.

Secondly, the further work that is to be done on a citizens basic income—or a universal basic income, as some know it—is welcome. In a wealthy country such as ours, every individual and every family should be guaranteed a certain income that is unconditional. Extra income that is above the basic level can be made conditional, but I do not accept that basics such as food, clothing and shelter should be conditional on anything—surely they are essentials in a country such as ours. Ruth Davidson suggested that she would not welcome a citizens basic income, but there is support for it from right-wing parties in other countries on the ground that it removes much of the complexity of the welfare system.

Thirdly, I look forward to the paper on income tax options. That is not an easy subject, and we must be aware of what England does, because people can move around. Too big a difference between the top rates could pose a bit of a risk. We need to make changes carefully and see how people react. We also have to accept that we are limited by not having control of national insurance, which is in effect part of the income tax system and which is not really progressive at all. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and I look forward to the debate on that topic.

I turn briefly to comments that we have heard from the Conservative Party. If I have understood the Conservatives’ position correctly, they want more spending on health and education, as well as possibly in other areas, but they also want taxes to be cut. The Conservatives like to tell us that Scotland could be the highest-taxed part of the UK. My first response to that is that their position is inconsistent. If they are serious about having more staff in schools and the NHS, they must tell us where the money is to come from. Secondly, I suggest that they make a mistake in thinking that taxation is inherently bad. If Scotland has the best public services in the UK, and if that attracts families and businesses here because of our quality of life and the quality of the workforce, it can be a positive thing that our taxes are higher.

I am always interested in hearing Mr Mason’s arguments, but surely he contradicts himself. He is a member of a party that supports cutting air passenger duty—a tax—in order to grow the economy and stimulate greater tax revenues. Can he not see that his party’s stance is just a reflection of what we have been arguing on a larger scale?

One of the SNP’s strengths is that we are in government and have been repeatedly put there by the public. Another is that we are realistic and willing to take on good ideas from other places. However, we will not go to the hypocritical place where the Conservatives are, of cutting tax and increasing expenditure, or the ridiculous place that Neil Findlay described to us this afternoon, of wanting more money for everything and never knowing where it will come from.

The Conservatives confuse the overall size of the economy with how our income and wealth are shared; those two things are not the same.

Will Mr Mason take an intervention?

No—I do not think that I have time.

Mr Mason is in his last minute.

I conclude by welcoming a couple of other items that are in the programme. I very much welcome the proposals on organ donation and on rough sleeping. It is a bit rich of the Conservatives—the party of the right to buy, of selling off council housing and of sanctions—and of Graham Simpson in particular to pretend to care about homelessness.

I am happy to welcome the programme for government. We will all spend a lot of time looking at the detail of it, but for now it is sufficient that we agree that, as well as a healthy and growing economy, we want a society in which there is more fairness and less inequality.

15:44  

“Bold and ambitious”? One thing that we can all agree on is that the First Minister’s spin doctors were working overtime in the lead-up to Tuesday’s speech. The biggest surprise of my first year as an MSP is how little legislating we have done in the past year. Maybe “bold and ambitious” was less about spin than it was about the necessity to make up for a year in which we have had lots of talk but little action.

Unfortunately—and disappointingly—the speech did not match the spin. The First Minister spoke of bold action, but the detail shows that these were merely bold words. Bold ideas might have included the Greens’ citizens basic income policy or our proposals to use the Parliament’s tax powers, but all that the First Minister has done is announce that she will talk about those things. There might be bold ideas, but there is no commitment. There are proposals that we welcome, such as those on early years and the Scottish investment bank, but neither of those things is new—they have been reannounced or are being reheated.

I agree with one thing—that we certainly need bold and ambitious action in education. However, what was announced was not bold, but blinkered; it was not ambitious, but dogmatic; and instead of new ideas, we got a reassertion of John Swinney’s unpopular reforms and a commitment to keep on going regardless. His own consultation showed how widespread concern about and mistrust of his reforms is. No matter whether we are talking about parents, teachers, academics, unions or experts, Mr Swinney has struggled to find support from any of those quarters. Moreover, in the debate that has followed, it has been clear that none of the Opposition parties is willing to support his proposals. For all the Deputy First Minister’s reputation for competence, there is a danger that he will fail to pass an education bill through the Parliament.

The only potential source of agreement is from the Conservative voices across the chamber. That should come as no surprise, given the precedent for the assumptions and insights that are driving the reforms. What lies at the heart of the reforms is the logic, the dogma and the solution for schools that the Conservative Government pursued in the 1980s. With his governance review, John Swinney is simply bringing Ken Baker’s school reforms to Scotland. The centralisation of control of schools, the undermining of local accountability, the national funding of schools and the ministerial micromanagement of what is taught in our classrooms are all the hallmarks of Ken Baker’s reforms and make up the formula that the Deputy First Minister is applying to Scotland.

It was therefore odd to see Mr Swinney pick an argument with a potential ally from across the chamber—Liz Smith. He argued that his reforms had to be supported, because any reform must be good reform, and the only possible reforms were his reforms. In short, his argument seems to be one of reform for reform’s sake. He is simply out of touch.

I am interested in what the member says, because we have made it clear that we do not support quite a number of the Swinney proposals. Will the Labour Party explain whether it is in favour of the principle of reform to raise standards in our schools, given that those standards have been declining for such a long time?

There are two clear reforms that we need. First, we need reform of resources, given the declining levels of investment. Secondly, the member will be aware that, in evidence session after evidence session, the Education and Skills Committee has heard about the mistakes made by Education Scotland and the Scottish Qualifications Authority. We have seen the reams of guidance and support from Education Scotland and the mishandling of the introduction of new examinations, but both institutions have been left completely untouched by John Swinney’s reforms—indeed, Education Scotland is being placed at the heart of his reform to centralise control of the education system. If we want to look at reform, we need to look at those central institutions.

The real issue at the heart of this—I think that Liz Smith raised it on Tuesday, and we agree with the criticism—is that the creation of regional collaboratives will change our school system fundamentally. Regional directors will be appointed by the chief inspector of schools, which is a role that will report directly to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. Where will parents go if they do not agree with the annual improvement plan that the regional director will be mandated to produce? What will happen if a headteacher disagrees with the regional director? There will be no local accountability for educational policy or redress for its delivery, and headteachers will be part of a chain of command that ends at the cabinet secretary’s desk and which explicitly links the inspection regime with the local management of schools. When they disagree with the regional director, a headteacher will know only too well that—metaphorically speaking—the director’s desk sits just across the hallway from that of the school inspector.

