Speech on Housing Scottish Parliament 1 May 2005

The intention of my amendment is to get the Government to focus on taking responsibility for its actions and delivering a housing strategy worthy of the name.
It is most unfortunate that the Government makes assertions with no evidence whatsoever.
We should be focusing and developing policy on a huge range of housing issues, such as affordability, homelessness and the needs of disabled people, but we are stuck with a Government that is more interested in spinning headlines than taking action.

Over the past eight years, we built a real consensus around the key issues and built 36,000 houses for social rent, but we now have a minister who will not even tell us what his target is, and who claims that his £25 million will go some way to addressing need.

It is depressing that with this Administration we get assertion rather than action and headlines rather than creative solutions.
Despite being instructed to do so, it cannot even say whether the £2,000 first-time buyers grant is in or out—it cannot say yes or no to that.
Perhaps the minister will address that in his summing up.
What is the Government's strategy? Despite the spin, Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged the role of housing associations in providing affordable houses, which will remain central.
I am therefore at a loss to understand the distinction that the Government makes between council housing and housing that is built by housing associations and co-operatives.
It is meaningless to say that we built only six council houses, given that we built 36,000 houses of a high standard for social rent.
Despite what the Government says about supporting housing associations, the evidence is that there are going to be significant cuts to HAG.
There is uncertainty in the sector because the minister will not even tell us what the allocations are. Housing associations are fearful of the consequences.
They will have to borrow more at a time of volatility in the private markets, they will have to put up rents, they are unable to plan and they fear that development programmes will be halted.
At the same time, the key strategy of the Government's "Firm Foundations" document, which has been widely criticised, is to drive efficiencies into housing associations—with no evidence about where the inefficiencies are—with a single developer model, which I am sure the minister will acknowledge has been criticised by the people who responded to the consultation.
The minister has managed to create the impression that the sector that has been most successful in terms of housing strategy for the past 30 years has been living off the fat of the land.
The Government is attacking the key element of the housing association movement, which is community ownership.
I understand that the Government needs to address the discomfort of its own back benchers, given that £260 million is going unconditionally to businesses and that the Government is going to drive efficiencies into the housing association sector.
We hear all the nonsense about the £25 million. In the last year of the previous Executive, £501 million was spent on addressing affordable housing issues.
The £25 million is a nonsense.
It cannot go to the local authorities that the SNP urged to vote against stock transfer, because of housing debt.
The money is going to be top-sliced off HAG and redistributed to areas that do not have the greatest housing need.
The reality is that the Government is committed to not addressing the key issues of affordable housing and to keeping its own back benchers sweet.
A moment's scrutiny shows that it is not doing what it is claiming to do on the right to buy.
At the same time, it is flat-lining budgets for community regeneration and wider action.
The Government is paralysed when it comes to making the hard decisions and addressing the real problems.
It is settling for easy headlines that a moment's scrutiny shows to be nonsense.
I move amendment S3M-1812.3, to leave out from "the failure" to end and insert:
"that, following the parliamentary debate on 20 March 2008, ministers have not yet reported to the Parliament on the future of the £2,000 first-time buyers grant, despite the Parliament agreeing that they should, regrets that ministers have not yet reported to the Parliament on how the Scottish Government plans to respond to the consultation on Firm Foundations which identified serious criticisms of the Scottish Government's approach to housing; notes the critical role of housing associations and housing co-operatives in delivering affordable homes for rent; condemns the Minister for Communities and Sport for not yet announcing the allocation of Housing Association Grant, and reaffirms its view that the Scottish Government has no coherent housing strategy."

Trump planning application Speech in the Scottish Parliament 24 April 2008

I shall try and restore some calm to the chamber, because there are significant issues to address.

I shall do that by starting with a concession to the SNP back benchers: the committee does not believe that there is evidence that Alex Salmond should be huckled off to the pokey.

I do not know whether that is a terribly strong position for the Government to be in, but no one is pretending that the law has been broken.

