This is an interesting and important debate.
The central issue for all our children is their entitlement to live in safety and security in a loving home, and to be nurtured.
It is not just in poor families that children are denied those things.
I would be concerned by any implication that poverty means that children are denied a healthy and happy upbringing. In my constituency, there are families who, despite their financial circumstances, could teach us all a lesson about how to parent.
As a parent, I often have grave anxieties about my capacity to find a safe place to rear my children.
I am concerned at the implication that the issue is one for "them out there" and not for all of us as a society. In that context, a financial incentive to marry is entirely irrelevant.
The issue that is of concern is the extent to which we value children and families.
Elizabeth Smith talked about Iain Duncan Smith's Damascene conversion in Easterhouse.
He may have wished to reflect on the issue a little earlier, in the 1980s, when people were telling him what was happening in communities throughout Scotland and beyond.
It is not enough to create the impression that poverty is a plague in which no political decisions have been made. People live in difficulty because of political decisions—we should reflect on that.
The motion
"regrets that one in four children"
lives in a family in which there is a lone parent.
First, there are parents who are widowed who actively choose to spend the rest of their lives bringing up and focusing on their children.
The implication that that is the wrong choice is cause for concern.
Equally, for some people it is a courageous decision to leave a marriage to protect their children, especially given the financial implications for women of making that choice.
There is a dichotomy at the heart of the issue.
When we talk about domestic abuse, how often do we hear the question, "Why doesn't she leave?"
However, when she leaves, it is implied that she is creating problems for her children.
One of the problems for lone parents is not the fact of lone parenthood in itself but the way in which we support them financially and give them economic opportunity.
When I was a teacher, there were a number of occasions on which youngsters were disturbed by the periodic reappearance of their father, who caused mayhem in their homes.
One young boy could not, when his father was at home, sleep for fear of what would happen to his mother and could not, as a result, learn the next day.
The Tories ought to move away from the glib suggestion that lone parenthood in itself is the problem.
If we wish to support families, we need to address how inequality and disadvantage are experienced, and how we can create economic opportunities, safe communities and safe families to allow people to thrive.
Yesterday we got information on a skills strategy, which did not reflect that
The enterprise strategy contains no responsibility for place or people and does not address the inequality that disproportionately leaves women as carers in low-paid jobs, with no recognition of their needs.
We need an education system that talks about more than buildings and class sizes, and which recognises that some of our children cannot even access education because of what is happening in their wider life.
We need to understand the particular pressures on different kinds of families, such as the families of disabled children.
I regret that the Scottish Government did not step up to the mark in addressing the transformational change that is required to support those families and which would allow those children and their siblings to achieve their potential.
On kinship care, there is an issue with the benefits system, but the Scottish Government has a responsibility to address the huge diversity between what is offered to kinship carers in different parts of the country.
It has to recognise that the issue is as much about children's rights as anything else.
The SNP Government needs to recognise the vulnerability of funding to the voluntary sector, which will have a consequence for families.
There ought to be no sacred cows—nothing should be off-limits.
There should, rather, be proper reflection on what is happening, in order that our families can be protected.
8.11.09
Elderly Care - Scottish Parliament speech 28th. October 2009
I welcome the minister's contribution on this important issue.
I also pay tribute to my colleague Irene Oldfather, who has, along with the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, driven a lot of the work on the issue. Unfortunately, because of to her own caring responsibilities, she is unable to contribute today.
In debating services for older people, we must recognise that many older people are active and positive contributors, even though—inevitably—the discussion then begins to focus on care issues.
When Malcolm Chisholm and Rhona Brankin, as ministers, drove our older people's strategy, they were keen to ensure that there was an emphasis on the former aspect as well as on care
I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I concentrate on care issues in my speech.
Journalists do not often find themselves being praised in the Parliament, but I begin by offering a vote of thanks to the BBC and The Herald for what was investigative journalism at its best.
They made an important contribution to opening up a more rigorous debate on the nature of care of older people in our communities by confronting us all with the reality of neglect and abuse of vulnerable older people.
The "Panorama" exposé on home care and the more recent Herald investigation have had a powerful impact, but I regret that there has been insufficient evidence of urgency on the part of the Scottish Government in its response to their findings.
The investigations revealed the misery and inadequate support of real men and women.
Those findings are in tune with the reports of some of my constituents and, I am sure, of constituents of members throughout the chamber.
Few of us will be untouched by the realities and frustrations of securing proper care for older people.
Too many people—and their carers—describe their search for consistency and continuity of care as a battle or a struggle that is shaped by fear for the future rather than by confidence.
When we think of carers' battles for their loved ones, how much more fearful should we be for those without family or those for whom family members, as The Herald identified, are the problem because they are the perpetrators of abuse?
In the face of that situation, the Scottish Government's approach as indicated by the concordat—although certainly not by the broader contribution from the minister today, which was welcome—focuses simply on respite places and funding issues around free personal care.
That approach is inadequate and it misses the point.
We know all too well of cases in which people are offered inappropriate respite and that, as a consequence, much-needed support is not taken up.
It is also evident that we need to go beyond simple repetition of a commitment to free personal care, to addressing the quality of care and, indeed, what we mean by care.
The journalistic investigations have highlighted the gap between the reality in communities and the debate that the Parliament has been having over time.
We face a massive challenge: if the voices describing physical abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, neglect and exploitation of vulnerable people and those who are unable to defend themselves are to be heard properly and understood, we should not—indeed, we cannot—be defensive.
Our response must be brutally honest and urgent.
This is no time to explain away or defend the situation, or to marshal statistics to prove that everything is better than it has ever been—or, if it is not, to claim that the blame lies elsewhere.
I agree with the minister that the huge challenges that face us go beyond our usual politicking: this is the time for members of this Parliament to ask what we can do to address the challenges, and to examine what we need to change in order to respond to this scandal at the heart of our communities.
The challenge for ministers, the Scottish Government and the Parliament is to acknowledge that everything that they do must be tested against whether it makes people safer or makes things worse.
One example is the Scottish National Party's commitment to a centrally imposed council tax freeze.
Although the move has given some older people £1 or so a week extra in their pockets, it has also resulted in cuts to their day care services at a time when the Scottish budget has increased by £600 million.
If we are to interrogate the options seriously, we cannot simply leave to one side the reality of the impact of the imposed council tax freeze, with only assertion to defend it.
In response to the "Panorama" programme, the minister has said that she will issue guidance on home care that will be "very robust indeed".
I would welcome more information on whether that work has been done, on the dialogue that she has had with local authorities on the matter and on concerns that have been expressed about contracts.
As I say, the nature and scale of the challenge demand creative thinking and the acknowledgement that, as far as our society's priorities are concerned, we are in very-big-question territory.
Although much of the debate about older people has focused on pensions and funding, and despite our recognition that for many people the fourth age is a time for learning new skills and facing new challenges, the fact is that surveys of older people have repeatedly identified as key concerns loneliness, isolation and safety issues.
How should the Scottish Government be protecting those often very low-level but nonetheless lifeline services that are provided by lunch clubs, projects that take people to the library or to church and community transport schemes that allow people to visit hospital—in other words, the services that provide the kind of experiences that sustain people in their own homes, as opposed to care regimes that contain them there?
How is the Scottish Government going to support the community initiatives—such as the reminiscence groups run by the Village Storytelling Centre in my area—that seek to intervene early in respect of the impact of dementia, or the services that support elderly carers who wish to keep their loved ones with them as long as possible?
The fear is that, despite this debate and discussion, those very services, which provide people with real quality of life, are seen as luxuries when funding decisions are made.
We must be concerned by Audit Scotland's finding that local authority spending on care is being retrenched towards high-level needs, so I would welcome the minister's saying what discussions she has had with local authorities on that shift.
We have to fear for localised services when the efficiencies that the Scottish Government is demanding might be resulting in the stripping out of the key bits of care that make a difference.
We must acknowledge that if such services, which are driven by a compassionate understanding of need, are proving to be vulnerable, and if contracts are being squeezed to the extent that care providers are experiencing high staff turnover, the result can be the unbearable image from the "Panorama" programme—which is, I am sure, seared on all our minds—of an elderly man being washed while his carer was talking on her mobile phone.
Such an image will drive everyone in the chamber to tackle these issues.
I am interested to find out what the Scottish Government is doing to address staff turnover and the lack of regular contact with the same person, which are particular concerns in relation to quality of care.
I cannot be the only member with constituents who still, with all the stress that it involves, go home at lunchtime to check whether the support for their elderly parents has been delivered in the right way.
I am glad that the minister has acknowledged the critical role that the voluntary sector can play in understanding and meeting needs.
However, what is the sector's real role in the Government's work streams?
I understand that we cannot start with a blank sheet of paper, but liberating those who best understand need to tell us what has to be done has informed policy in the past and can do so again.
For example, we know that older volunteers have played a key role in supporting people and that an active interest in volunteering can keep people healthy and involved for longer.
It is therefore a matter of regret that the retired and senior volunteer programme had to close through lack of funding.
I am sure that the minister will recognise the anxiety of many that the shift in the balance of care will lead to increased pressure on carers, including voluntary carers.
I seek from the minister assurances on sustained funding, particularly for carer centres, which advocate for carers and offer a proper understanding of their experience as well as a support and help group for them through very challenging times.
Such centres provide proper and meaningful support so that carers can do what they want to do as well as possible. Although I understand that spending alone does not solve problems, stopping spending often creates problems or compounds them.
That is my concern about what is seen as the bonus issue.
There is an important debate to be had about the limit of technology as a means of supporting people in their homes. Although technology can buttress support in practical ways, it cannot be a substitute for it.
Technology cannot hold a person's hand when they are sad.
I am interested in what work the minister has done to shape the current approach of the Minister for Housing and Communities, at a time when sheltered housing is reducing—the number of wardens is reducing—and when organisations such as Inclusion Scotland are highlighting the need for local authorities to do more to provide housing to meet disabled people's needs.
Another issue is the effectiveness of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care in monitoring and in dealing with those who abuse the trust that we place in them to care for people.
We must ask how a dementia strategy can be supported and funded so that we transform the nature of care and provide proper processes in relation to personalised care and who is in control.
The future care of older people is a care issue, but it is also a justice issue.
We must hear from the minister about the discussions that she has had with justice officials and the care commission about prosecuting those who are guilty of stealing time from care packages or of abusing older people who are in their care.
That is not just in the interests of the identified victims; it will also deter those who might be tempted to prey on the elderly, which we will revisit tomorrow.
It is a scandal that the only action by the police as a consequence of the "Panorama" programme was to arrest the journalist who exposed the neglect rather than the perpetrators of it.
We should all condemn the treatment of the undercover journalist Arifa Farooq.
We must know that the justice system recognises its role in protecting the elderly.
If ever there was a need for a national conversation and a big debate, it is for one on future services to support older people.
People need consistency, continuity and confidence
The work of The Herald and the BBC opened up a set of circumstances.
It is a test for the Parliament to rise to the challenge. I assure the minister that, on the big questions, she will have the Opposition with her in ensuring that we have a proper strategy to protect our older people.
I also pay tribute to my colleague Irene Oldfather, who has, along with the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, driven a lot of the work on the issue. Unfortunately, because of to her own caring responsibilities, she is unable to contribute today.
In debating services for older people, we must recognise that many older people are active and positive contributors, even though—inevitably—the discussion then begins to focus on care issues.