The plans for governance are wrong-headed, but the school finance plans are downright confused. The Government is consulting on how it will fund schools; what is clear is that it wants to set budgets centrally, but what is far from clear is how that will happen. It does not matter how strenuously the denials are made either in the chamber or in glossy consultation documents—the central setting of school budgets necessitates a method of calculation that turns national priorities into local budgets. If it looks like a funding formula, sounds like a funding formula and acts like a funding formula, it is a national funding formula, and we have only to look at the turmoil south of the border to see where that leads.

It is clear that the changes are neither bold nor ambitious. They are dogmatic and are being stubbornly pursued. They are not supported by any parties in the Parliament, by parents or by teachers. Mr Swinney must stop and listen to the voices of criticism. He must change direction and stop the reforms, which are based on discredited policies from the past.

15:50  

Like many folk this week in Scotland and internationally, I was delighted by the bold and ambitious plan for Scotland that the First Minister set out on Tuesday. From lifting the public sector pay cap, to restricting the advertising of junk food, investing in active transport and the electrification of the newly dualled A9, there is plenty for the people whom I represent to welcome. This is my first opportunity to put on the record just how delighted I am at the announcement that ferry fares in the northern isles are to be reduced. That is an excellent example of the Government working for our rural and island communities and delivering on manifesto promises.

In looking to the future of Scotland, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with something Adam Tomkins said on Tuesday:

“In Scotland we are not short of challenges and we are not short of new political thinking designed to address and combat them.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2017; c 47.]

I completely agree with that. We face a unique set of challenges, such as our ageing population and our vast and rural geography, particularly in the Highlands. Those challenges will often mean that we in Scotland have to lead change rather than follow in its wake. We will have to be bold and do things that might not have been done before.

I know that that is tough for members of a conservative nature, who like things to stay the same. The First Minister was absolutely right when she said on Tuesday:

“No one has ever built a better country by always taking the easy option.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2017; c 25.]

Therefore, we will need new political thinking to overcome the challenges ahead. A prime example is the Government’s openness to ideas such as a citizens basic income, which is one of the new and ambitious ideas that is growing around the world.

One of the most powerful things that a successful Government can do is create the environment in which its people can flourish. I will talk about a project in the Highlands that demonstrates that the SNP Government has done, is doing and will continue to do exactly that. It is an award-winning project that is attracting international interest and has received a great deal of support from across many Government portfolios. It covers housing, digital innovation, health and social care, employability and skills, the low-carbon economy, caring for our veterans and business with a social purpose.

Health and social care integration will be absolutely essential. Scotland is leading the way in the UK on that and we—the people of Scotland—should be justifiably proud of that.

In common with, I imagine, everyone in this chamber, I want to grow old and frail in my own community. In the Highlands, we have been working on a way to make that happen. Fit homes have been developed as a result of a collaboration between Albyn Housing Society Ltd, NHS Highland and Carbon Dynamic, a modular-build construction company that is a private enterprise with a social purpose. That is where the green credentials and employability strand come from. Also involved at the design stage are the people who will soon live in the houses. Those people share the Scottish Government’s vision of a fairer, more equal country and have been empowered to deliver that vision in their local area and soon beyond it.

The fit homes are modular units that can stand alone or be added to existing homes. They are top-quality construction, are easy to keep warm, members will be pleased to hear, and change with changing needs. The same construction features that are going into those social houses are going into shooting lodges on the estates of wealthy folk in the Highlands nearby.

The houses are fitted with cutting-edge technology that can monitor health, thereby enabling folk to stay at home when they would otherwise be in hospital. The fit homes project is a preventative healthcare project, which can improve patient care and free up hospital beds. It was developed by innovators in the Highlands, to meet our unique healthcare challenges. It is an example of the great things that can happen when we create an environment in which people can flourish.

The project is also focusing on preventative intervention, using artificial intelligence and case-based analytics that were originally developed for our oil and gas industry. That knowledge base has been transposed into the health and care field, where the technology will enable agencies to intervene more quickly, if appropriate, and potentially prevent admissions to hospital. Moreover, through the social enterprise model, profit will be reinvested in health and care delivery.

The investment and commitment that this Government has made in enterprise and innovation and in health and social care integration, and the Government’s willingness to work across portfolios and try new things, are well established. The Government’s investment in superfast broadband infrastructure to close the many gaps that the UK Government has left, which were mentioned in yesterday’s debate, has enabled the technology that I have been describing to be developed in the Highlands.

That a social enterprise from the Highlands should be working in partnership to develop cutting-edge artificial intelligence, virtual reality and preventative health solutions, provides vision and inspiration to us all. I know that the people involved have not just UK but global aspirations.

I believe that the programme for government that was set out on Tuesday will create a better environment in which people can flourish, and will build the nation of leaders and innovators that Scotland can be. I believe that, because I see it happening already.

15:57  

I am pleased to take part in day 3 of the debate on the Government’s programme for Scotland.

I want to ensure that my constituents are part of an inclusive, fair, prosperous and innovative country.

A cultural strategy is being developed and will be published in 2018, following yet another public consultation. Culture is a driving force in our local communities and in our nation. Culture plays a central role in our attitudes, values and relationships.

My new constituency of Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire is buzzing with a vibrant and thriving culture. Summer has been jam-packed with a full programme of cultural experiences. In Selkirk, I was lucky enough to participate in the common riding from the town square up to the Three Brethren, on a coloured hireling horse called Vinny. This year’s royal burgh standard bearer, Kieran Riddell, rode proudly ahead in a spectacle of community spirit, showcasing our unique Borders identity.

Other highlights of the summer were the civic weeks in Kelso—Kelso civic week marked its 80th anniversary—Hawick, Coldstream and Jedburgh. Great traditions such as civic weeks and common ridings teach us important values such as inclusivity and acceptance, and pride in Scotland’s towns and their histories. It is fundamentally important to teach those ideals from an early age and ingrain them in our communities. Civic weeks have young people at their core; laddies and lassies are appointed as guardians of a rich tradition. What better way is there to show our confidence in and respect for the next generation than by trusting young people to honour and respect traditions that date back decades?

In advance of the year of young people, I must say that the Scottish Borders are not working for everyone. We are losing youth to the lure of the big cities. Many young people leave for university and do not return. We need to question why. The loss of some of our best and brightest because they do not recognise the Borders as a location that is professionally advantageous or a place to raise a family is the fault of this Government’s central belt agenda.

Somewhere along the line, young people start to believe that the Borders might not be the place for them and that the area can no longer satisfy their aspirations, whether those be for a warm and affordable home, a good education, support to start a business, the opportunity to gain skills, fairness and inclusivity, or simply happiness.

We have the powers to create the right environment so that young people stay in the place where they grew up, to study, to live, to work and to give back to their communities. We must also encourage leavers to return, visitors to settle and new people to come and invest. We should not forget the values and needs of those young people. Their opinion and contribution are valued and they provide us with new ideas for innovation and entrepreneurial fresh thinking.