The issue is the quality of the judgment of the ministers involved in the process and the consequences that that has had.

Members can rubbish the debate as much as they wish, but the fact is that serious people outside the chamber regard these matters as being of national significance and as having serious consequences.

We must listen to those people.

It was important for the committee to take on this job.

We know that we have a First Minister who plays the person rather than the ball.

We also know that we have a First Minister who resists answering any questions and is keen to blame everyone else for everything that happens on his watch.

However, it is deeply depressing that that now seems to be elevated to a Government strategy.

The role of committees in scrutinising the work of the Executive is a crucial part of Parliament's work and ought not to be rubbished as a waste of time.

The day may come when SNP back benchers find themselves a spine and discover that a committee is a place to hold the Executive to account, even if it is their own Government.

Can members imagine the hyper-outrage of the SNP if, in previous years, there had been any suggestion that we ought not to ask questions or hold inquiries?

However, that was then, and this is now.

The reality is that the public are interested in the inquiry. Kenny Gibson welcomed it, and who could forget Alex Salmond bouncing into the committee to claim how delighted he was to be there?

He was slightly less delighted when we suggested that perhaps his judgment was being called into question and he is slightly less happy now that he has discovered that he has to respond to a serious report about his behaviour.


The Government likes administrative devolution and hates parliamentary scrutiny; it does what it can without accountability to the Parliament.

It refuses to make statements, even when instructed to do so by the chamber.

Government ministers are serial offenders, but I say to them that accountability goes with the territory.

The performance by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change in responding to a serious report gives me grave cause for concern.

The central charges of the report are that the actions of the First Minister were "unwise and inappropriate" and that the actions of Mr Swinney were in danger of imperilling the development.

Taken together, their actions send out the message to big business that it can have preferential access, that planning is for the little people and that the normal rules do not apply to it.

I will not allow others in the chamber to misrepresent this issue as a divide between those who are pro-development and those who are against it or between those who are pro-business and those who are not.

It is about how our planning system works and how it can support, develop and acknowledge the role of local communities in shaping those developments, which is clearly not easy.

The key issue, which the First Minister himself accepted, is that the action of ministers has to pass the perception test.

The feature of the challenges that the First Minister accepted was about the perception of his role. As has been alluded to already, our former First Minister was challenged on the perception of his role in this development—indeed, he was challenged on the perception of who he chose to go on holiday with.

Everyone accepts that the perception test applies, so let us apply the perception test, as proposed by Nicola Sturgeon in the past.

Imagine a First Minister—who accepts that he has never done such a thing in his life before, and who was not on ministerial business and was not in his constituency—arriving somewhere in a ministerial car to meet, at short notice, following a decision of the local authority, representatives of the Trump Organization.

He discusses matters with them, phones the chief planner and hands the phone over.

A meeting is set up and, subsequently, a one-in-a-million decision is made.

I have to say that, by this point in the imaginative exercise, Nicola Sturgeon would have been in the stratosphere.

However, that was then; this is now.

The First Minister's defence is that he was taking a precautionary approach.

If that is the First Minister being cautious, heaven help us when the day comes when he decides to be reckless.

Everyone on the Government benches says that that is okay, because we are open for business.

However, it is plain that the First Minister was acting without thinking of the consequences and, terrified that Trump was going to walk, pulled out all the stops and helped a group of developers who would not use the powers and routes that were available to them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: One minute.

Johann Lamont: In the past, SNP back benchers chided us for not supporting the third-party right of appeal.

Indeed, Jim Mather chided me during the passage of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, saying that, by not supporting a third-party right of appeal, we were not supporting communities.

We resisted the third-party right of appeal because of its consequences for development.

However, now we have a Government that thinks that people do not even need to exercise the first-party right of appeal.

How far have we come? Where is the balance now?

John Swinney told us that the issue was of national significance, which was not an argument that was deployed later.