When Malcolm Chisholm and Rhona Brankin, as ministers, drove our older people's strategy, they were keen to ensure that there was an emphasis on the former aspect as well as on care
I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I concentrate on care issues in my speech.
Journalists do not often find themselves being praised in the Parliament, but I begin by offering a vote of thanks to the BBC and The Herald for what was investigative journalism at its best.
They made an important contribution to opening up a more rigorous debate on the nature of care of older people in our communities by confronting us all with the reality of neglect and abuse of vulnerable older people.
The "Panorama" exposé on home care and the more recent Herald investigation have had a powerful impact, but I regret that there has been insufficient evidence of urgency on the part of the Scottish Government in its response to their findings.
The investigations revealed the misery and inadequate support of real men and women.
Those findings are in tune with the reports of some of my constituents and, I am sure, of constituents of members throughout the chamber.
Few of us will be untouched by the realities and frustrations of securing proper care for older people.
Too many people—and their carers—describe their search for consistency and continuity of care as a battle or a struggle that is shaped by fear for the future rather than by confidence.
When we think of carers' battles for their loved ones, how much more fearful should we be for those without family or those for whom family members, as The Herald identified, are the problem because they are the perpetrators of abuse?
In the face of that situation, the Scottish Government's approach as indicated by the concordat—although certainly not by the broader contribution from the minister today, which was welcome—focuses simply on respite places and funding issues around free personal care.
That approach is inadequate and it misses the point.
We know all too well of cases in which people are offered inappropriate respite and that, as a consequence, much-needed support is not taken up.
It is also evident that we need to go beyond simple repetition of a commitment to free personal care, to addressing the quality of care and, indeed, what we mean by care.
The journalistic investigations have highlighted the gap between the reality in communities and the debate that the Parliament has been having over time.
We face a massive challenge: if the voices describing physical abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, neglect and exploitation of vulnerable people and those who are unable to defend themselves are to be heard properly and understood, we should not—indeed, we cannot—be defensive.
Our response must be brutally honest and urgent.
This is no time to explain away or defend the situation, or to marshal statistics to prove that everything is better than it has ever been—or, if it is not, to claim that the blame lies elsewhere.
I agree with the minister that the huge challenges that face us go beyond our usual politicking: this is the time for members of this Parliament to ask what we can do to address the challenges, and to examine what we need to change in order to respond to this scandal at the heart of our communities.
The challenge for ministers, the Scottish Government and the Parliament is to acknowledge that everything that they do must be tested against whether it makes people safer or makes things worse.
One example is the Scottish National Party's commitment to a centrally imposed council tax freeze.
Although the move has given some older people £1 or so a week extra in their pockets, it has also resulted in cuts to their day care services at a time when the Scottish budget has increased by £600 million.
If we are to interrogate the options seriously, we cannot simply leave to one side the reality of the impact of the imposed council tax freeze, with only assertion to defend it.
In response to the "Panorama" programme, the minister has said that she will issue guidance on home care that will be "very robust indeed".
I would welcome more information on whether that work has been done, on the dialogue that she has had with local authorities on the matter and on concerns that have been expressed about contracts.
As I say, the nature and scale of the challenge demand creative thinking and the acknowledgement that, as far as our society's priorities are concerned, we are in very-big-question territory.
Although much of the debate about older people has focused on pensions and funding, and despite our recognition that for many people the fourth age is a time for learning new skills and facing new challenges, the fact is that surveys of older people have repeatedly identified as key concerns loneliness, isolation and safety issues.
How should the Scottish Government be protecting those often very low-level but nonetheless lifeline services that are provided by lunch clubs, projects that take people to the library or to church and community transport schemes that allow people to visit hospital—in other words, the services that provide the kind of experiences that sustain people in their own homes, as opposed to care regimes that contain them there?
How is the Scottish Government going to support the community initiatives—such as the reminiscence groups run by the Village Storytelling Centre in my area—that seek to intervene early in respect of the impact of dementia, or the services that support elderly carers who wish to keep their loved ones with them as long as possible?
The fear is that, despite this debate and discussion, those very services, which provide people with real quality of life, are seen as luxuries when funding decisions are made.
We must be concerned by Audit Scotland's finding that local authority spending on care is being retrenched towards high-level needs, so I would welcome the minister's saying what discussions she has had with local authorities on that shift.
We have to fear for localised services when the efficiencies that the Scottish Government is demanding might be resulting in the stripping out of the key bits of care that make a difference.
We must acknowledge that if such services, which are driven by a compassionate understanding of need, are proving to be vulnerable, and if contracts are being squeezed to the extent that care providers are experiencing high staff turnover, the result can be the unbearable image from the "Panorama" programme—which is, I am sure, seared on all our minds—of an elderly man being washed while his carer was talking on her mobile phone.
Such an image will drive everyone in the chamber to tackle these issues.
I am interested to find out what the Scottish Government is doing to address staff turnover and the lack of regular contact with the same person, which are particular concerns in relation to quality of care.
I cannot be the only member with constituents who still, with all the stress that it involves, go home at lunchtime to check whether the support for their elderly parents has been delivered in the right way.
I am glad that the minister has acknowledged the critical role that the voluntary sector can play in understanding and meeting needs.
However, what is the sector's real role in the Government's work streams?
I understand that we cannot start with a blank sheet of paper, but liberating those who best understand need to tell us what has to be done has informed policy in the past and can do so again.
For example, we know that older volunteers have played a key role in supporting people and that an active interest in volunteering can keep people healthy and involved for longer.
It is therefore a matter of regret that the retired and senior volunteer programme had to close through lack of funding.
I am sure that the minister will recognise the anxiety of many that the shift in the balance of care will lead to increased pressure on carers, including voluntary carers.
I seek from the minister assurances on sustained funding, particularly for carer centres, which advocate for carers and offer a proper understanding of their experience as well as a support and help group for them through very challenging times.
Such centres provide proper and meaningful support so that carers can do what they want to do as well as possible. Although I understand that spending alone does not solve problems, stopping spending often creates problems or compounds them.
That is my concern about what is seen as the bonus issue.
There is an important debate to be had about the limit of technology as a means of supporting people in their homes. Although technology can buttress support in practical ways, it cannot be a substitute for it.
Technology cannot hold a person's hand when they are sad.
I am interested in what work the minister has done to shape the current approach of the Minister for Housing and Communities, at a time when sheltered housing is reducing—the number of wardens is reducing—and when organisations such as Inclusion Scotland are highlighting the need for local authorities to do more to provide housing to meet disabled people's needs.
Another issue is the effectiveness of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care in monitoring and in dealing with those who abuse the trust that we place in them to care for people.
We must ask how a dementia strategy can be supported and funded so that we transform the nature of care and provide proper processes in relation to personalised care and who is in control.
The future care of older people is a care issue, but it is also a justice issue.
We must hear from the minister about the discussions that she has had with justice officials and the care commission about prosecuting those who are guilty of stealing time from care packages or of abusing older people who are in their care.
That is not just in the interests of the identified victims; it will also deter those who might be tempted to prey on the elderly, which we will revisit tomorrow.
It is a scandal that the only action by the police as a consequence of the "Panorama" programme was to arrest the journalist who exposed the neglect rather than the perpetrators of it.
We should all condemn the treatment of the undercover journalist Arifa Farooq.
We must know that the justice system recognises its role in protecting the elderly.
If ever there was a need for a national conversation and a big debate, it is for one on future services to support older people.
People need consistency, continuity and confidence
The work of The Herald and the BBC opened up a set of circumstances.
It is a test for the Parliament to rise to the challenge. I assure the minister that, on the big questions, she will have the Opposition with her in ensuring that we have a proper strategy to protect our older people.
Volunteering - Scottish Parliament speech 8th. October 2009
Labour has chosen to use its time to debate volunteering and the voluntary sector both in recognition of their importance and because it is concerned about the lack of opportunities for consideration and scrutiny of the Scottish Government's approach that the Government has afforded.
The Scottish Government has promoted a wide range of non-debates in the chamber, but I cannot remember when these particular issues were last debated.
We want to give voice to concerns that are being reported to us by people throughout Scotland who are too afraid to speak up or speak out on their own behalf.
Indeed, I have been struck by the significant number of briefings that we have received as a result of this debate.
I thank everyone who provided a briefing; it is a measure of the subject's importance that they have been submitted.
It is right to recognise and celebrate the voluntary sector's role and we salute the volunteers who make a real difference to people who are very often the most isolated and vulnerable in our communities.
We know that volunteers can identify need, help to shape services and reach out into the parts of our communities where the state cannot go.
Volunteers such as those who work for Home-Start in my constituency can support and be trusted by vulnerable families who might fear more formal interventions by social work or health staff.
We know that volunteers make a massive social and economic contribution and that their influence on community life and cohesion is beyond measure.
We know, too, that volunteering enriches the lives of volunteers, both young and old; indeed, we have seen how significant the support for volunteering among older people has been.
Warm words, however, will sustain neither volunteers nor the voluntary sector and, like many others, I remain concerned that in its approach the SNP has been typically high on rhetoric but weak on delivery, with a separation between what it says it cares about and what it provides resources for.
I am also struck by the gap between ministers' approach, which borders on the complacent, and the issues that have been raised at a local level, including funding cuts, fears for the future and increased concern about the conditions of those who work with the voluntary sector.
In the time available, I will try to highlight some of those concerns.
First—and I do not say this lightly—I have been struck by the extent to which those involved have suggested that there is an atmosphere in which it is difficult for them to air concerns.
I hope that we all believe in and celebrate the independence of the voluntary sector, but the threat of the withdrawal of funding if critical voices are raised seems all too real.
That cannot be acceptable, but it has been reflected in the debate on the future of the councils for voluntary service network and the development of local interfaces.
Instead of following the principle of voluntary collaboration, we seem to be driving towards a forced measure, with funding being used to create compliance.
As I said, that is entirely unacceptable.
Secondly, there is concern that the Scottish Government seems to be of the view that the development of volunteering opportunities does not require resources.
The national volunteering strategy seems to have come to an end, and the single outcome agreements say nothing about the need for such strategies to be developed at a local level.
Thirdly, not that long ago, Unite, Unison and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations came together to highlight to the Parliament the crisis in the voluntary sector.
Who can forget the image of the hearse, which captured the fear of the sector's destruction?
Well, SNP back benchers will have forgotten it, because they did not have the courage to turn up and speak to the people who were raising these concerns.
There is also grave concern at the Scottish Government's lack of understanding of the powerful role that volunteering can play in tackling disadvantage, and we need to be proactive in encouraging such activity in our most disadvantaged communities.
After all, volunteering can improve skills, build confidence and form an important bulwark against the consequences of economic recession.
We need the Scottish Government to act, especially when we are faced with two contrasting sets of figures.
First, 18 per cent of adults in deprived communities volunteer, while the figure for Scotland is 33 per cent; secondly—and in stark contrast to that—the figure for young people not in education, employment or training is 11 per cent for the whole of Scotland, but 25 per cent in our 15 per cent most deprived communities.
The Scottish Government must find a way of intervening to ensure that our poorest communities, which would benefit most from the skills that volunteering can bring, are afforded such opportunities.
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP): Does the member not agree that one of the difficulties that the voluntary sector is facing is the move to compel people who do not want to go into employment or training to accept a place in the sector? Surely the whole ethos of volunteering is that it should be voluntary. Does the member agree that compulsion in this matter is very wrong and will she condemn the United Kingdom Government for trying to force through such a measure?