It is all good and well encouraging people to visit, and even better for people to stay, but there needs to be the infrastructure to support that. In that respect, I look forward to the infrastructure plans being published soon. The biggest or number 1 issue that impacts the lives of people every day is slow broadband. The programme for Scotland calls for more effective development of community broadband projects. However, in my experience, community broadband provides endless bureaucratic nonsense that does little to improve broadband issues in rural constituencies. Poor broadband speeds have a detrimental impact on local economies, especially rural ones. They damage businesses, small and large, and impact on lives. Constituents contact me daily complaining of slow broadband or broadband disruption.

What representations has the member made to the UK Government with regard to improving broadband?

In fact, I wrote to Fergus Ewing, and in his response he set out his stall by saying:

“Deployment timescales and related targets will be determined through the procurement process, which will launch later this year.”—[Written Answers, 27 July 2017; S5W-10370.]

Forgive me for laying that out, but my constituents are very sceptical about what the Scottish Government is doing.

Clare Haughey might be interested to know that one constituent moved to the Borders with the promise of superfast broadband—

Will the member give way?

Can I make this point please?

Five years on, that constituent is still waiting and is now considering relocating. Is that what we want for our rural constituencies?

Kate Forbes rose—

I will give way in a minute.

You are in your last minute.

Could I have some extra time, please?

I am giving you some extra time, but it is about 30 seconds now.

It is time that rural constituencies were told when broadband is coming, and every effort must be made to ensure that it is fast. The fact is that geographical barriers still exist and rural constituencies are left behind. Rural constituencies tend to be fairly large but without adequate transport infrastructure. There are more potholes than roads, more horses than buses and a train that drops people off at a station with no link to go further.

Will the member give way?

I do not have enough time. I am really sorry.

We need sensible policies, starting with an integrated transport system that makes living, working and enjoying accessible. We need civic weeks and common ridings that people can travel to with ease and cultural attractions that are adequately signposted. Young and old, from close and afar, need to be able to access jobs, culture and tradition.

Although the programme for Scotland refers to the 7stanes mountain biking centres in the south of Scotland, it aims to introduce dedicated carriages for cycles and other outdoor sports equipment only on rural routes in the north and west. Why not on the Borders railway? Already, through oversight, the south of Scotland is being left out of initiatives from which it would otherwise benefit.

With culture at the forefront and as a driver, other parts of Scotland can share in the growth that Scotland’s cities have had. However, to do that, we need to get the basics right, such as infrastructure and housing, to keep young talent and to attract new talent.

Before I call Bob Doris, I have a couple of housekeeping matters. Mr Doris is the penultimate speaker, so I remind members that those who have spoken in the debate over the previous two days should be here for the closing speeches. If those members are in their offices watching now, they should start making their way to the chamber.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I participated in the first day of the debate and I have returned to the chamber. I see that Mr Fraser and Mr Kelly, who have been present throughout the three days of the debate, will be responding for their parties, but I can see no one on the Government front bench who was here during the proceedings yesterday. Is it competent for somebody to respond to a debate who was not present to hear it?

That is not a matter for the chair. It is a matter for the Government who it puts up to respond to debates, as you well know Mr Carlaw.

That is more time taken up. I was going to say that the front-bench speakers will now have an extra minute or so for their summing-up speeches. They are all very experienced, so I know that they will be able to speak for an extra minute without too much trouble.

16:04  

I think that Mr Carlaw was trying to buy some time so that back benchers could get to the chamber to hear my speech, so I thank him very much for that.

The programme for government is bursting at the seams with ambition for Scotland, so I would like to use my speech to highlight a number of opportunities that I feel the Scottish Government can seize in order to develop the programme further and build on what was outlined the other day.

For example, the proposed safe staffing bill will enshrine in law the principles of safe staffing in the NHS, starting with nursing and midwifery workforce planning tools. That is not a new thing; their development began in 2013. Those tools mean that we will see the correct clinicians at the correct place at the right time and at the correct staffing levels. The record number of staff in our NHS and the record funding from the Scottish Government will be underpinned with safe workforce levels that are on a statutory footing. We should all welcome that and we should all support that, but we can go further. I seek information from the Scottish Government on how workforce planning tools could be developed further in the social care sector. With health and social care integration, our care home sector should be part of an integrated approach to staffing levels and skills mix.

Every time I hear the Scottish Government talking about the five new elective centres for surgery, particularly for our older citizens, and the related £200 million spend, I really welcome that development. However, the money should be designated as community health spend, because it will be spent to enable people to stay in their houses. I think that budgeting that money as part of the acute sector spend is financially wrong because it is a community initiative, and not designating it as community health spend gives a false impression of the money that we are investing in community health.

Parliament should, of course, scrutinise the forthcoming education bill in great detail, although more localised control by headteachers, guided by the hopes, desires and needs of young people and their families, is something that we should all support. That control will be supported by local authorities and regional mechanisms, as well. Yes, we have to look at the details, but we can surely support the bill.

The key point of the proposals that have been set out is that regional directors will be in control of policy and they will be put in place by central Government. How is that compatible with the localism picture that Bob Doris has just painted?

I will say more about localism as I develop my speech, but I ask Daniel Johnson to engage with the bill rather than turn his face against it at this early stage. That is the wrong approach.

I do not recognise the funding position of Scotland’s schools that has been outlined by some of the opposition parties. It is not the position in my constituency—Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn—where an additional £3 million-plus each year will now be invested to boost attainment, and will go directly to schools through the pupil equity fund. That should absolutely be welcomed.

I want to say one final thing on education before I move on to transport. In the chamber in January 2009, when we were discussing the new national qualifications that are now in place, I raised concerns about unintended consequences in relation to the lack of an exit exam for national 4s and other qualifications. I just wanted to raise that point, given its topicality.

On the proposed transport bill, I really hope, because of my experience with First Bus Greater Glasgow, that additional powers and regulations will be given to local authorities. I genuinely do my best to build a constructive relationship with the company, but doing so is not always the easiest thing in the world. The company is very courteous and I am trying to get that dialogue going. There is, however, no consultation process whatsoever when the company decides to change or to axe a service. It would say that the four weeks’ notice that it gives to the regional transport authority is that consultation. It is not, and it is not good enough. Consultations about service alterations or cancellations must be put on a statutory basis, so I hope that that is in the transport bill, when it emerges.

I also hope that the transport bill gives consideration to coproducing routes or changing tendering rules in relation to routes because quite often, a bus company puts on a service knowing that it is socially desirable and knowing that it will lose money, but then pulls the plug on it and the regional transport authority moves in to subsidise the service. There has to be a better way of doing things. There are huge opportunities in the transport bill, and everyone in the chamber should welcome it.