The one thing that he did not do—this man who knew everything about the planning system—was act before the decision was made, when the process that resulted in that decision was on-going.

That would have solved the problem.

Instead, however, he chose to do it later.

Speech on Housing Scottish Parliament 20 March 2008

It is a privilege to lead this housing debate on behalf of the Labour Party.

We in the Labour Party are proud of what was achieved in the first eight years in the Parliament.

Much of that work was recognised as groundbreaking, but we acknowledge that there is much more to do.

It would be foolish for anyone to say that everything that we did was perfect, but it is equally foolish for the current Administration to say that there was no consensus and no agreement and that what we did was a complete disaster, because that is simply not true.

Labour's charge against the Government is that the running thread of our experience of it is that it overclaims and underdelivers, favours spin over substance and, at its very best, produces more broken promises.

If the minister has been effective at anything, it has been at creating the impression of action and perhaps securing some positive headlines.

However, the truth behind the headlines is a little less substantial.

The much heralded housing supply task force will not produce a report or recommendations for action; it was not involved in shaping the budget; it was not part of developing the document "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland"; and at least one member of the minister's group has expressed grave concerns about the budget allocations in relation to the social rented sector.

The Government is consulting on Scottish planning policy 3 on affordable housing at the same time that it has set up a body to consider how to unblock the planning system.

The "Firm Foundations" document does not even mention Scottish planning policy 14, which looks at setting a benchmark for 25 per cent of units in a new development to be affordable housing.

The minister wants the world—or at least his own back benchers—to think that the right to buy has ended, but of course the change that he has introduced has been so narrowly defined that it will affect very few people.

It undermines the balance that was struck in the modernised right to buy, which was supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which recognised the need for flexibility in regeneration communities, where ownership can make a difference, and suspension of the right to buy in hot spots where there is pressure.

The Minister for Communities and Sport (Stewart Maxwell): Is the member saying that the Labour Party's position is that it is opposed to the abolition of the right to buy on new-build properties?

Johann Lamont: The Labour Party's position is that we recognise the strength of the right to buy and we want to see the difference that the modernised right to buy has made.

That position is supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland.

We are told that local authorities will build council houses, but the reality is that very few of them will be able to do that.

On the other hand, the Administration is completely silent on how it will support those local authorities that have debt and voted against stock transfer on the advice of the Scottish National Party.

On low-cost home ownership, the Administration is following what has already been done, but with no sense that action is needed in areas other than economic hot spots or that there needs to be equitable access to first-time-buyer support.

On what else is the minister silent?

On homelessness, he asserts that he supports the target, but he removes certainty by outsourcing all responsibility to local authorities.

Given that tax cuts are this Administration's one key priority, what pressure will there be on local authorities to provide the bricks and mortar, where possible, while removing or reducing the advice, support and specialist provision that helps prevent homelessness?

What will be demanded of single outcome agreements in relation to homelessness?

The Administration says nothing about the needs of areas of regeneration.

Indeed, Communities Scotland's expertise is to be removed from the community planning partnership table altogether.

There will be no access to community regeneration funding and the wider action budget will be flat-lined—those are the very things on which community housing associations have built their credibility.

The minister is silent on the Scottish housing quality standard when community organisations are telling us that they will have to deliver it by increasing rents.

Then there are the two big ideas of this Administration. Its first target is, "We will build more houses than the last lot did."

Secondly, it claims that it will drive efficiencies into the affordable housing market by opening it to competition.

If there is a spine on the Government back benches, it should prepare to feel a shiver down it now. On 28 November 2007, the minister said:

"My intention is not to be nice to one particular part of the sector or another; it is to ensure that we deliver more homes for people. That is the fundamental point. ... That is why we have suggested some changes and why I think that competition is important. I think that who eventually owns and manages properties is of less importance than the fact that we have them."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 November 2007; c 300.]

That flies in the face of every lesson of housing history in Scotland.