Johann Lamont: I regret the fact that Tricia Marwick wishes to attack the United Kingdom Government, rather than join us in contemplating challenges in our local communities.
Young people in poor communities could be afforded the opportunity to volunteer, which would address the fact that disproportionate numbers of them have been hit by the recession.
The Scottish Government's answer to that situation is to end funding for ProjectScotland, a body that has a focus on reaching out to young people for whom it is more difficult to access volunteering opportunities and who would benefit disproportionately from them.
There are examples of that in my community and, I am sure, throughout Scotland.
Despite that, the Scottish Government is ending ProjectScotland's funding.
The Government says that it is a matter of cost, but the reality is that 87 per cent of the money from the public purse that is used to support volunteering opportunities through ProjectScotland goes directly into the pockets of the young volunteers and, from those young people, out into the hard-pressed communities in which they live.
We know that 40 per cent of ProjectScotland's volunteers come from the 20 per cent most deprived communities.
At a time of economic recession, it is bizarre for the Scottish Government to make that decision, which shows a lack of understanding of the recession's disproportionate impact on poor communities and individuals.
It is time for the Scottish Government to confront the consequences of its decisions.
Its budget has increased in real terms by £600 million, but it is devolving responsibility to local level, with a reduced budget.
As a consequence, there are cuts in local government budgets.
Local government's capacity to find resources is restricted because of the impact of the council tax freeze.
The Scottish Government must accept that the funding problems that voluntary sector organisations and local volunteers are experiencing are its responsibility.
The Scottish Government should take a lesson from volunteers and the volunteering spirit.
It should take responsibility and recognise that warm words mean nothing without action to make the commitment real.
Having created huge problems for voluntary organisations and volunteering, the minister adds insult to injury by walking by on the other side.
I urge him to reconsider his position on ProjectScotland and to listen to and engage honestly with all those in the voluntary sector who wish to volunteer but who tell us that there are significant problems at local level.
That will give us confidence that volunteers and the voluntary sector can survive and thrive again.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises and celebrates the role of the voluntary sector and volunteers across Scotland in supporting individuals, families and communities and in shaping and delivering services locally; notes the excellent work of volunteering organisations in encouraging volunteering through offering training and volunteering placements and particularly in reaching out to those who might not otherwise have the chance to volunteer; agrees, given the opportunity that volunteering provides to develop skills and build confidence, that, in this economic recession, volunteering organisations should be given adequate resources to allow them to do that important work, and further agrees that innovative organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland, should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government.
Winding-up speech
Johann Lamont: The debate has been interesting, because it has captured three elements of the SNP's approach since it came into government.
First, there has been further evidence of its willingness to ignore the will of Parliament.
Parliament has spoken before on the issue of ProjectScotland, but the SNP has chosen to ignore its voice.
Secondly, we have heard warm words that are a million miles away from delivery or any sense of responsibility for what is happening.
Thirdly, there has been absolute silence from Government back benchers, who are unwilling to suggest that anything that ministers are doing may not be absolutely correct.
I was chided by an SNP back bencher when I mentioned their craven compliance.
She told me that I did not like the fact that SNP members are united.
My problem is that I do not like unity that is at the expense of voluntary organisations and others that need members to speak up for them.
The great test of the maturity of the SNP Government is whether its back benchers are allowed and have the confidence to raise even a squeak about the problems that our local communities face.
Tricia Marwick: Given my record over the past few weeks, when I spoke here opposing the Government on an issue in my constituency, I object strongly to the member's suggestion that I would not criticise ministers. However, I will not criticise them on this occasion, because on this occasion they are right.
Johann Lamont: The member is to be congratulated on having the confidence to oppose the Government once; whether that is followed through in voting is a different matter.
The point has been made, and the member may want to reflect on it.
I have referred to the Government's warm words.
Is the minister seriously saying that there are no concerns in voluntary organisations and among volunteers, and that they do not think that there is a problem?
He said that all the pessimism is here in the chamber, rather than in the outside world.
What does he think the hearse that was brought to the Parliament was about?
Why does he think that Unite, Unison and the SCVO came together to express their concerns?
Why, does he imagine, are people talking about the cuts at local level?
Are they just making it up, as Tricia Marwick seemed to suggest?
I found her comments that the voluntary sector has to be about more than just jobs for those who work in it absolutely insulting to those who have raised issues of concern; she may wish to reflect on that.
In relation to Mr Mather's warm words and the issue of ProjectScotland, I do not think that the whole debate is actually about ProjectScotland. ProjectScotland captures an approach.
I would like somebody in the SNP to explain to me why its members have such a problem with ProjectScotland. They are supporting a motion that welcomes
"organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland",
and they agree that such organisations
"should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government."
Are SNP members seriously saying that support does not involve funding, and that it involves only warm words? If so, they need to reflect on that, too.
We are told that there is a value-for-money test for ProjectScotland.
As we have said, 87 per cent of the moneys will go into the pockets of young people in the poorest of our communities.
Perhaps the minister would have more credibility on the argument around the value-for-money test if he was not promoting a Scottish Futures Trust that is spending £23 million to deliver absolutely nothing.
The minister has spoken about passion. We all have passion about the voluntary sector.
However, passion does not deliver services, and it does not in itself make a difference in our communities.
The interesting thing about people who volunteer—and about the voluntary sector—is that they have passion in partnership with a hard-headed approach.
If volunteers say that they are in dire straits, we should listen to them, rather than dismiss them in the way that has been suggested in the debate.
The Government makes great play of the resilience fund.
Apparently, it is wonderful and it will help the voluntary sector when it is under the cosh.
Actually, that captures a lack of responsibility.
The Scottish Government creates the crisis, cutting funding to local government despite its increased budget; it imposes a council tax freeze; and it uses a single outcome agreement model and the concordat without properly funding it, which is the major problem, rather than the model itself, as is suggested in Robert Brown's amendment. Then, when people say that there is a problem, the Government creates a resilience fund of £1.7 million for one year only—from old, previously announced money—which is a sticking plaster, and then trumpets that as a great success and evidence of its willingness to address the problem.
The minister talks about how the SCVO, COSLA and the Scottish Government have produced a joint statement.
That joint statement, on glossy paper, leaves unspoken some of the key issues that voluntary organisations, voluntary sector representatives and volunteers themselves have been addressing, including the difficult issue of full cost recovery.
The minister started by saying that he wanted to accentuate the positive.
The problem with that approach, which captures the language of a cheesy song from a cheesy musical, is that the minister is entirely distancing himself from the consequence of his Government's actions.
He is creating the impression that being nice about things will make a difference.
As I have said, however, the voluntary sector is a tough place, doing tough things, and it deserves a better approach than that.
The minister talked about ProjectScotland as a niche product.
As that one phrase shows, could there be a bigger gap between our vision, across the Parliament, of what ProjectScotland is and the minister's view of it?
It is a project that has changed lives.
The minister says that the Government wants to focus on people who are really difficult to reach, rather than on people who do not deserve it.
The figures about the reduction in placements across Scotland show that those reductions are coming about in the poorest of our communities, not in better-off communities.
Where ProjectScotland was reaching out to youngsters in deprived communities, it is now less able to do so.
I urge the minister, SNP back benchers and the Scottish Government to treat volunteering and voluntary organisations with respect.
There is a surfeit of warm words wherever we talk about volunteering, but the test must be whether the SNP is willing to recognise that this is not a trumped-up debate by the Opposition but a reflection of serious concerns across Scotland about the way in which Government decisions and actions are hampering organisations' capacity to do what they do best.
When meeting representatives of voluntary sector organisations, I urge the minister to deal with the issue of intimidation and to meet them as genuine partners.
We will judge the capacity and effectiveness of such meetings by whether there is a shift in his and his Government's policy.
The Scottish Government has promoted a wide range of non-debates in the chamber, but I cannot remember when these particular issues were last debated.
We want to give voice to concerns that are being reported to us by people throughout Scotland who are too afraid to speak up or speak out on their own behalf.
Indeed, I have been struck by the significant number of briefings that we have received as a result of this debate.
I thank everyone who provided a briefing; it is a measure of the subject's importance that they have been submitted.
It is right to recognise and celebrate the voluntary sector's role and we salute the volunteers who make a real difference to people who are very often the most isolated and vulnerable in our communities.
We know that volunteers can identify need, help to shape services and reach out into the parts of our communities where the state cannot go.
Volunteers such as those who work for Home-Start in my constituency can support and be trusted by vulnerable families who might fear more formal interventions by social work or health staff.
We know that volunteers make a massive social and economic contribution and that their influence on community life and cohesion is beyond measure.
We know, too, that volunteering enriches the lives of volunteers, both young and old; indeed, we have seen how significant the support for volunteering among older people has been.
Warm words, however, will sustain neither volunteers nor the voluntary sector and, like many others, I remain concerned that in its approach the SNP has been typically high on rhetoric but weak on delivery, with a separation between what it says it cares about and what it provides resources for.
I am also struck by the gap between ministers' approach, which borders on the complacent, and the issues that have been raised at a local level, including funding cuts, fears for the future and increased concern about the conditions of those who work with the voluntary sector.
In the time available, I will try to highlight some of those concerns.
First—and I do not say this lightly—I have been struck by the extent to which those involved have suggested that there is an atmosphere in which it is difficult for them to air concerns.
I hope that we all believe in and celebrate the independence of the voluntary sector, but the threat of the withdrawal of funding if critical voices are raised seems all too real.
That cannot be acceptable, but it has been reflected in the debate on the future of the councils for voluntary service network and the development of local interfaces.
Instead of following the principle of voluntary collaboration, we seem to be driving towards a forced measure, with funding being used to create compliance.
As I said, that is entirely unacceptable.
Secondly, there is concern that the Scottish Government seems to be of the view that the development of volunteering opportunities does not require resources.
The national volunteering strategy seems to have come to an end, and the single outcome agreements say nothing about the need for such strategies to be developed at a local level.
Thirdly, not that long ago, Unite, Unison and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations came together to highlight to the Parliament the crisis in the voluntary sector.
Who can forget the image of the hearse, which captured the fear of the sector's destruction?
Well, SNP back benchers will have forgotten it, because they did not have the courage to turn up and speak to the people who were raising these concerns.
There is also grave concern at the Scottish Government's lack of understanding of the powerful role that volunteering can play in tackling disadvantage, and we need to be proactive in encouraging such activity in our most disadvantaged communities.
After all, volunteering can improve skills, build confidence and form an important bulwark against the consequences of economic recession.
We need the Scottish Government to act, especially when we are faced with two contrasting sets of figures.
First, 18 per cent of adults in deprived communities volunteer, while the figure for Scotland is 33 per cent; secondly—and in stark contrast to that—the figure for young people not in education, employment or training is 11 per cent for the whole of Scotland, but 25 per cent in our 15 per cent most deprived communities.
The Scottish Government must find a way of intervening to ensure that our poorest communities, which would benefit most from the skills that volunteering can bring, are afforded such opportunities.
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP): Does the member not agree that one of the difficulties that the voluntary sector is facing is the move to compel people who do not want to go into employment or training to accept a place in the sector? Surely the whole ethos of volunteering is that it should be voluntary. Does the member agree that compulsion in this matter is very wrong and will she condemn the United Kingdom Government for trying to force through such a measure?
Johann Lamont: I regret the fact that Tricia Marwick wishes to attack the United Kingdom Government, rather than join us in contemplating challenges in our local communities.