I am delighted that the proposed child poverty bill has been mentioned. I am also delighted to see the £50 million fund to direct moneys not to solve child poverty but to flesh out the framework that Parliament is legislating on at the moment.

Earlier this year, the Evening Times reported that 2,000 families in Glasgow were using food banks during the school holidays. I am delighted to see that the SNP city government in Glasgow is now looking at mechanisms to ensure that every young person will be fed during the school holidays, without means testing, in community centres and schools or wherever.

However, I think that there might be an even better way of doing that. In my constituency, I see a network of football clubs, dance groups, youth clubs, drama societies, music groups, sports groups, scout groups and a variety of other vibrant organisations. They sometimes struggle for cash, but during the summer holidays, the October week and so on, they effectively offer subsidised childcare; people pay £50 and their child goes to a football camp for two weeks. Let us use some of the money that we are talking about to fund some of those organisations so that each young person, when they come to their summer holidays, their Easter break or their October week, can have a schedule of activities via the drama clubs, the football clubs, the dance groups, the youth groups, the music and sports societies and so on, and let us make sure that they get a meal while they are there. There could be a more integrated way of tackling child poverty that boosts the other educational opportunities for young people and improves their social development outwith school.

I see that I am starting to run out of time. What I have genuinely tried to do today is what most members unfortunately have not done, which is debate the Scottish Government’s programme for government. I have mentioned only a few of the forthcoming pieces of legislation in the programme. It is bursting at the seams with ideas, but most members in this chamber have sought to make party-political points rather than to engage with it. I hope that that yah-boo politics disappears quite quickly and that we come to a cross-party consensus to improve the bills and get them on the statute books.

The programme for government is ambitious for Scotland, and that is what this Parliament should be all about.

I call Richard Lyle, who is the last speaker in the open debate.

16:11  

I want to begin by associating myself with comments that have been made by my SNP colleagues over the past few days. I share their view that the programme for government is ambitious and is filled with ideas and a passion to deliver for all the people of Scotland.

There are many bills in the programme for government, but I want to focus on a number of key areas, including my subject of the week, which is the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2016-17” figures, the impact of Brexit on our economy, and the impact of planning on our desire for economic growth. Those issues of course frame my two main points, which concern our record of achievement on the economy and our future plans to deliver for Scotland.

The SNP Government has a record to be proud of on the economy, including its establishment of a highly competitive business rates regime, its extension to 100,000 of the number of business premises that pay no business rates due to the small business bonus scheme, its cutting of the business rate poundage by 3.7 per cent for all business properties, and its action to support Scotland’s trade, exports and international connections. Indeed, the SNP Government has presided over the Scottish economy’s longest period of uninterrupted growth since 2001.

I am sure that many members will have gathered by now that I am rather sceptical about the accuracy of the findings of the GERS report, particularly in the light of the answer that was given by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution in response to a question that I asked in the chamber yesterday. We have to remember that many items are involved in a country’s economic standing. [Interruption.] I am sure that there are some people who will disagree with me—I just heard some of them trying to do so—particularly those who want to continue to talk Scotland down. I believe that a review of GERS would be a welcome step forward. That view is supported by people outwith this chamber.

I remember that when, more than 50 years ago, the UK Labour Government was bankrupt, it had to go to the International Monetary Fund for a bail-out loan, and I also recall the severe balance of payments deficit that the UK had under both the Conservatives and Labour. It is funny that no one wants to talk about the balance of payments nowadays, or about the trillions of pounds of deficit that the UK Parliament now has.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I have no time.

I want to reflect on the independent review of the planning system. Planning stimulates the economy. The forthcoming planning bill will ensure that there is a greater focus on delivering the development that Scotland needs, with the infrastructure to support it. We must be proactive in bringing investment to Scotland and to our many areas that will benefit from the economic upturn that projects will bring. Whether we are dealing with large-scale building projects or housing development, we have to ensure that we develop timescales that meet the needs of local people and developers.

I agree with the desire to set out a clear view of how areas will develop in the future. If others are critical of the current planning process, they have to support the intention to speed it up. I note that one member has highlighted the delay in planning applications and I agree that that must be looked at. Yes—planning has to take account of green belt, but if we want to speed up planning and build new towns, as some people have suggested, the review should go a long way towards supporting those aims. We need a planning system that is streamlined and pragmatic, that supports innovation and development, and which encourages the growth of our communities and industries—growth that, of course, grows our economy.

We have to work with communities, businesses and entrepreneurs to provide economic growth. If we do not allocate green-belt land to build on, where will we get the new towns, houses or jobs for our population? I believe that the bill that has been announced in the programme for government will build on the recommendations of the independent review that was carried out by a panel of experts last year, and it will help to support economic growth, the delivery of houses and increased community involvement in planning decisions.

I am proud of this SNP Scottish Government. I am proud that it is getting on with the day job. It is delivering the type of forward thinking and space for innovation on which our nation will thrive.

The programme for government that has been outlined by our First Minister sets our nation on a trajectory for the coming years that will shape and pave our way to a fairer and more prosperous future for Scotland and its people. However, it should be remembered that that is set against the backdrop of Brexit and the increasingly reckless approach that is so customary of the Conservative UK Government. Indeed, while our Government acts with innovation, ambition and future thinking to grow our country and our economy, the UK Government has been found out as having no plan for Brexit and its associated negative impact on economic growth.

We now see the pound-to-euro rate slumping—the pound is nearly on a par with the euro. Over the past year there has been a massive devaluation of the pound against the euro and the dollar. Brexit paints a bleak image—so much so that some people in this Parliament want another Brexit referendum. I say good luck to them.

There is hope. Ultimately, our programme for government shines bright with hope, ambition and a desire to improve the life chances of everyday Scots, be that on the economy, for which we will deliver a national investment bank to support growth; on our investment in delivering innovative low-carbon energy solutions; through lifting the public sector pay cap—the people who keep Scotland running are the public sector workforce; and through our plans for education, justice and the environment.

The message from the debate over the past few days is clear. The programme for government that has been put forward by our First Minister—and by the SNP Government, in its 10th year in government—is one that delivers for the people and for Scotland.

Before we move to closing speeches, I thank the members who have taken heed and turned up. However, we have a rather substantial list of members who took part in the debate over the three days but are not in the chamber now. Their names have been taken down and we will decide what punishment they will have in due course. I have a range at my disposal—I have to have some fun.