Given that we know that community ownership has delivered changes in our communities, it is not credible to say that ownership does not matter.

At a time of turbulence in the housing market and a credit squeeze, is it wise for the Administration to be vague on the proportion of houses for social rent?

Given that the Administration's own figures show that construction inflation has increased by 35 per cent, is it credible to pretend that its target of building 35,000 houses a year by the middle of the next decade is achievable?

The challenge for SNP back benchers is to confront their front-bench's agenda.

The Administration has a strategy on efficiencies—who could be against that—but it is predicated on higher rents, and on the presumptions that bigger is better, that competition delivers change and that building houses is the same as having a housing strategy.

We know from experience that that is not the case.

We know that the Administration is undermining community-controlled housing associations.

Would it not be an irony if the legacy of the SNP was to lure cross-border raids from big, asset-rich, English housing associations to take over the work that local housing organisations have done?

History shows that the disastrous consequence of national building programmes that distribute funding from the centre with no priority for wider action is houses that no one wants to live in and which we have to demolish.

The minister has to understand that asserting his love of the housing association and co-operative movement is not the same as delivering for it and that asserting his commitment on homelessness is not the same as delivering on it.

I turn finally to the first-time buyers grant of £2,000—the great promise.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, is non-committal on it and would like us to be her alibi for not delivering it.

If she believes in it, she should argue for it. If she does not, she should say why not. The First Minister said:

"The SNP is going to work through all of its manifesto commitments over the four-year term of this Administration."—[Official Report, 6 September 2007; c 1493.]

The Administration should stop dodging and tell us whether the first-time buyers grant of £2,000 is a broken promise, a promise yet to come or a cynical election promise made with the collective fingers of the SNP firmly crossed behind their backs?

We deserve to know. That is why the motion includes a demand for a statement.

The fundamental charge against the Administration is that it spins, rather than recognises, our history.

It should come clean, understand that a housing strategy is about more than building houses and begin to talk about targets for social renting, the needs of the homeless and the role of community organisations as partners in change.

I move,

That the Parliament regrets the SNP government's lack of a coherent housing strategy; notes that the Housing Supply Task Force has no timetable or remit to produce recommendations for action; notes in particular the absence of robust evidence on funding and efficiencies in delivering its housing targets; further notes concerns about the impact of a single regional developer model, as outlined in the Firm Foundations consultation, on community-controlled housing associations and housing co-operatives; agrees that the Scottish Government should make a statement to the Parliament as soon as possible, clarifying its plans for the clear SNP manifesto commitment on a £2,000 first-time buyers' grant, and urges the Scottish Government to act to secure long-term improvements in housing rather than the short-term appearance of change.

Speech on Housing and Regeneration Bill Scottish Parliament 19 March 2008

I welcome the opportunity to raise some issues on this legislative consent motion, which Labour members—who consider LCMs on the basis of the practical measures to which they relate and who judge each LCM on its merits—have decided to support.

We think that it is important that we take the opportunity to illuminate some significant issues for the Parliament—members know that my every instinct is philanthropic.

Members of the Local Government and Communities Committee felt that it was important for all members to receive an explanation from the Scottish National Party of why it is no longer opposed, in principle, to LCMs.

On numerous occasions in the past, SNP members voted against entirely rational and logical LCMs on the basis that it was a point of principle for them to do so.

Of course, that was then and this is now.

We can only surmise that the memory banks of SNP back benchers have been entirely wiped and that that point of principle has been forgotten.

The principle on which we operated was that, whenever possible, we would seek an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to legislate and that we would use the LCM process only if the prospect of new Scottish legislation was not imminent.

The problem for the SNP, of course, is that it appears that the prospect of legislation on anything at all is not imminent. That makes it even more bizarre that the minister claimed to the committee that use of the LCM process was

"a proportionate and efficient use of parliamentary time."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 5 March 2008; c 724.]

He might wish to talk to his business manager about that.

Of course, the broader question is why no suitable legislative vehicle is available.