Young people in poor communities could be afforded the opportunity to volunteer, which would address the fact that disproportionate numbers of them have been hit by the recession.
The Scottish Government's answer to that situation is to end funding for ProjectScotland, a body that has a focus on reaching out to young people for whom it is more difficult to access volunteering opportunities and who would benefit disproportionately from them.
There are examples of that in my community and, I am sure, throughout Scotland.
Despite that, the Scottish Government is ending ProjectScotland's funding.
The Government says that it is a matter of cost, but the reality is that 87 per cent of the money from the public purse that is used to support volunteering opportunities through ProjectScotland goes directly into the pockets of the young volunteers and, from those young people, out into the hard-pressed communities in which they live.
We know that 40 per cent of ProjectScotland's volunteers come from the 20 per cent most deprived communities.
At a time of economic recession, it is bizarre for the Scottish Government to make that decision, which shows a lack of understanding of the recession's disproportionate impact on poor communities and individuals.
It is time for the Scottish Government to confront the consequences of its decisions.
Its budget has increased in real terms by £600 million, but it is devolving responsibility to local level, with a reduced budget.
As a consequence, there are cuts in local government budgets.
Local government's capacity to find resources is restricted because of the impact of the council tax freeze.
The Scottish Government must accept that the funding problems that voluntary sector organisations and local volunteers are experiencing are its responsibility.
The Scottish Government should take a lesson from volunteers and the volunteering spirit.
It should take responsibility and recognise that warm words mean nothing without action to make the commitment real.
Having created huge problems for voluntary organisations and volunteering, the minister adds insult to injury by walking by on the other side.
I urge him to reconsider his position on ProjectScotland and to listen to and engage honestly with all those in the voluntary sector who wish to volunteer but who tell us that there are significant problems at local level.
That will give us confidence that volunteers and the voluntary sector can survive and thrive again.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises and celebrates the role of the voluntary sector and volunteers across Scotland in supporting individuals, families and communities and in shaping and delivering services locally; notes the excellent work of volunteering organisations in encouraging volunteering through offering training and volunteering placements and particularly in reaching out to those who might not otherwise have the chance to volunteer; agrees, given the opportunity that volunteering provides to develop skills and build confidence, that, in this economic recession, volunteering organisations should be given adequate resources to allow them to do that important work, and further agrees that innovative organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland, should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government.
Winding-up speech
Johann Lamont: The debate has been interesting, because it has captured three elements of the SNP's approach since it came into government.
First, there has been further evidence of its willingness to ignore the will of Parliament.
Parliament has spoken before on the issue of ProjectScotland, but the SNP has chosen to ignore its voice.
Secondly, we have heard warm words that are a million miles away from delivery or any sense of responsibility for what is happening.
Thirdly, there has been absolute silence from Government back benchers, who are unwilling to suggest that anything that ministers are doing may not be absolutely correct.
I was chided by an SNP back bencher when I mentioned their craven compliance.
She told me that I did not like the fact that SNP members are united.
My problem is that I do not like unity that is at the expense of voluntary organisations and others that need members to speak up for them.
The great test of the maturity of the SNP Government is whether its back benchers are allowed and have the confidence to raise even a squeak about the problems that our local communities face.
Tricia Marwick: Given my record over the past few weeks, when I spoke here opposing the Government on an issue in my constituency, I object strongly to the member's suggestion that I would not criticise ministers. However, I will not criticise them on this occasion, because on this occasion they are right.
Johann Lamont: The member is to be congratulated on having the confidence to oppose the Government once; whether that is followed through in voting is a different matter.
The point has been made, and the member may want to reflect on it.
I have referred to the Government's warm words.
Is the minister seriously saying that there are no concerns in voluntary organisations and among volunteers, and that they do not think that there is a problem?
He said that all the pessimism is here in the chamber, rather than in the outside world.
What does he think the hearse that was brought to the Parliament was about?
Why does he think that Unite, Unison and the SCVO came together to express their concerns?
Why, does he imagine, are people talking about the cuts at local level?
Are they just making it up, as Tricia Marwick seemed to suggest?
I found her comments that the voluntary sector has to be about more than just jobs for those who work in it absolutely insulting to those who have raised issues of concern; she may wish to reflect on that.
In relation to Mr Mather's warm words and the issue of ProjectScotland, I do not think that the whole debate is actually about ProjectScotland. ProjectScotland captures an approach.
I would like somebody in the SNP to explain to me why its members have such a problem with ProjectScotland. They are supporting a motion that welcomes
"organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland",
and they agree that such organisations
"should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government."
Are SNP members seriously saying that support does not involve funding, and that it involves only warm words? If so, they need to reflect on that, too.
We are told that there is a value-for-money test for ProjectScotland.
As we have said, 87 per cent of the moneys will go into the pockets of young people in the poorest of our communities.
Perhaps the minister would have more credibility on the argument around the value-for-money test if he was not promoting a Scottish Futures Trust that is spending £23 million to deliver absolutely nothing.
The minister has spoken about passion. We all have passion about the voluntary sector.
However, passion does not deliver services, and it does not in itself make a difference in our communities.
The interesting thing about people who volunteer—and about the voluntary sector—is that they have passion in partnership with a hard-headed approach.
If volunteers say that they are in dire straits, we should listen to them, rather than dismiss them in the way that has been suggested in the debate.
The Government makes great play of the resilience fund.
Apparently, it is wonderful and it will help the voluntary sector when it is under the cosh.
Actually, that captures a lack of responsibility.
The Scottish Government creates the crisis, cutting funding to local government despite its increased budget; it imposes a council tax freeze; and it uses a single outcome agreement model and the concordat without properly funding it, which is the major problem, rather than the model itself, as is suggested in Robert Brown's amendment. Then, when people say that there is a problem, the Government creates a resilience fund of £1.7 million for one year only—from old, previously announced money—which is a sticking plaster, and then trumpets that as a great success and evidence of its willingness to address the problem.
The minister talks about how the SCVO, COSLA and the Scottish Government have produced a joint statement.
That joint statement, on glossy paper, leaves unspoken some of the key issues that voluntary organisations, voluntary sector representatives and volunteers themselves have been addressing, including the difficult issue of full cost recovery.
The minister started by saying that he wanted to accentuate the positive.
The problem with that approach, which captures the language of a cheesy song from a cheesy musical, is that the minister is entirely distancing himself from the consequence of his Government's actions.
He is creating the impression that being nice about things will make a difference.
As I have said, however, the voluntary sector is a tough place, doing tough things, and it deserves a better approach than that.
The minister talked about ProjectScotland as a niche product.
As that one phrase shows, could there be a bigger gap between our vision, across the Parliament, of what ProjectScotland is and the minister's view of it?
It is a project that has changed lives.
The minister says that the Government wants to focus on people who are really difficult to reach, rather than on people who do not deserve it.
The figures about the reduction in placements across Scotland show that those reductions are coming about in the poorest of our communities, not in better-off communities.
Where ProjectScotland was reaching out to youngsters in deprived communities, it is now less able to do so.
I urge the minister, SNP back benchers and the Scottish Government to treat volunteering and voluntary organisations with respect.
There is a surfeit of warm words wherever we talk about volunteering, but the test must be whether the SNP is willing to recognise that this is not a trumped-up debate by the Opposition but a reflection of serious concerns across Scotland about the way in which Government decisions and actions are hampering organisations' capacity to do what they do best.
When meeting representatives of voluntary sector organisations, I urge the minister to deal with the issue of intimidation and to meet them as genuine partners.
We will judge the capacity and effectiveness of such meetings by whether there is a shift in his and his Government's policy.
8.9.09
Speech on Scottish Government's Programme, Scottish Parliament, 3rd. September, '09
I am happy and proud to contribute to this debate as a Labour representative.
I think that I have won the good attendance award for sitting through every speech, although members must accept that that endeavour might have challenged my happy disposition a little.
I shall attempt to be as constructive as possible, but I point out to Sandra White that robust debate is to be celebrated, not feared. We need to draw a distinction here.
It is one thing to disagree with and have a debate about something; it is another to be accused of being negative for having the audacity to say that we have a problem with some of the proposals.
I am concerned that, unlike what happened in the first eight years of the Parliament, there has been not one dissenting voice on the Government back benches in this debate.
If members take the Parliament seriously, they should seek to be free to criticise not just the Opposition but their own front bench.
I will give them some advice on that if they require it.
Obviously, it is not sufficient in itself but, in the absence of a Government that takes the Parliament's votes seriously, the legislative programme is one of the few areas in which there is any parliamentary control over the administrative devolution that has been given to ministers.
The fact that Government ministers are making decisions on the basis of what they can do away from this place instead of working in conjunction with it is a very serious matter, and I ask them to reflect on that point.
In these serious times, we need to focus on the concerns and experiences of people throughout Scotland.
I have to say that I found the First Minister's statement insubstantial and his presentation dispiriting.
It seemed the statement of a First Minister who does not take his job seriously and, as we saw at First Minister's question time, a man who is complacent about certain very big issues of the day, such as child protection and crime, to which there are no obvious right or wrong answers.
This is a First Minister who imagines that a statement full of assertion rather than action that is focused on his party's self-serving and indulgent constitutional priorities instead of the real problems of real people in real communities adds up to a programme for government.
It does not.
The gulf between the priorities that he set out in his statement and the problems that people in my constituency bring to me could not be more marked.
In the past, we have criticised the Scottish Government's remarkable capacity for telling us how much it cares about those who face disadvantage and inequality while doing not a thing to match its rhetoric with commitments, resources and budgets that have been properly and transparently tested against assessments of equality and fairness.
However, in this morning's statement, the Scottish Government went a step further: it talked about the people of Scotland without at any time acknowledging the diversity of experience, the lack of opportunity for some Scots or the discrimination against and loss of potential of too many with disabilities.
Alex Neil said that the statement was about economic growth and social justice.
No, it was not—and it will not become one simply because he says so. It contained not one word on equality or poverty and not one phrase that reflected an understanding of how this economic recession is impacting disproportionately on some people.
It is perhaps not surprising that a First Minister who commends Thatcherite economics should not trouble himself to comment on such matters, but we might have expected him to nod in the direction of his back-bench colleagues who do have such a commitment. He must indeed think that the party's discipline is strong.
As far as jobs and training are concerned, there is nothing in the statement to address the fact that, although unemployment hangs as a worry over more people and families than it should, in our poorest communities 25 per cent of young people are not in education, employment or training, compared with 11 per cent across the whole of Scotland.
There is nothing to address the fact that only 18 per cent of people with learning disabilities are in work or that less than that work for more than 16 hours a week. In the face of all that, there is nothing on skills; cuts are being made in Skills Development Scotland; and the education maintenance allowance, which has allowed some of our poorest and brightest access to education at the time that it matters—that is, at school—is being reduced.
The economic strategy does not recognise that there should be shared prosperity, not just sustained economic growth.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the statement on child care; and nothing on how the Government will make real its guarantee to those on apprenticeships that they will be allowed to finish them.
It is a cruel deception to call something a guarantee if it is not going to be honoured.
At the same time, Scottish Enterprise no longer has any responsibility for people and place.
There is nothing on regeneration and employability, and there is an end to Communities Scotland, which had a focus on the detail and the delivery and the hard work of government.
In the Highlands, there is the destruction of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
Where the Government is taking action, it is inadequate.
Housing is a classic example of the SNP's approach.
We have cheap headlines on the right to buy, despite the fact that the SNP is in favour of the use of public moneys for home ownership through low-cost home ownership. It will not cost a coin.