16:18  

At the top of this debate on Tuesday, the First Minister rose to deliver the intent of her programme for government. She travelled some well-trodden paths of self-congratulation, but I want to recognise some measures on which she has heeded the calls of other parties and for which she should receive justifiable praise. They include the news that we shall soon pass Scotland’s own Turing’s law, and with it pardon those who were wrongfully criminalised for their sexuality; her Government’s willingness to extend the presumption against prison sentences of less than 12 months, while finally increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 12; her commitment to meaningfully consider the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the fact that she will not stand in the way of John Finnie’s efforts to end the physical punishment of children in Scotland. For those things in particular, I offer her the thanks of members on the Liberal Democrat benches.

However, for each of those shifts, significant as they may be, the debate has seen the inadequacies of her Government and the inertia that now grips it laid bare: in education, where efforts to stop our slide down the international rankings consist of the unwanted centralisation of school governance; in the continuing shambles around common agricultural policy farm payments and its impact on the rural economy, which, as my colleague Mike Rumbles was right to point out, received not one line in the First Minister’s statement; and in a health service that is missing targets and is desperately short of staff in nearly every discipline.

It is on the health service that I shall focus the remainder of my remarks, if you will permit me, Presiding Officer. There is no higher test of Government than the provisions that it makes for the needs of its citizens when they fall ill. We are all dependent on the NHS from our first day to our last. As such, its stewardship is the alpha and omega of public service delivery. However, over the summer, we have seen the true mettle of Government’s efforts on that agenda and it has been found wanting.

For yet another cycle of parliamentary business, the rhetoric of this chamber to give mental health parity with physical health has not been matched by action. The excoriating reception for the delayed mental health strategy has been underscored by the equally pressing reality that there is no replacement for the suicide strategy that expired last December, despite our learning over the summer of an 8 per cent increase in people taking their own life in this country.

In child and adolescent mental health, we see young people like my constituent Dan McGregor forced to wait nearly a year for treatment. That alone is a national outrage, yet the number of children under 18 being prescribed antidepressants has doubled since 2010 because of insufficient provision of talking therapies.

In workforce planning, GPs’ surgeries in our nation’s capital are closing shop for want of partners, while half of all nurses told the Royal College of Nursing that staffing shortages had led to patient care being compromised on their previous shift. The safe staffing bill—this Government’s response to that crisis—has been criticised by the sector for only paying lip-service to patient care. It will do nothing more than enshrine workforce planning tools in law. Those tools are already mandatory, yet they fail to deliver the staffing levels and skill mix required to meet patients’ needs.

The failings of the Government’s drug strategy can be measured out from cradle to grave. In the past three years, more than 700 babies were born with neonatal abstinence syndrome and required immediate rehab. In August, we learned that nearly 900 people died in drug-related circumstances last year; David Liddell, chief executive of the Scottish Drugs Forum, described that as

“a national tragedy that requires a fundamental rethink of our approach.”

Put simply, that statistic on drug-related mortality sets us apart as the worst performing country in the European Union. Ask any expert and they will say that there is a causal relationship between this Government’s 23 per cent cut to drug and alcohol services and that tragic human cost. That is an index of shame for this Government.

It would be all too easy for me, as an Opposition member, to point out where standards are falling and this Government’s inadequacies of command. As we move forward into this year I will provide and offer radical and constructive solutions, such as a doubling of child and adolescent mental health services funding, a talking therapist in every GP surgery, a penny on income tax for education to restore funding to our nurseries and schools and for college places, and the immediate restoration of funding to our drug and alcohol partnerships.

At the end of her statement, the First Minister described the kind of Scotland that she wants to build. I do not think that a soul in this chamber doubts her integrity or does not share much of that same ambition, but we will never be the best place to grow up if our kids can get a better education south of the border or while kids in crisis can wait up to two years for mental health treatment. We will never be the best place to be cared for when we fall ill if people cannot get a doctor’s appointment and patients have to wait hundreds upon hundreds of days for hospital discharge. We will never be the best place to grow old while our senior citizens cannot access the care packages that they need to live independently.

This debate traditionally sets the tone for the year ahead, so in the spirit of consensus I reiterate our thanks to the Government for heeding the calls of my party, and of others, in the areas that I have described. I reach out to the Government in all sincerity in the hope that we can work together, so that it might not only take responsibility for the failures identified, but listen to the plurality of solutions that come from the members on other benches in this chamber.

Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton.

I call John Finnie to close for the independents. You have up to seven minutes, Mr Finnie.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, but I am closing for the Green Party.

I beg your pardon. Hush my soul. I am historically correct but wrong.

16:25  

I welcome many of the announcements in the programme for government. For example, we are very pleased that the public sector pay cap is to be scrapped. However, we need to realise that expectations will need to be managed as there is a requirement to deliver on years of lost income for valued public servants.

Part of the discussion that we need to have is about tax powers, and the Scottish Green Party should be counted in on that discussion. Two years ago, we proposed using the new tax powers to cut taxes for people who are on lower-than-average incomes and to raise taxes for those who are on higher-than-average incomes. That is more progressive than the across-the-board rises that others are proposing, and it is entirely about making Scotland fairer and raising funds for high-quality public services. We will be happy to engage with others on the issue. However, we have one plea. Let us be creative with those powers rather than just making tweaks to a system that we have inherited from the United Kingdom Government. Last year, we got the Scottish Government to cancel a tax cut for higher earners, so let us see if we can go much further this time.

It has been suggested that this is the greenest programme ever. Time will tell, but in the interim, the Scottish Green Party will scrutinise. We recognise that we have no monopoly on environmental issues and we welcome the growing consensus that the planet faces significant challenges and that collaborative working is required.

Many of the First Minister’s announcements have the potential to mitigate climate change but, as ever, the devil is in the detail of, for example, the finances behind each of the announcements, the policies that will be developed, the way in which those policies will interact, their overall direction of travel, and their review and assessment.

I will talk about some of the policies individually. The phasing out of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032 is to be welcomed, as is making the A9 Scotland’s first fully electric enabled road. If that is the plan, let us start from the north and head south from Thurso for once. It is a good ambition but, given the fact that many of the manufacturers are stopping making petrol and diesel engines, was it not going to happen anyway?

Shifting to electric cars can help to reduce air pollution and climate change emissions, but it will not tackle congestion. Investment in our railways, buses and bike lanes will do that. The programme for government says that the electric superhighway sends an important signal on the future of motorised transport in Scotland. It certainly does—it sends the signal that the motor car is still king.

There is a similar push to electrify the railway that runs alongside the A9. The Scottish Government had an aspiration to electrify all the lines between Scottish cities by 2030. Next year, the Highland main line will get refurbished high-speed trains. I spoke to a rail expert about that and he described them as diesel guzzlers. Surely that situation cannot go on beyond 2030, because those trains will be more than 50 years old.