A big decision has been made to abolish Communities Scotland and yet the bill before us relates to regulation in England.

There is no coherence on the issue of savings for Communities Scotland or how housing and regeneration fit into the community planning framework.

What will happen now that individual housing association grant decisions will be micromanaged from the centre?

How will the regulator fit into all of that?

We have had no discussion of those issues.

Given that we are going in an entirely opposite direction to that taken in England, it would have been nice for the Scottish Parliament to have been given an opportunity—whether in relation to legislation or otherwise—to have had that discussion.

We could have dealt with the issues raised in the LCM in that way.

In order to be helpful, I direct the minister to his own words.

In July last year, I asked him whether abolishing of Communities Scotland "would require legislation".

His reply was:

"Ministers are currently considering the most effective organisational structures for the future delivery of Communities Scotland's functions. That process will involve consideration of any legislation that might be necessary to support the transfer of Communities Scotland's functions, although legislation would not of itself be required to abolish Communities Scotland."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 July 2007; S3W-1797.]

Given that we do not need legislation to abolish Communities Scotland, it would have been helpful if the Government had looked for legislative opportunities that would have allowed the Parliament to debate what will now happen to Communities Scotland's functions.

The LCM is an indicator that the SNP has abandoned the principles that it used to apply.

It has not even applied the test that we used to apply.

The Government is unable to explain why it has not brought to the chamber a debate on the future of Communities Scotland.

Perhaps the minister will tell the chamber what other legislation might be necessary and what Communities Scotland's future is.

I welcome his interesting response.

Speech on Fuel Poverty Scottish Parliament 13 March 2008

The aim of our amendment is to reinforce the importance of the role of the voluntary and statutory organisations in giving appropriate advice to those who are in fuel poverty.

For eight years, fuel poverty was a critical issue for the Labour-led Executive and the Parliament.

There is no doubt that the issue was championed by members from across the parties. Sadly, some of them are no longer with us—I think of Margaret Ewing.

Those members kept the issue on the agenda and worked hard to ensure that it did not get lost in the normal day-to-day party-political battles in which some of us are all too happy to engage.
The issues with which we are wrestling are difficult.

The debate is important in building agreement on action.

It is right that it should spur us on in recognising that there are still people who are cold in their homes and who have to choose between heating their homes and feeding themselves.

In addition, the consequences of the rise in fuel prices have huge implications for people who are in fuel poverty.

The minister has broader responsibilities, including the important issue of people having quality housing with effective insulation measures.

A broader question needs to be asked about housing policy and how local authorities and housing associations are supported in meeting the housing quality standard.

Many people wanted to vote to get rid of housing debt for just that reason.

In that broader housing debate, it is important that we hear from the minister how the Government plans to address the issue.

Labour strongly supports the fuel poverty forum.

We recognise the potential for developing a one-stop shop.

In the past, things perhaps became overfragmented, which may have led to a lack of understanding.

Critically, the fuel poverty forum recognised that Scotland is blessed with strong voluntary sector organisations.

People such as Norrie Kerr and others are committed to addressing fuel poverty and are creative in developing policy.

They are also robust in challenging Government through their advocacy for those who are in fuel poverty, no matter which party is in government.

The forum could have a key role to play in bringing the power companies to the table to discuss further the development of the social tariff and the rationalisation and harmonisation of programmes to ensure greater reach, and to consider why the poor face disproportionate charges for fuel.

Although I am sure that Alex Neil will not agree with me, I recognise the important strand that energy issues played in yesterday's budget.

We can debate how far the Government has gone in addressing the issues, but in the announcements that were made it recognised that the issue is important to everyone.

Of course it is important to link work on energy efficiency measures and fuel poverty programmes.

We must also recognise the importance of sustained money advice and energy advice, as such advice can reach out to those who are most vulnerable and who suffer most when action is not taken.

Although general energy efficiency issues are critical, we must not lose our focus on the issue of the poor paying disproportionate charges.