Alex Neil: Will the member take an intervention?
Johann Lamont: For all the noise and bluster on the right to buy, the reality is that another proposal is being brought in through the back door.
Alex Neil: Will the member take an intervention?
The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Neil, sit down, please.
Johann Lamont: I advise SNP back benchers to consider that proposal closely.
The aim is to bring in private, profit-making housing organisations to be registered as social landlords and to destroy the community-controlled housing association and co-operative movement.
Sandra White rose—
Alex Neil rose—
Johann Lamont: I will take an intervention.
Alex Neil: I thank the member—
Johann Lamont: I was talking about Sandra White.
Alex Neil: Oh!
Johann Lamont: On you go.
Alex Neil: I thank the member for agreeing at one remove to take the intervention.
On Labour Party policy, will that party support our proposals to end the right to buy for new council housing?
Johann Lamont: As the party that modernised the right to buy, which made a huge difference, we do not have a problem with looking at the policy. However, we have a problem with the housing policy with which it is to be substituted.
What hypocrisy from a man who spends money on low-cost home ownership and will not tell us the figures on the number of houses that are built for social rented housing rather than ownership.
To pretend that the policy is radical is bizarre.
There is to be no action to address the weaknesses in the child protection procedures but, on crofting, the silence is even more remarkable.
As has been said, the SNP is to be congratulated on its crofting proposals, as it has managed to unite every authoritative and respected crofting commentator and representative in opposition to its proposals.
However, the SNP has the audacity to lecture those who protect those communities and the way of life that has sustained them because they do not agree.
There is no radicalism on land reform—in fact, there is a dismantling of that, too.
When there is a huge yawning silence on those matters, in steps the First Minister to compound the offence.
He used the language of equality and talked of a glass ceiling.
That is the language that captures the idea of a denial of opportunity, but the First Minister used it to describe his notion of Scotland and all us oppressed Scots together, who need to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom.
In that one phrase, we have Alex Salmond's refutation of the need for social justice in Scotland.
It seems that he really believes that that is the one defining trait and the factor that determines all our life chances.
The issue is not about people being left neglected in chaotic homes, disability, women facing domestic abuse or people facing the consequence of being unable to access education.
Instead, it is about being Scottish—being a clan chief, a landowner, a crofter or someone from Glasgow.
All together, we need to be liberated.
What nonsense.
That explains why Alex Salmond thinks that the referendum matters and that is why we disagree.
We will ensure that the Parliament takes its responsibility seriously to produce a programme that will make a difference to the people of this country.
I think that I have won the good attendance award for sitting through every speech, although members must accept that that endeavour might have challenged my happy disposition a little.
I shall attempt to be as constructive as possible, but I point out to Sandra White that robust debate is to be celebrated, not feared. We need to draw a distinction here.
It is one thing to disagree with and have a debate about something; it is another to be accused of being negative for having the audacity to say that we have a problem with some of the proposals.
I am concerned that, unlike what happened in the first eight years of the Parliament, there has been not one dissenting voice on the Government back benches in this debate.
If members take the Parliament seriously, they should seek to be free to criticise not just the Opposition but their own front bench.
I will give them some advice on that if they require it.
Obviously, it is not sufficient in itself but, in the absence of a Government that takes the Parliament's votes seriously, the legislative programme is one of the few areas in which there is any parliamentary control over the administrative devolution that has been given to ministers.
The fact that Government ministers are making decisions on the basis of what they can do away from this place instead of working in conjunction with it is a very serious matter, and I ask them to reflect on that point.
In these serious times, we need to focus on the concerns and experiences of people throughout Scotland.
I have to say that I found the First Minister's statement insubstantial and his presentation dispiriting.
It seemed the statement of a First Minister who does not take his job seriously and, as we saw at First Minister's question time, a man who is complacent about certain very big issues of the day, such as child protection and crime, to which there are no obvious right or wrong answers.
This is a First Minister who imagines that a statement full of assertion rather than action that is focused on his party's self-serving and indulgent constitutional priorities instead of the real problems of real people in real communities adds up to a programme for government.
It does not.
The gulf between the priorities that he set out in his statement and the problems that people in my constituency bring to me could not be more marked.
In the past, we have criticised the Scottish Government's remarkable capacity for telling us how much it cares about those who face disadvantage and inequality while doing not a thing to match its rhetoric with commitments, resources and budgets that have been properly and transparently tested against assessments of equality and fairness.
However, in this morning's statement, the Scottish Government went a step further: it talked about the people of Scotland without at any time acknowledging the diversity of experience, the lack of opportunity for some Scots or the discrimination against and loss of potential of too many with disabilities.
Alex Neil said that the statement was about economic growth and social justice.
No, it was not—and it will not become one simply because he says so. It contained not one word on equality or poverty and not one phrase that reflected an understanding of how this economic recession is impacting disproportionately on some people.
It is perhaps not surprising that a First Minister who commends Thatcherite economics should not trouble himself to comment on such matters, but we might have expected him to nod in the direction of his back-bench colleagues who do have such a commitment. He must indeed think that the party's discipline is strong.
As far as jobs and training are concerned, there is nothing in the statement to address the fact that, although unemployment hangs as a worry over more people and families than it should, in our poorest communities 25 per cent of young people are not in education, employment or training, compared with 11 per cent across the whole of Scotland.
There is nothing to address the fact that only 18 per cent of people with learning disabilities are in work or that less than that work for more than 16 hours a week. In the face of all that, there is nothing on skills; cuts are being made in Skills Development Scotland; and the education maintenance allowance, which has allowed some of our poorest and brightest access to education at the time that it matters—that is, at school—is being reduced.
The economic strategy does not recognise that there should be shared prosperity, not just sustained economic growth.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the statement on child care; and nothing on how the Government will make real its guarantee to those on apprenticeships that they will be allowed to finish them.
It is a cruel deception to call something a guarantee if it is not going to be honoured.
At the same time, Scottish Enterprise no longer has any responsibility for people and place.
There is nothing on regeneration and employability, and there is an end to Communities Scotland, which had a focus on the detail and the delivery and the hard work of government.
In the Highlands, there is the destruction of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
Where the Government is taking action, it is inadequate.
Housing is a classic example of the SNP's approach.
We have cheap headlines on the right to buy, despite the fact that the SNP is in favour of the use of public moneys for home ownership through low-cost home ownership. It will not cost a coin.
Alex Neil: Will the member take an intervention?
Johann Lamont: For all the noise and bluster on the right to buy, the reality is that another proposal is being brought in through the back door.
Alex Neil: Will the member take an intervention?
The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Neil, sit down, please.
Johann Lamont: I advise SNP back benchers to consider that proposal closely.
The aim is to bring in private, profit-making housing organisations to be registered as social landlords and to destroy the community-controlled housing association and co-operative movement.
Sandra White rose—
Alex Neil rose—
Johann Lamont: I will take an intervention.
Alex Neil: I thank the member—
Johann Lamont: I was talking about Sandra White.
Alex Neil: Oh!
Johann Lamont: On you go.
Alex Neil: I thank the member for agreeing at one remove to take the intervention.
On Labour Party policy, will that party support our proposals to end the right to buy for new council housing?
Johann Lamont: As the party that modernised the right to buy, which made a huge difference, we do not have a problem with looking at the policy. However, we have a problem with the housing policy with which it is to be substituted.
What hypocrisy from a man who spends money on low-cost home ownership and will not tell us the figures on the number of houses that are built for social rented housing rather than ownership.
To pretend that the policy is radical is bizarre.
There is to be no action to address the weaknesses in the child protection procedures but, on crofting, the silence is even more remarkable.
As has been said, the SNP is to be congratulated on its crofting proposals, as it has managed to unite every authoritative and respected crofting commentator and representative in opposition to its proposals.
However, the SNP has the audacity to lecture those who protect those communities and the way of life that has sustained them because they do not agree.
There is no radicalism on land reform—in fact, there is a dismantling of that, too.
When there is a huge yawning silence on those matters, in steps the First Minister to compound the offence.
He used the language of equality and talked of a glass ceiling.
That is the language that captures the idea of a denial of opportunity, but the First Minister used it to describe his notion of Scotland and all us oppressed Scots together, who need to be separated from the rest of the United Kingdom.
In that one phrase, we have Alex Salmond's refutation of the need for social justice in Scotland.
It seems that he really believes that that is the one defining trait and the factor that determines all our life chances.
The issue is not about people being left neglected in chaotic homes, disability, women facing domestic abuse or people facing the consequence of being unable to access education.
Instead, it is about being Scottish—being a clan chief, a landowner, a crofter or someone from Glasgow.
All together, we need to be liberated.
What nonsense.
That explains why Alex Salmond thinks that the referendum matters and that is why we disagree.
We will ensure that the Parliament takes its responsibility seriously to produce a programme that will make a difference to the people of this country.
20.6.09
25.5.09
24.5.09
School Discipline : Scottish Parliament speech 7 May 2009
I am not sure that I can follow Ian McKee's speech.
I think that I would be ill advised even to attempt to do so.
Dr McKee's last points were significant, although it is unfortunate that he dwelt on a false debate at the beginning of his speech, which I do not think anybody really wants to talk about.
The challenge for him is to square his view with what the SNP is doing in our local communities, and to understand the wider social issues.
I should declare an interest: I am a parent of children in late primary and early secondary school; I was a behaviour support teacher who, in an education support base, and as part of a broader team, latterly worked with youngsters to hold them in mainstream education; and I am someone who seeks to represent the views of constituents, such as youngsters who are bullied or intimidated in schools or who are struggling because they have not got the appropriate support in school.
I was concerned by what appeared to be the minister's tone of complacency.
Indiscipline is not just a problem now—it has always been with us—but the test for the Government is whether what it does makes the problem better or worse.
I contend that, at the moment, the Government is making it worse.
I find it frustrating that when we talk about school discipline, we want to separate it off and put it in a policy box away from the broader issues.
We talk about knife crime in schools, but it is disturbing that the Government is rolling back more broadly its policy on knives and the retail of knives.
We cannot separate those issues.
We ought not to talk about indiscipline in schools as if it were one issue.
There are issues to do with the appropriateness of the curriculum for some youngsters, and there is an issue around parents who mollycoddle their children so that the children go to school never having been told, "No."
That difficulty, which is not specific to poor communities, must be challenged.
Some children who come to school are living in the most chaotic circumstances.
We do not know—and neither does the Government, as it has not sought to find out—how many children are living with parents who have an addiction.
Do we imagine that those children, who have to learn to be resilient within their homes, somehow come to school able to stay calm and cope with what is demanded of them?
I ask the Conservatives to reflect on the fact that for those youngsters, school is sometimes the only security that they have, and the most remarkable journey that they make every day is to get themselves to school.
We should be hesitant about saying that we simply expect those children to learn somewhere else.
We should perhaps have to take them out of the classroom, but not necessarily out of the building.
Do we imagine that for certain young people, being on the fringes of a young male gang culture in our communities does not impact on what they do when they go to school?
I am troubled by the Government's approach to antisocial behaviour.
It somehow thinks that getting rid of antisocial behaviour orders for young people is a positive thing, when in fact those orders are about engagement and challenging young people about their behaviour at an early stage.
Some of what is happening in schools reflects the broader concerns.
We must ensure that our schools are confident enough to deal with poor behaviour, but we must also consider the causes of such misbehaviour and address it accordingly.