We welcome the doubling of funding for active travel to £80 million from 2018-19 but that, of course, reflects the previous underinvestment and should be compared with the annual £150 million subsidy that the Scottish Government plans to give the most polluting form of transport by cutting the air departure tax. A cut for aviation will increase inequalities, which is entirely inconsistent with the Scottish Government’s commitment to social equality. Aviation is used disproportionately by those in higher income groups, and 70 per cent of all flights in the UK are taken by the wealthiest 50 per cent of the population.

In contrast, people on lower incomes depend disproportionately on buses, walking and cycling, and the recent Scottish budget saw spending frozen on those modes of transport. To put the £150 million into perspective, it is almost three times the total support for buses through the bus service operators grant. We welcome the extension of the bus fund, but it is quite apparent that the Scottish Government has low expectations for buses. Indeed, our transport minister recently said:

“Our own survey data shows that the proportion of bus journeys undertaken in rural areas is significantly lower than that of urban areas. As such, currently in rural areas there can be limited capacity for mode shift to bus.”—[Written Answers, 14 March 2017; S5W-7631.]

There is no reason to believe that that is a limiting factor in modal shift. Rather, it is a recognition of the shortcomings in the quality of transport in semi-rural and rural areas. However, the Scottish Government’s position was that it did not envisage growth in bus use. I hope that the new approach signals a change.

On the innovation fund, the £60 million to deliver wider low-carbon energy infrastructure solutions for Scotland is very welcome. It will, of course, take a lot of energy in every respect to deliver on that. A bill is coming up on planning, which the Green Party maintains a keen interest in. There are opportunities to reflect some of the policy announcements in the decisions that are taken on that bill.

I turn to the ScotRail franchise contract. We welcome the cross-party engagement. The Scottish Green Party’s call is unequivocal: we want to see rail nationalised. Although that is not presently possible, we would like the service to act like ferries in serving our communities, not shareholders.

Low-emission zones in the four largest cities are very welcome. That announcement is maybe an example of Green pressure bearing fruit. My colleague Mark Ruskell led a debate on the issue earlier this year and has asked questions at First Minister’s question time on it. Of course we welcome the creation of four zones in the cities, but there are 38 pollution hotspots across Scotland in a number of areas, including in Inverness, which is my home town. There must be consultation. In the consultation that is going on, the Scottish Government must consider the funding options and it must jointly fund with the local authorities.

The advisory group on reducing waste, the possible levy on coffee cups and the deposit return scheme are good.

On what is missing, a Government that allowed dogs to be mutilated could have offset that shameful episode by having a complete ban on fox hunting and closed-circuit television in abattoirs.

The announcement on a human rights advisory group is very welcome.

The position on education is unacceptable. In addition to a reform of school governance, the plans include

“a comprehensive review of how local decisions are made and how local democracy is working”.

Education is a huge part of local government, and if the Government proceeds as planned, local democracy will not work. I ask the Government to listen to the range of voices on that.

Finally, I welcome, of course, the announcement on care for under-65s with degenerative illnesses. I hope, like the cabinet secretary, that Westminster will not claw back the benefits.

The presumption against custodial sentences of 12 months is very positive, but Conservative colleagues would do well to understand the intention and that sentencing judges have autonomy. Sheriffs must, of course, have confidence in alternatives to custody. The £20 million for drug and alcohol services has to take into account the moneys that have been lost.

Please close.

I thank the Government for the support for the proposed bill on equal protection from assault for children. I hope that it does the same for my colleague Mark Ruskell’s proposed 20mph limit bill.

I give my apologies again to the Green Party. That was a lapse.

16:32  

I welcome the opportunity to close this debate on the programme for government on behalf of Scottish Labour.

There has been a bit of an up-and-down atmosphere over the past three days. Perhaps people are still getting over their summer holidays. We do not need a postcard to know where the SNP has been on its summer holidays: it has been on a fishing expedition, looking through the manifestos of the other parties in order to pinch ideas for its programme for government.

We welcome the fact that the pay cap will be ended—after the SNP had voted against ending it—and that there will be an organ donation bill, legislation on which was piloted by Anne McTaggart in the previous session. We also welcome the fact that there will be progress on free access to sanitary products in universities, colleges and schools. My colleague Monica Lennon brought that issue to the fore, particularly through the publication of her proposal for a member’s bill.

We welcome all those initiatives, but the programme for government is characterised by a real lack of ambition and particularly by a lack of any demonstration that the Government wants to use the new powers that have been handed down to it. [Interruption.] I say that to Mr Swinney. It is an absolute scandal that in modern Scotland we have 260,000 children in poverty. The figure has risen by 70,000 in the past five years under the SNP’s watch. Although the £10 million fund is welcome, it is simply not enough to address the scale of the problem, particularly when the SNP has had more powers passed on to it.

We had 40 minutes from the First Minister. We heard about the rehashed education reforms, but we did not hear about the anxieties of parents and teachers who have had to look at a school system with 4,000 fewer teachers and 1,000 fewer support staff and watch standards begin to plummet as a result of the lack of investment and resources from the SNP Government.

We welcome the action on rough sleepers, but we get the impression that the Government does not realise the scale of the crisis in housing. There is an element of complacency, which is not surprising, as the Government underspent the housing budget by £20 million last year.

Will the member give way?

Not at the minute.

That was despite the fact that there are many thousands of people on the waiting lists for housing.

The other thing that characterised the debate on housing was the contribution by the Scottish Conservatives, as housing is their new big idea. We heard from Ruth Davidson and Adam Tomkins on that. It was galling for me to hear those speeches as I thought about how the Tories ran down the housing stock in the 80s and 90s and made savage cuts to local government funding so that local councils could not replenish the housing stock. Unfortunately, when the Tories returned to power in 2010, they pursued a welfare programme that drove too many people on to the streets to sleep rough. Their words on housing come with a complete lack of credibility.

Mr Kelly mentioned welfare. Will he apologise to members for his Labour Party colleagues in the House of Commons voting with the Conservatives for further austerity measures?

Perhaps Mr McMillan should apologise to the people of Inverclyde for voting through a budget that cut £160 million from council services.

We heard from many SNP back benchers during the debate. They seemed to gloss over the reality of what is happening in Scotland. We can perhaps excuse some of the younger members—rumours of a reshuffle continue to abound, so, obviously, they want to get into the First Minister’s good books. Their mentions of a programme that is bursting with ambition really meant, “Please, First Minister, can you give me a job?”

However, we cannot excuse the most senior members of the SNP. Stewart Stevenson trumpeted the SNP’s great record on climate change, but failed to mention the fact that the Government plans to reduce air departure tax by 50 per cent, which will not only take £189 million out of the budget but undermine the Government’s target to reduce carbon emissions.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I will not. I am running out of time.