I am disappointed that neither the Tories nor the SNP want to consider the notion of tax incentives for microgeneration measures.

Labour's Sarah Boyack has done a huge amount of work on the area—the Government would not have to look far to get advice—and engaged with loads of people in the sector.

I hope that the minister will look further into the work that she has done.

However, the reality is that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has set his face against such tax incentives.

As a consequence, the hands of other ministers are tied.

It is odd that a cabinet secretary who offered accelerated tax cuts to small business with no conditions attached will not support the use of taxation as a means of encouraging positive action on energy efficiency.

Labour members have an agreement with our Liberal Democrat colleagues on the issue, although we may not agree with their position on local taxation.

The motion is moderate in its demands.

It asks the Executive to look at the possibility of a local tax rebate, and it is disappointing that the Government will not countenance that.

Instead of closing down the debate, the Executive could have said that it would include that option in its report to Parliament.

We know the challenges that are involved in eradicating fuel poverty by 2016.

We acknowledge the important work that is being done and the challenging points that energywatch Scotland has raised about the central heating programme.

It is important that the debate progresses.

The minister spoke of an internal review.

I urge him to have the confidence to externalise the review, particularly around the central heating programme.

That would enable the Executive to hear what those who are trying to deliver the programme have to say about the challenges involved and the programme's effectiveness.

In his response to the debate, I hope that the minister will tell the chamber that he recognises the importance of doing that.

Speech on Home Detention Curfew Scottish Parliament 12 March 2008

We are debating a serious issue, so I was disappointed by the previous speaker's tone and by the intemperate approach of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who seems not to want to engage with hard issues and who was reluctant to accept the compromise that was proposed in the Justice Committee.

It does not help to suggest that there is a division between people who are for prison and people who are against prison, because that is false.

The issues are difficult.

The cabinet secretary's failure to understand the importance of building confidence is fundamental.

He claims that he wants to move to greater use of appropriate community sentences.

If he wants communities to sign up to that approach, it is ill advised for him to refuse to agree to a moderate proposal to keep a watch on the issue that we are debating.

It is argued that individual cases make bad law.

However, people's experiences can illuminate a situation and reveal flaws in a policy approach that seems logical in theory.

In that context, I mention my constituent Mr Armstrong, whose case illustrates why people do not have confidence in the system and why ministers should be willing to compromise on HDC.

In brief, Mr Armstrong was convicted of a serious assault and was sentenced to just less than four years in prison.

His family, friends and neighbours have campaigned for proper consideration of the circumstances of the assault for which he was convicted.

Mr Armstrong alleges that the person whom he was convicted of assaulting was threatening him with a 14in knife and smashing the windows of his vehicle, and that there was a history of reported disorder in the community.

The family asserts that Mr Armstrong was a repeat victim who acted in self-defence and who did not have confidence in the police's ability to respond to the circumstances.

Perhaps that is a mark of the failure of earlier intervention to deal with disorder.

The deepest irony is that Mr Armstrong's alleged assailant was tagged for other offences but was free to appear in the vicinity of Mr Armstrong's home and cause alarm while Mr Armstrong was in prison.

Mr MacAskill is fond of talking about keeping "flotsam and jetsam" out of prison.

In the case that I described, who is flotsam and jetsam and who deserves to be in prison?

The crude division that Mr MacAskill likes to present does not apply; the reality is that neither party is flotsam and jetsam.

We must address people's actions and deal with them seriously, but in so doing we must be careful to understand the context of offending, which might involve a person's being a repeat victim. Such matters must be properly taken into account.

I am delighted that Mr MacAskill has agreed to meet me to pursue the issues, and I hope that he will confirm his willingness to accept from the family the massive petition in support of Mr Armstrong.

The issue matters because community safety is paramount.

We need to know that home detention curfew works.

They cannot be used as a crude attempt artificially to keep prisoner numbers low.