In the past, when young people from poor communities misbehaved, people shrugged their shoulders, tolerated it and said, "So be it."
That is unacceptable: those young people deserve to have us challenge their behaviour, and we must recognise the importance of early intervention, early parental involvement and engagement beyond the school.
We need to challenge the children's hearings system, the social work system and others to work with schools in addressing those difficult problems.
The Government must confront some of the consequences of its own actions.
The council tax freeze, which is a squeeze on funding, means the end of behaviour support, so that children who should be included in mainstream education are denied the support that allows that to happen.
There is a focus on bringing down class size numbers in primaries 1, 2 and 3, while our young boys are falling out of the education system in the first and second years of secondary school—and the numbers are going up as a consequence of that focus.
There is a freeze on recruitment and an increase in the use of supply teachers in our secondary schools, which makes life uncertain for young people, stops the continuity of their learning and has an impact on behaviour.
The direction project in my constituency, which in the past was supported by youth crime prevention moneys, is now ending its support for five to 12-year-olds because of funding decisions by the Scottish Government, which will have consequences for the ability of those youngsters to sustain a mainstream education and will impact on the quality of learning for young people who desperately need an education.
There has been a reduction in breakfast clubs, which have nothing to do with eating and everything to do with supporting children in the transition from their homes to school.
School and education involve tackling indiscipline, but the broader social programme of funding and resources that the Government provides for communities is critical to addressing the problem inside and outside our schools.
I think that I would be ill advised even to attempt to do so.
Dr McKee's last points were significant, although it is unfortunate that he dwelt on a false debate at the beginning of his speech, which I do not think anybody really wants to talk about.
The challenge for him is to square his view with what the SNP is doing in our local communities, and to understand the wider social issues.
I should declare an interest: I am a parent of children in late primary and early secondary school; I was a behaviour support teacher who, in an education support base, and as part of a broader team, latterly worked with youngsters to hold them in mainstream education; and I am someone who seeks to represent the views of constituents, such as youngsters who are bullied or intimidated in schools or who are struggling because they have not got the appropriate support in school.
I was concerned by what appeared to be the minister's tone of complacency.
Indiscipline is not just a problem now—it has always been with us—but the test for the Government is whether what it does makes the problem better or worse.
I contend that, at the moment, the Government is making it worse.
I find it frustrating that when we talk about school discipline, we want to separate it off and put it in a policy box away from the broader issues.
We talk about knife crime in schools, but it is disturbing that the Government is rolling back more broadly its policy on knives and the retail of knives.
We cannot separate those issues.
We ought not to talk about indiscipline in schools as if it were one issue.
There are issues to do with the appropriateness of the curriculum for some youngsters, and there is an issue around parents who mollycoddle their children so that the children go to school never having been told, "No."
That difficulty, which is not specific to poor communities, must be challenged.
Some children who come to school are living in the most chaotic circumstances.
We do not know—and neither does the Government, as it has not sought to find out—how many children are living with parents who have an addiction.
Do we imagine that those children, who have to learn to be resilient within their homes, somehow come to school able to stay calm and cope with what is demanded of them?
I ask the Conservatives to reflect on the fact that for those youngsters, school is sometimes the only security that they have, and the most remarkable journey that they make every day is to get themselves to school.
We should be hesitant about saying that we simply expect those children to learn somewhere else.
We should perhaps have to take them out of the classroom, but not necessarily out of the building.
Do we imagine that for certain young people, being on the fringes of a young male gang culture in our communities does not impact on what they do when they go to school?
I am troubled by the Government's approach to antisocial behaviour.
It somehow thinks that getting rid of antisocial behaviour orders for young people is a positive thing, when in fact those orders are about engagement and challenging young people about their behaviour at an early stage.
Some of what is happening in schools reflects the broader concerns.
We must ensure that our schools are confident enough to deal with poor behaviour, but we must also consider the causes of such misbehaviour and address it accordingly.
In the past, when young people from poor communities misbehaved, people shrugged their shoulders, tolerated it and said, "So be it."
That is unacceptable: those young people deserve to have us challenge their behaviour, and we must recognise the importance of early intervention, early parental involvement and engagement beyond the school.
We need to challenge the children's hearings system, the social work system and others to work with schools in addressing those difficult problems.
The Government must confront some of the consequences of its own actions.
The council tax freeze, which is a squeeze on funding, means the end of behaviour support, so that children who should be included in mainstream education are denied the support that allows that to happen.
There is a focus on bringing down class size numbers in primaries 1, 2 and 3, while our young boys are falling out of the education system in the first and second years of secondary school—and the numbers are going up as a consequence of that focus.
There is a freeze on recruitment and an increase in the use of supply teachers in our secondary schools, which makes life uncertain for young people, stops the continuity of their learning and has an impact on behaviour.
The direction project in my constituency, which in the past was supported by youth crime prevention moneys, is now ending its support for five to 12-year-olds because of funding decisions by the Scottish Government, which will have consequences for the ability of those youngsters to sustain a mainstream education and will impact on the quality of learning for young people who desperately need an education.
There has been a reduction in breakfast clubs, which have nothing to do with eating and everything to do with supporting children in the transition from their homes to school.
School and education involve tackling indiscipline, but the broader social programme of funding and resources that the Government provides for communities is critical to addressing the problem inside and outside our schools.
2.5.09
9.4.09
Supporting Economic recovery : Scottish Parliament speech 26 March 2009
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate.
There is a danger of a little occupational segregation among MSPs in economy debates, with only men contributing to debates on big issues such as the economy while we reflect on social issues elsewhere.
In my speech, I will try to bring the two aspects together.
It is essential to understand the impact of the global economic crisis not just in general terms but in particular terms and for particular groups
The cabinet secretary reflected on that, but he spoke generally about the economy and did not address particular groups' needs.
I will explore with the Scottish Government what its six-point plan and other approaches do to understand needs and impacts and to address them properly.
As John Park said, public procurement alone amounts to £8 billion.
It is right to ask not only how that money is being disbursed but how it can be used to lever in social and economic benefits for the people of Scotland.
We should not separate out that issue, which provides an example of how we can shift from general aspiration to making a difference to individuals, families and communities.
Concerns are already felt about the Scottish Government's willingness or capacity to address equality in its spending. Equality groups have flagged up their concerns about the lack of transparency in the budget and the step back from the progress that had been made on interrogating budgets on the basis of equality.
Ministers have deprioritised equality in the development of single outcome agreements.
This morning, I searched the Scottish Government's website for an updated position, since May 2007, on women and employment, disability and employment, and employability.
My search was fruitless, which is a concern because it suggests that the Government is not reflecting on those critical elements in economic recovery.
In these unpredictable and unprecedented times, I do not set the Government the task of solving everything, but we must ask one question: are the Government's actions making things better or worse?
The first part of Rob Gibson's speech was deeply depressing because the Parliament has put in place opportunities to ensure that the general develops into the particular and to make a difference.
I am concerned that, if the imbalance in need and the disproportionate impact are not understood, the opportunities to protect and support people will be lost.
In that regard, the Scottish Government will make things worse and not better.
In the remaining time, I will flag up some issues.
Low pay remains an important issue for women—16 per cent of men and 29 per cent of women are in low-paid jobs. What does our economic strategy say about that?
On addressing vulnerability to unemployment and redundancy, what is being said about the fact that women are more likely to work part time?
As for occupational segregation, the service industries have been hit more in the recession, and 19.5 per cent of women but only 4 per cent of men are in administrative and secretarial jobs.
There is also segregation within sectors.
In retail, women make up two thirds of the workforce, but still more men are in full-time retail posts.
Women are concentrated in part-time, low-paid jobs and men in management posts.
What is the strategy on the occupational segregation that faces black and ethnic minority communities?
What is being done to address the challenge that people who live in poverty face in securing work when fewer jobs are available?
What is being done to address the scandalous levels of unemployment among people with disabilities?
It is essential that the Government focus on that.
The Government announced an apprenticeship summit, but it was silent on equal access to training.
I challenge it on that: who will be invited to the summit?
I hope that the minister will respond and reflect on what equality groups need to be at the summit to address equal access to training, which must be a key part of the agenda.
The policy of concentrating adult modern apprenticeships in particular sectors has had the consequence of directing moneys away from the sectors in which groups such as women are found.
We cannot leave it to the market to find modern apprenticeships for women while Government moneys are concentrated on construction, engineering and life sciences.
The update on the skills strategy is silent on diversity in need, and it is critical that the Scottish Government should speak on that.
What is being done to continue an employability strategy?
I regret the ending of Scottish Enterprise's role in that, as I remember intermediate labour market initiatives in my constituency that took women who were unemployed, trained them in child care, provided child care, and offered a bridge into employment.
Those initiatives have now gone but must feature once again in the Government's employment strategy.
What is being done to match the package of £42.5 million that has been made available in the rest of the United Kingdom to support the voluntary sector through recession?
The minister often talks about the amount of money in the voluntary sector, but what is he doing to address the impact of recession?
It is regrettable that organisations such as Community Service Volunteers Scotland have to cut back their services when the voluntary sector and volunteering can give people critical skills to face the recession.
Tackling disadvantage is not only for when the sun shines; it is an integral part of economic recovery.
It does not get headlines, but it passes a more important test: it addresses needs and strengthens economic opportunities.
I urge the Scottish Government to recognise that fact in its apprenticeship summit, skills strategy and spending decisions.
There is a danger of a little occupational segregation among MSPs in economy debates, with only men contributing to debates on big issues such as the economy while we reflect on social issues elsewhere.
In my speech, I will try to bring the two aspects together.
It is essential to understand the impact of the global economic crisis not just in general terms but in particular terms and for particular groups
The cabinet secretary reflected on that, but he spoke generally about the economy and did not address particular groups' needs.
I will explore with the Scottish Government what its six-point plan and other approaches do to understand needs and impacts and to address them properly.
As John Park said, public procurement alone amounts to £8 billion.
It is right to ask not only how that money is being disbursed but how it can be used to lever in social and economic benefits for the people of Scotland.
We should not separate out that issue, which provides an example of how we can shift from general aspiration to making a difference to individuals, families and communities.
Concerns are already felt about the Scottish Government's willingness or capacity to address equality in its spending. Equality groups have flagged up their concerns about the lack of transparency in the budget and the step back from the progress that had been made on interrogating budgets on the basis of equality.
Ministers have deprioritised equality in the development of single outcome agreements.
This morning, I searched the Scottish Government's website for an updated position, since May 2007, on women and employment, disability and employment, and employability.
My search was fruitless, which is a concern because it suggests that the Government is not reflecting on those critical elements in economic recovery.
In these unpredictable and unprecedented times, I do not set the Government the task of solving everything, but we must ask one question: are the Government's actions making things better or worse?
The first part of Rob Gibson's speech was deeply depressing because the Parliament has put in place opportunities to ensure that the general develops into the particular and to make a difference.
I am concerned that, if the imbalance in need and the disproportionate impact are not understood, the opportunities to protect and support people will be lost.
In that regard, the Scottish Government will make things worse and not better.
In the remaining time, I will flag up some issues.
Low pay remains an important issue for women—16 per cent of men and 29 per cent of women are in low-paid jobs. What does our economic strategy say about that?
On addressing vulnerability to unemployment and redundancy, what is being said about the fact that women are more likely to work part time?
As for occupational segregation, the service industries have been hit more in the recession, and 19.5 per cent of women but only 4 per cent of men are in administrative and secretarial jobs.