If you wish to, Mr Kelly, you can.

No, I want to get on to Keith Brown, who seemed to completely ignore or was oblivious to the low-pay nature of the economy. As Alex Rowley said, there are 71,000 zero-hour contracts in Scotland and there are 466,000 people who are still not being paid the living wage, two thirds of whom are women. That is an absolute scandal.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry. I would, but I have already gone beyond my time.

The real test for the SNP Government will be the budget bill. That is when we will see whether the SNP is prepared to put its money where its mouth is and back up the warm words in the programme with actual action that not only scraps the pay cap but preserves jobs and services and addresses the needs of Scotland’s communities.

16:40  

It has been a long debate, which I will do my best to wind up in the time that is available to me. I echo the tributes that a number of colleagues across the chamber have paid to Kezia Dugdale. Being the leader of a political party is a great responsibility, and she served her party with great vigour and commitment. I am sure that we all wish her well in the future.

We now have what has become an almost annual fixture in the parliamentary calendar—the race to be the next Scottish Labour Party leader. It is remarkable that, of the 23 current Labour MSPs, no fewer than nine have been leader, deputy leader, acting leader or a candidate for one of those positions. That is 40 per cent of the entire Labour leadership in the Scottish Parliament—such a lot of leadership, but so little to show for it.

Would the member care to reflect on how many times he has tried but failed?

Only the once, but we stand in awe of Ms Baillie. Why has she not put her name forward? She would be the people’s choice to lead the Labour Party. I say to her and the 13 other Labour MSPs who have not yet stood for leadership, “Don’t worry—your turn will come along soon enough.”

The three days of debate have been about the Scottish Government’s programme for the coming year. As my colleagues have pointed out over the past three days, we will support aspects of that programme. We welcome the easing of the public sector pay cap, although we await the detail of that proposal. We welcome aspects of education reform, which are bringing in Conservative ideas—of empowering headteachers and involving parents more—that my colleague Liz Smith has talked about for years. We welcome plans to implement Frank’s law, which my colleague Miles Briggs has campaigned for, alongside many others, to extend dementia care to those who are below retirement age.

However, in too many other areas, the programme has the wrong priorities or fails to meet expectations. Let us take what was said about the economy, which the First Minister indicated earlier in the summer would be a priority for the Scottish Government. On the very day that she stood to read out her programme for government, we learned that Scotland has slipped in the UK’s prosperity rankings and now stands at ninth place among UK nations and regions, compared with seventh in 2015. According to Barclays wealth and investment management, only Wales, Yorkshire and Humber, and the north-east of England have poorer-performing economies than Scotland. Today, the Clydesdale Bank and Yorkshire Bank published their small and medium-sized enterprises health check, which showed that the health of SMEs across the UK is at its highest level for 18 months. That is good news, but Scotland lags behind the UK average.

The need for action on the economy is greater than it has ever been before. However, rather than bold action, what we see is a mishmash of proposals, reannouncements of ideas that are already in train and a rehash of old ideas.

One of the centrepieces of the Government’s programme for the economy is the creation of a Scottish national investment bank. In welcoming that on Tuesday, Ruth Davidson said that it had first been announced in May 2013. Ms Davidson was being uncharacteristically generous to the SNP. I checked and when I looked back at that fine newspaper The Courier, I read this report:

“The Scottish government has earmarked £150 million to establish a Scottish Investment Bank, First Minister Alex Salmond said yesterday at the STUC Conference.”

That report is not from 2013 but from 22 April 2009—eight years ago. Eight years later, the project is finally being taken forward.

I hope that progress is faster than it has been on some other much-vaunted Scottish Government initiatives. Last year at this time, the First Minister announced the creation of a Scottish growth scheme to give a £500 million boost to Scottish business. Half a billion pounds was to be invested in the Scottish economy. Here we are, 12 months later, and how much has been paid out of that half a billion pounds? Not one penny to support the Scottish economy. This is a Government that must do better.

The SNP Government has also told us that it will take forward the recommendations of the Barclay review and that we will hear more about that from the finance secretary next week. However, is it not interesting that two of the headline proposals from the Barclay review—reducing the large business supplement back to the UK rate and reintroducing a tax break for new premises that lie empty—simply reverse the policy choices that the previous finance secretary made, which have been shown to be serious errors? This is an SNP Government that is having to spend its time mopping up its previous mistakes.

Where is the money to be raised from to pay for all that? If the Scottish Government follows the Barclay review recommendations, the money will come from charging charitable bodies that provide sports and leisure facilities. Sports clubs, local authority swimming pools, leisure centres and gyms will all be hit with rates bills, which will mean that they have to put up their charges for those who want to swim or exercise. How that squares with Scottish Government policy on encouraging more active lifestyles and tackling obesity is lost on me.

Rather than a speech that addressed those concerns, what we were treated to yesterday from the economy secretary was a bizarre rant in which he claimed, in a speech that was laden with errors, that no one in the Conservative Party had acknowledged the opening of the Queensferry crossing. I do not know where he was on Monday, but he must have missed all the pictures and comments from all of us who were privileged to be at the opening of the crossing, and he must not have been listening on Tuesday to my colleague Jackson Carlaw, who talked for about three minutes on the Queensferry crossing and his contribution to that process as the convener of the parliamentary committee involved. The SNP Government hears only what it wants to.

The Queensferry crossing was not the only engineering marvel from Fife this summer, because there was in addition the magnificent new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. Where was the Scottish Government press release, where were the tweets and where were the selfies taken with the workers at Rosyth or Govan? Not a peep was heard from the Scottish Government about that. The First Minister acknowledged the aircraft carrier only when I shamed her into it at First Minister’s questions before the recess. That is the difference between the Scottish Government and the Conservative Opposition, because we on these benches celebrate all Scottish successes, while those on the Government benches celebrate only the successes that are stamped with the letters “SNP”.

Rather than having me judge the SNP’s programme for the economy, we can look at what businesses are saying. The Scottish Retail Consortium and the Federation of Small Businesses have raised concerns about the proposed deposit return scheme and said that it lacks a detailed business impact assessment. They are concerned about progress on the provision of superfast broadband, but their greatest concern is about what is proposed for income tax, as there is a clear hint from the First Minister that the SNP is about to create even greater tax differentials between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Nothing could be more damaging to growing our economy than making Scotland the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom.