We do not want huge prisoner numbers, but we need to know that risk assessments are done on the basis not of keeping numbers down but of ensuring that a person is safe to return to the community.

People do not have that confidence, because the cabinet secretary will not agree to a sunset clause so that there can be proper consideration of the issue when more prison spaces are available.

The cabinet secretary's reluctance to compromise stems from his predetermined view on prisoner numbers.

He cannot confront the challenges to do with funding new prisons, but that is what Governments must do.

He wants to relieve pressure on prisons, but he must not do so at the expense of putting greater pressure on our communities.

I am troubled by his reluctance to compromise and by his willingness to engage in a crude debate rather than accept that he can reduce prisoner numbers only if our communities feel safe and have confidence that the policy is about not reducing numbers but addressing what puts people in prison and keeps them there.

I urge the cabinet secretary to rethink his approach.

Speech of Wheelchair Users ( Human Rights) Scottish Parliament 5 March 2008

Members have already indicated that this is an important debate.

If Mr Carlaw was hesitant about following Trish Godman's speech, he should consider how I feel about having to speak after him—he encapsulated the passion around this issue, which a lot of us share.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

Today, I met people from Quarriers—in particular, one of my constituents, Mr Fraser Wood—and again I recognised the challenge that people face in addressing the question of wheelchair use as wheelchair users themselves.

Like any equalities issue on the agenda for action, this issue is there not because of our good will and because we care about it, but because of the campaign activity, determination and energy of those who experience inequality and of the carers who support them.

Wheelchair users and their carers have driven the agenda on this issue, and I applaud their energy and the energy of the groups and voluntary organisations that have supported them in ensuring that there was a review of wheelchair services and that we are now at the stage where we want to make further progress.

I will not make a party-political point—the points that have been made so far all show that the problem's existence is a reproach to all of us who are in a position to do something about it.

It is also a broader reproach to a society that has allowed the situation to go on for too long.

It is clear that political action should be shaped by those who not only understand the problems, but have the solutions.

I hope that the minister can answer the question whether there is now a disability forum sitting inside the Scottish Government that would bring these groups together.

There was such a body in the past, and I hope that she will commit today to bringing such a group together to pursue these issues, because it could press the right arguments in the right places.

The test of the rhetoric of equality and our commitment to it is an understanding of the practical issues that need to be addressed in order to deliver on that rhetoric.

The wheelchair example is as good as any of the way in which we have to move from a general commitment to equality to addressing the practical issues that provide the barriers.

I hope that there is a proper understanding of the need to deliver in partnership with those who understand the issues best.

The critical issue is that we need to view the wheelchair not as a machine or as a mechanism, but as a straightforward part of someone's care package and as the way in which they manage to maximise their abilities and their potential.

The comparison with hip replacements is a good one.

We do not see hip replacements in the same way—as somehow being a bonus, when in fact they can be critical to the quality of people's lives and their capacity to engage with their families and broader society.

As has been said, we need to look at the person and not the wheelchair, and we should not try to shape the person into what we think their wheelchair should be.

Why should they not have the wheelchair that they need for the kind of disability and needs that they have?

The review was driven by those who understood the issues, and I wonder why the action plan has been delayed—for another year, it seems.

Will the minister at least commit to examining these issues, which could be progressed before the broader action plan recommendations are brought forward?

That would give people confidence that action was being taken.

I note from some of the submissions that we have received that people want a national service.

Wheelchair service provision seems to be irrational and not attached to need within local areas—I ask the minister to consider that issue.

There is a broader issue about social inclusion and human rights, which is encapsulated in the way that we talk about disabled parking spaces.

Somehow people think that someone with a disabled parking space has stolen a march and is getting a privilege.

Some of the debate around wheelchair services is like that—it is as if someone is asking for something extra.

The fact that the matter has been put in the context of human rights is critical.

We should not tolerate the barriers.

I hope that the minister will respond positively to the supportive points that members have made in the debate.