There is also segregation within sectors.
In retail, women make up two thirds of the workforce, but still more men are in full-time retail posts.
Women are concentrated in part-time, low-paid jobs and men in management posts.
What is the strategy on the occupational segregation that faces black and ethnic minority communities?
What is being done to address the challenge that people who live in poverty face in securing work when fewer jobs are available?
What is being done to address the scandalous levels of unemployment among people with disabilities?
It is essential that the Government focus on that.
The Government announced an apprenticeship summit, but it was silent on equal access to training.
I challenge it on that: who will be invited to the summit?
I hope that the minister will respond and reflect on what equality groups need to be at the summit to address equal access to training, which must be a key part of the agenda.
The policy of concentrating adult modern apprenticeships in particular sectors has had the consequence of directing moneys away from the sectors in which groups such as women are found.
We cannot leave it to the market to find modern apprenticeships for women while Government moneys are concentrated on construction, engineering and life sciences.
The update on the skills strategy is silent on diversity in need, and it is critical that the Scottish Government should speak on that.
What is being done to continue an employability strategy?
I regret the ending of Scottish Enterprise's role in that, as I remember intermediate labour market initiatives in my constituency that took women who were unemployed, trained them in child care, provided child care, and offered a bridge into employment.
Those initiatives have now gone but must feature once again in the Government's employment strategy.
What is being done to match the package of £42.5 million that has been made available in the rest of the United Kingdom to support the voluntary sector through recession?
The minister often talks about the amount of money in the voluntary sector, but what is he doing to address the impact of recession?
It is regrettable that organisations such as Community Service Volunteers Scotland have to cut back their services when the voluntary sector and volunteering can give people critical skills to face the recession.
Tackling disadvantage is not only for when the sun shines; it is an integral part of economic recovery.
It does not get headlines, but it passes a more important test: it addresses needs and strengthens economic opportunities.
I urge the Scottish Government to recognise that fact in its apprenticeship summit, skills strategy and spending decisions.
7.4.09
28.3.09
27.3.09
Scottish Parliament Speech - Supporting Economic Recovery 26th. March 2009
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate.
There is a danger of a little occupational segregation among MSPs in economy debates, with only men contributing to debates on big issues such as the economy while we reflect on social issues elsewhere.
In my speech, I will try to bring the two aspects together.
It is essential to understand the impact of the global economic crisis not just in general terms but in particular terms and for particular groups.
The cabinet secretary reflected on that, but he spoke generally about the economy and did not address particular groups' needs.
I will explore with the Scottish Government what its six-point plan and other approaches do to understand needs and impacts and to address them properly.
As John Park said, public procurement alone amounts to £8 billion.
It is right to ask not only how that money is being disbursed but how it can be used to lever in social and economic benefits for the people of Scotland.
We should not separate out that issue, which provides an example of how we can shift from general aspiration to making a difference to individuals, families and communities.
Concerns are already felt about the Scottish Government's willingness or capacity to address equality in its spending. Equality groups have flagged up their concerns about the lack of transparency in the budget and the step back from the progress that had been made on interrogating budgets on the basis of equality.
Ministers have deprioritised equality in the development of single outcome agreements.
This morning, I searched the Scottish Government's website for an updated position, since May 2007, on women and employment, disability and employment, and employability.
My search was fruitless, which is a concern because it suggests that the Government is not reflecting on those critical elements in economic recovery.
In these unpredictable and unprecedented times, I do not set the Government the task of solving everything, but we must ask one question: are the Government's actions making things better or worse?
The first part of Rob Gibson's speech was deeply depressing because the Parliament has put in place opportunities to ensure that the general develops into the particular and to make a difference.
I am concerned that, if the imbalance in need and the disproportionate impact are not understood, the opportunities to protect and support people will be lost.
In that regard, the Scottish Government will make things worse and not better.
In the remaining time, I will flag up some issues
Low pay remains an important issue for women—16 per cent of men and 29 per cent of women are in low-paid jobs. What does our economic strategy say about that?
On addressing vulnerability to unemployment and redundancy, what is being said about the fact that women are more likely to work part time?
As for occupational segregation, the service industries have been hit more in the recession, and 19.5 per cent of women but only 4 per cent of men are in administrative and secretarial jobs.
There is also segregation within sectors.
In retail, women make up two thirds of the workforce, but still more men are in full-time retail posts.
Women are concentrated in part-time, low-paid jobs and men in management posts.
What is the strategy on the occupational segregation that faces black and ethnic minority communities?
What is being done to address the challenge that people who live in poverty face in securing work when fewer jobs are available?
What is being done to address the scandalous levels of unemployment among people with disabilities?
It is essential that the Government focus on that.
The Government announced an apprenticeship summit, but it was silent on equal access to training.
I challenge it on that: who will be invited to the summit?
I hope that the minister will respond and reflect on what equality groups need to be at the summit to address equal access to training, which must be a key part of the agenda.
The policy of concentrating adult modern apprenticeships in particular sectors has had the consequence of directing moneys away from the sectors in which groups such as women are found.
We cannot leave it to the market to find modern apprenticeships for women while Government moneys are concentrated on construction, engineering and life sciences.
The update on the skills strategy is silent on diversity in need, and it is critical that the Scottish Government should speak on that.
What is being done to continue an employability strategy?
I regret the ending of Scottish Enterprise's role in that, as I remember intermediate labour market initiatives in my constituency that took women who were unemployed, trained them in child care, provided child care, and offered a bridge into employment.
Those initiatives have now gone but must feature once again in the Government's employment strategy.
What is being done to match the package of £42.5 million that has been made available in the rest of the United Kingdom to support the voluntary sector through recession?
The minister often talks about the amount of money in the voluntary sector, but what is he doing to address the impact of recession?
It is regrettable that organisations such as Community Service Volunteers Scotland have to cut back their services when the voluntary sector and volunteering can give people critical skills to face the recession.
Tackling disadvantage is not only for when the sun shines; it is an integral part of economic recovery.
It does not get headlines, but it passes a more important test: it addresses needs and strengthens economic opportunities.
I urge the Scottish Government to recognise that fact in its apprenticeship summit, skills strategy and spending decisions.
There is a danger of a little occupational segregation among MSPs in economy debates, with only men contributing to debates on big issues such as the economy while we reflect on social issues elsewhere.
In my speech, I will try to bring the two aspects together.
It is essential to understand the impact of the global economic crisis not just in general terms but in particular terms and for particular groups.
The cabinet secretary reflected on that, but he spoke generally about the economy and did not address particular groups' needs.
I will explore with the Scottish Government what its six-point plan and other approaches do to understand needs and impacts and to address them properly.
As John Park said, public procurement alone amounts to £8 billion.
It is right to ask not only how that money is being disbursed but how it can be used to lever in social and economic benefits for the people of Scotland.
We should not separate out that issue, which provides an example of how we can shift from general aspiration to making a difference to individuals, families and communities.
Concerns are already felt about the Scottish Government's willingness or capacity to address equality in its spending. Equality groups have flagged up their concerns about the lack of transparency in the budget and the step back from the progress that had been made on interrogating budgets on the basis of equality.
Ministers have deprioritised equality in the development of single outcome agreements.
This morning, I searched the Scottish Government's website for an updated position, since May 2007, on women and employment, disability and employment, and employability.
My search was fruitless, which is a concern because it suggests that the Government is not reflecting on those critical elements in economic recovery.
In these unpredictable and unprecedented times, I do not set the Government the task of solving everything, but we must ask one question: are the Government's actions making things better or worse?
The first part of Rob Gibson's speech was deeply depressing because the Parliament has put in place opportunities to ensure that the general develops into the particular and to make a difference.
I am concerned that, if the imbalance in need and the disproportionate impact are not understood, the opportunities to protect and support people will be lost.
In that regard, the Scottish Government will make things worse and not better.
In the remaining time, I will flag up some issues
Low pay remains an important issue for women—16 per cent of men and 29 per cent of women are in low-paid jobs. What does our economic strategy say about that?
On addressing vulnerability to unemployment and redundancy, what is being said about the fact that women are more likely to work part time?
As for occupational segregation, the service industries have been hit more in the recession, and 19.5 per cent of women but only 4 per cent of men are in administrative and secretarial jobs.
There is also segregation within sectors.
In retail, women make up two thirds of the workforce, but still more men are in full-time retail posts.
Women are concentrated in part-time, low-paid jobs and men in management posts.
What is the strategy on the occupational segregation that faces black and ethnic minority communities?
What is being done to address the challenge that people who live in poverty face in securing work when fewer jobs are available?
What is being done to address the scandalous levels of unemployment among people with disabilities?
It is essential that the Government focus on that.
The Government announced an apprenticeship summit, but it was silent on equal access to training.
I challenge it on that: who will be invited to the summit?
I hope that the minister will respond and reflect on what equality groups need to be at the summit to address equal access to training, which must be a key part of the agenda.
The policy of concentrating adult modern apprenticeships in particular sectors has had the consequence of directing moneys away from the sectors in which groups such as women are found.
We cannot leave it to the market to find modern apprenticeships for women while Government moneys are concentrated on construction, engineering and life sciences.
The update on the skills strategy is silent on diversity in need, and it is critical that the Scottish Government should speak on that.
What is being done to continue an employability strategy?
I regret the ending of Scottish Enterprise's role in that, as I remember intermediate labour market initiatives in my constituency that took women who were unemployed, trained them in child care, provided child care, and offered a bridge into employment.
Those initiatives have now gone but must feature once again in the Government's employment strategy.
What is being done to match the package of £42.5 million that has been made available in the rest of the United Kingdom to support the voluntary sector through recession?
The minister often talks about the amount of money in the voluntary sector, but what is he doing to address the impact of recession?
It is regrettable that organisations such as Community Service Volunteers Scotland have to cut back their services when the voluntary sector and volunteering can give people critical skills to face the recession.
Tackling disadvantage is not only for when the sun shines; it is an integral part of economic recovery.
It does not get headlines, but it passes a more important test: it addresses needs and strengthens economic opportunities.
I urge the Scottish Government to recognise that fact in its apprenticeship summit, skills strategy and spending decisions.
26.3.09
Iain Gray's video diary 20.3.09
Iain Gray's video diary 20.3.09 single click on the video to view it
18.3.09
10.3.09
8.3.09
Johann's speech to the Scottish Labour Party conference
Johann Lamont
Deputy Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament with special responsibility for Equalities
Speech to the conference
Chair, Conference,
Working together – driven by our common desire to deliver a fairer society driven by equality, justice and opportunity for all.
Tough times past year.
Particularly defeat in Glasgow East despite Margaret Curran at her formidable best.
I have every confidence she will win that seat back for Labour at the next election.
Colin Smyth was right.
Glenrothes marked fightback.
Fight taken by Labour Party members to the SNP forcing them to take responsbility for their actions in government.
But it did seem that the message which came from electorate in Glasgow East was that while we sought power, we sought power for its own sake.
We need to reassert our determination that we seek power for a purpose.
That government at every level can and must make use of the power at its disposal to make a difference for individuals, families and communities. In these difficult times we need to be clear.
Equalities is not an add on for when the times are good.
Tackling discrimination is not just for when the sun shines.
And ensuring safe working conditions, fair pay and equal pay are not a bonus but are at the core of our economic strategy.
Across all levels of government we need:• action to support vulnerable children, • action to support carers• action to reach out to women facing violence in their own homes• action to create safer communities free from anti social behaviour and the bullying and intimidation that goes with it.