We can support aspects of the programme for government, but too much of it focuses on the wrong priorities. Whether it is stopping sending serious offenders to jail, as Liam Kerr indicated, hiking taxes or dragging its feet on economic reforms, this is an SNP Government that is heading in the wrong direction. It might think that the programme for government is a relaunch that sets it on the right track, but even nationalist commentators are not convinced by the Government’s record. Writing recently in The Guardian, the commentator Kevin McKenna, who is a supporter of Scottish independence, said this of the SNP Government:

“On health, education, taxation and on its attitude to Scotland’s hard-pressed SME sector, the SNP had 10 years underpinned by large majorities to reverse generations of decline. They opted instead for an easy life when they could have been bold; they blew it.”

If that is the judgment of nationalist commentators, the SNP Government can hardly expect us or, indeed, the Scottish people to be more generous in our support. It is a Government that must do better.

16:49  

I confess that while listening to Murdo Fraser’s closing remarks, I thought that starting off by talking about electoral success was not a strong hand for Mr Fraser. My colleague John Swinney has a mantelpiece with more Murdo Frasers on it than he knows what to do with, given Mr Fraser’s electoral pedigree. [Laughter.] Mr Fraser is not best placed to give anyone at all advice on how to succeed in elections.

On Tuesday, the First Minister set out a bold and ambitious programme for government. It is a programme that recognises the significant achievements of the past ten years and is ambitious for the future of our nation. It recognises Scotland’s place as an outwardly focused global contributor that is committed to human rights and to protecting the environment that we cherish and in which we live.

Creating that inclusive, fair and prosperous society requires our public sector organisations to play their part in delivering a more socially just Scotland. This afternoon’s debate has focused on public services, which are at the very heart of what we want to achieve with our programme for government.

When my colleague Shona Robison opened the debate, she highlighted some of the challenges that we face in our NHS. There can be no part of our public sector that struggles more with having to face up to the changing nature of our society—including the demographic changes of which we are all aware, advances in medicine and treatment, and changes that we need to make in how we will deliver NHS healthcare in the future. As Clare Haughey highlighted in her speech, which focused on our NHS, that is not just about structural reform or renaming services; it is about fundamentally changing how our NHS and health services are delivered.

A key part of what we have done, as a Government, has been the integration of health and social care. People talk about integration of health and social care now and dismiss it as though it can be taken for granted. Anyone who has worked within the NHS or social care will know that integration of health and social care has been the holy grail for ensuring the delivery of more effective services to the people of Scotland. That is also the case across the rest of the UK. England and Wales continue to struggle to deliver integrated health and social care, which has largely been undermined by the ever-creeping privatisation of the NHS there.

We have made major strides in how we integrate our health and social care system here in Scotland, which will deliver real change to the way in which services are delivered to the people who require them. That is an example of reform and change in the way that we deliver our health and social care system. As someone who worked in that sector, I know exactly the difference that it is making and how services are being developed today.

The First Minister also set out in her statement on Tuesday our ambitious plans for our education system, including strengthening it by closing the attainment gap, by setting out radical reforms for education governance, by giving headteachers new powers and responsibilities and, importantly, by strengthening the voices of the teachers, children and parents who are at the very heart of our education system.

A number of members who spoke today about public services made reference to social security—in particular, the creation of the new social security agency. Our agency will work very differently from the callous approach of the Conservative Government at Westminster. We will have a social security agency that is based on fairness, dignity and respect—all three of which are missing from the welfare system in England that is being run by the UK Government.

To set out our ambitions compared with the UK system, making sure that our system has fairness, dignity and respect at its heart, the first benefit that will be paid from it will be the carers allowance, which will support carers to make sure that they can continue making their important contribution to our society.

To build on that, the first new benefit that the new agency will pay will be the best start grant, which will help to support mothers and babies at the key point when they need financial assistance. That exemplifies our ambition to have a better welfare system in Scotland, which we will ensure treats those who have to make use of it with dignity.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I will give way to Mr Rumbles once I have finished my point.

It is difficult to listen to Conservative members talking about rough sleepers without acknowledging the callous actions of their Government in London and the damage that it is doing to individuals and communities through its cuts to welfare provision in our society. There can be no MSP who has not had a constituent in tears over the way they have been treated by the welfare system that has been created by the UK Government. We should not just dismiss the United Nations report that talks about the humanitarian crisis that has been created by the changes that have been made to the UK welfare system. Before coming here to lecture us about tackling rough sleepers, the Tories should look at themselves in the mirror and recognise the damage that they are doing to people day in and day out through their Government’s callous actions in cutting welfare provision.

The cabinet secretary has made some very important points with which I agree. However, in her statement, the First Minister said nothing at all about the rural economy and the problems that it faces, one of which is the problem with farm business payments throughout rural Scotland. The cabinet secretary has a few minutes to address that issue, so I ask him to do so, because there are many people out there waiting for it to be addressed.

If Mike Rumbles cares to look at the programme for government, he will see that we are implementing a range of measures to support our rural communities and our rural economy. We will continue to progress ambitious plans to support our rural communities and our rural economy.

I turn to justice issues, and to the rather bizarre suggestion that it was the Conservative Party that came up with the idea of drug-driving tests. The reality Is that the drug-driving test was proposed in the independent North report. Scotland is the only part of the UK that is fully implementing it, to make sure that our roads are safer.

I turn to the presumption against short sentences. At times, listening to the Conservative Party on justice matters is like listening to someone reading out a Daily Mail editorial. As the international and domestic evidence shows, short sentences are very ineffective in tackling offending behaviour.

In Scotland, we have got reoffending down to an 18-year low. Why is it down? It is down because we have increased the use of community disposals. We want to build on that and use the evidence that demonstrates the significant impact that the use of such disposals can have. In doing so, we will reduce both the risk that a person will commit further offences and the risk of people being victims of crime. We have listened to the views of victims. That is why, before extending the presumption against short sentences, we will—with Parliament’s support—make sure that all the provisions in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill are implemented.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

My time is limited and I want to make further progress.

Another piece of legislation that has not been mentioned—I particularly regret Alex Cole-Hamilton’s failure to mention it, given his background—is the proposed vulnerable witnesses and pre-recorded evidence bill, which will allow us to increase provision of pre-recorded evidence. Why is that important? It is important because it will give us the opportunity to take children out of our court system. It will allow us to make sure that we can fundamentally alter the experience of children who have suffered traumatic abuse and the way in which they engage with our justice system. Last week, I went to Iceland to see the barnahus model in action. It is inspirational. We are determined to bring it to Scotland. We want to reform the way in which our justice system works for our children and young people and vulnerable witnesses. The proposed bill will help us to achieve that.

This Government has a strong track record over the past 10 years of fundamentally reforming our public sector, building on the progress that we have made through reforming our laws and making sure that we build a strong economy here in Scotland. It is a Government that is committed to creating a socially just and progressive Scotland, and this programme for government is ambitious and bold and will take this nation forward over the coming year.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes our debate on the Scottish Government’s programme for government 2017-18.