All these and many more remain critical to government action in tacking poverty, disadvantage and discrimination and are part of our strategy as much tackling the banks.
We do not think as Alex Salmond does that you can separate economic policy from social policy.
That you can as he does, support Thatcher’s economic policy but have a problem with its social consequences.
As if you can support an economic strategy that closed the pits but wring your hands at the consequences for mining villages across Scotland.
There can be danger in these tough economic times that we can be overwhelmed by the technicalities of tackling the recession.
We know that our Labour government is grasping and understanding these technicalities.
But we as a party and in government will never forget who could be the greatest casualties of this recession.
The UK government is addressing issues of regulation, global change and providing huge commitment to supporting the economy.
But it is also a government which understands the needs of communities at these times.
25 years ago Thatcher unleashed the power of the state against mining commmunities.
Today I’m proud that a Labour government uses its powers to support those facing the consequences of recession, to protect families, not destroy them.
We need to work in partnership with business to address issues of apprenticeships and training, but not as the SNP has done and hand a bonus to businesses without even a dialogue about providing opportunities for people in the communities they serve.
And while in northern Ireland and in Wales, there is energy and creativity in looking at what can be done to support economic activity, the SNP wavers between silence and gimmick – and it took Labour to force through its budget discussions the SNP to act on apprenticeships and providing certainty for young people at times of great uncertainty.
Of course in addressing need and disadvantage the Scottish Parliament has a critical role.
And it’s a role almost entirely ignored by the SNP in government.
As we watch the SNP ditch its manifesto promises one by one, it has been remarked at how untroubled the SNP leadership is and how silent their backbenchers.
But we made a simple mistake.
We thought they might have meant it.
The reality is that the SNP manifesto was how the SNP secured power, not about what the SNP planned to do in power.
The promise making and the promise breaking were simply a cynical necessity to secure power and it is that cynicism which underpins its failures now.
For while the decks are cleared of the promises, the core drive for separation remains.
The SNP ignores issues of equality, has through the Concordat abandoned responsibility for ensuring equal access to services across Scotland, does not track and monitor how money is spent and has the audacity to claim that their core decisions on prescription charges, hospital parking, school meals and tax cuts make up an anti poverty strategy.
The fact is that commitment to equality should not just shape your electoral rhetoric but shape your budgets too.
When people fought for a Scottish Parliament and when Labour in power had the courage to decentralise and create the Scottish Parliament we did not imagine that a parliament which was created to support people in difficult times should be expected to stand as a spectator while SNP ministers exercise power in their own party interest.
We could not have imagined that rather than use the powers of the parliament to address need, the parliament would be used as a platform for separatism.
For the truth is, the SNP will never strain every sinew and use every power at its disposal in the interests of the people of Scotland for its purpose is to create the conditions for separation.
It will not make the Scottish Parliament as part of the United Kingdom work now for the people of Scotland because it does not want it to work. Full stop.
And when facing a choice between acting to improve the chances of people in Scotland or to improve the SNP’s political chances
To choose between a fix and a fight for the SNP there is no contest.
But we too have a challenge.
As a campaigning party and a thinking party we need to work with those in our communities who are living with the failures of the SNP government to expose and oppose their deceit in claiming they are a progessive party and to do all we can to force the Scottish Government to address those needs and that is what we strive to do in the Scottish Parliament.
But we must also work with these individuals, groups and communities in shaping our policies for the future.
For an active party, working with those who understand and experience disadvantage in their daily lives and know what needs to change to improve their lives, we begin to shape our plans for the next Scottish Parliament elections and for what in government we need to do.
Deputy Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament with special responsibility for Equalities
Speech to the conference
Chair, Conference,
Working together – driven by our common desire to deliver a fairer society driven by equality, justice and opportunity for all.
Tough times past year.
Particularly defeat in Glasgow East despite Margaret Curran at her formidable best.
I have every confidence she will win that seat back for Labour at the next election.
Colin Smyth was right.
Glenrothes marked fightback.
Fight taken by Labour Party members to the SNP forcing them to take responsbility for their actions in government.
But it did seem that the message which came from electorate in Glasgow East was that while we sought power, we sought power for its own sake.
We need to reassert our determination that we seek power for a purpose.
That government at every level can and must make use of the power at its disposal to make a difference for individuals, families and communities. In these difficult times we need to be clear.
Equalities is not an add on for when the times are good.
Tackling discrimination is not just for when the sun shines.
And ensuring safe working conditions, fair pay and equal pay are not a bonus but are at the core of our economic strategy.
Across all levels of government we need:• action to support vulnerable children, • action to support carers• action to reach out to women facing violence in their own homes• action to create safer communities free from anti social behaviour and the bullying and intimidation that goes with it.
All these and many more remain critical to government action in tacking poverty, disadvantage and discrimination and are part of our strategy as much tackling the banks.
We do not think as Alex Salmond does that you can separate economic policy from social policy.
That you can as he does, support Thatcher’s economic policy but have a problem with its social consequences.
As if you can support an economic strategy that closed the pits but wring your hands at the consequences for mining villages across Scotland.
There can be danger in these tough economic times that we can be overwhelmed by the technicalities of tackling the recession.
We know that our Labour government is grasping and understanding these technicalities.
But we as a party and in government will never forget who could be the greatest casualties of this recession.
The UK government is addressing issues of regulation, global change and providing huge commitment to supporting the economy.
But it is also a government which understands the needs of communities at these times.
25 years ago Thatcher unleashed the power of the state against mining commmunities.
Today I’m proud that a Labour government uses its powers to support those facing the consequences of recession, to protect families, not destroy them.
We need to work in partnership with business to address issues of apprenticeships and training, but not as the SNP has done and hand a bonus to businesses without even a dialogue about providing opportunities for people in the communities they serve.
And while in northern Ireland and in Wales, there is energy and creativity in looking at what can be done to support economic activity, the SNP wavers between silence and gimmick – and it took Labour to force through its budget discussions the SNP to act on apprenticeships and providing certainty for young people at times of great uncertainty.
Of course in addressing need and disadvantage the Scottish Parliament has a critical role.
And it’s a role almost entirely ignored by the SNP in government.
As we watch the SNP ditch its manifesto promises one by one, it has been remarked at how untroubled the SNP leadership is and how silent their backbenchers.
But we made a simple mistake.
We thought they might have meant it.
The reality is that the SNP manifesto was how the SNP secured power, not about what the SNP planned to do in power.
The promise making and the promise breaking were simply a cynical necessity to secure power and it is that cynicism which underpins its failures now.
For while the decks are cleared of the promises, the core drive for separation remains.
The SNP ignores issues of equality, has through the Concordat abandoned responsibility for ensuring equal access to services across Scotland, does not track and monitor how money is spent and has the audacity to claim that their core decisions on prescription charges, hospital parking, school meals and tax cuts make up an anti poverty strategy.
The fact is that commitment to equality should not just shape your electoral rhetoric but shape your budgets too.
When people fought for a Scottish Parliament and when Labour in power had the courage to decentralise and create the Scottish Parliament we did not imagine that a parliament which was created to support people in difficult times should be expected to stand as a spectator while SNP ministers exercise power in their own party interest.
We could not have imagined that rather than use the powers of the parliament to address need, the parliament would be used as a platform for separatism.
For the truth is, the SNP will never strain every sinew and use every power at its disposal in the interests of the people of Scotland for its purpose is to create the conditions for separation.
It will not make the Scottish Parliament as part of the United Kingdom work now for the people of Scotland because it does not want it to work. Full stop.
And when facing a choice between acting to improve the chances of people in Scotland or to improve the SNP’s political chances
To choose between a fix and a fight for the SNP there is no contest.
But we too have a challenge.
As a campaigning party and a thinking party we need to work with those in our communities who are living with the failures of the SNP government to expose and oppose their deceit in claiming they are a progessive party and to do all we can to force the Scottish Government to address those needs and that is what we strive to do in the Scottish Parliament.
But we must also work with these individuals, groups and communities in shaping our policies for the future.
For an active party, working with those who understand and experience disadvantage in their daily lives and know what needs to change to improve their lives, we begin to shape our plans for the next Scottish Parliament elections and for what in government we need to do.
4.3.09
Scottish Labour Party conference, Dundee 6th. - 8th. March
Scottish Labour Party conference guide : http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/conference2009
Dundee Labour conference website : http://www.dundeelabour.com
23.2.09
Ministerial changes Speech in the Scottish Parliament 12 February 2009
One of the few pleasures of being in opposition is spectating as the Government party experiences a reshuffle and watching its impact on the selected individuals who have lost their jobs, on those who have gained the exciting opportunity that ministerial office presents and, of course, on those who have doggedly sought preferment but been disappointed.
Perhaps next time.
I should predicate my comments by saying that it is a great privilege to be in ministerial office.
I wish those who are departing office well and send every good wish to those who are going into office, which is a privilege to which we all aspire.
As ever, the First Minister's cohorts have been spinning fit to burst but, even by the First Minister's standards, the spin has stretched credibility to breaking point.
First, we are told that Mike Russell is to be responsible for the national conversation.
That responsibility is to be given to a man who has shown no evidence whatever throughout his parliamentary career that he understands that conversation includes people other than himself speaking and that it might possibly involve listening rather than lecturing.
Secondly, we are told that Alex Neil represents fresh talent and that he is a critic being brought into the fold.
With all due respect, I go back a long way with Alex Neil—so far that I can remember when he believed that social justice should be at the centre of Government policy, not in the margins where Mr Salmond's trickle-down economics place it—but not even he, who has shown a remarkable ability to argue for anything in the past year and a half, could possibly characterise himself as a fresh face.
I can only hazard a guess at how those SNP members whose faces are a deal fresher than mine or Mr Neil's feel about that.
I considered for a moment the possibility that, in this Parliament of minorities, we should all be allowed to choose an SNP back bencher to be given the job—perhaps someone who has displayed a scintilla of independent thought—but even I, optimistic soul that I am, recognise a tough job when I see one.
In the unreal world that is the Parliament, where the first rule should always be to expect the unexpected, the transformation of Alex Neil, the alleged critic, from thorn in the flesh to Salmond's little helper has been breathtaking.
Week after week, we have witnessed him in full flow, shouting, bawling and crawling in equal measure.
The reality of course is that the loyalty of the back benchers has been bought by the promise of the one thing that unites them—a Government that is focused entirely on seeking constitutional fights as a means of separating us from the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is the key message of the ministerial and other decisions that Mr Salmond has made this week: separation is now everything.
Ministers who are departing office should not blame themselves or allow themselves to be joined to the long list of alibis that the First Minister uses at every opportunity.
They could work only with the cards that they were dealt.
The Government has failed in its housing policy, which prompted the lobbying today by trade unionists, housing organisations and community volunteers; in its environmental policy, which seeks to privatise our forests, as a result of listening to Rothschild rather than rural workers; in its culture policy, which prompted unprecedented unity of artists in protest; and its schools policy, which—remarkably—has not resulted in the building of one school being commissioned in nearly two years.
I welcome the new ministers to their posts and urge them to do in government what they did not do on the back benches—to speak up.
I urge them to do what their boss regularly fails to do—to listen to those who live with the consequences of the misguided action in their ministerial portfolios and the wilful lack of action by the Government on the economy.
If the new ministers do that, perhaps the First Minister's failed policies might be challenged.
Labour members understand that the critical issue is that the Government should work in the interests of the people of Scotland.
All the reshuffles in the world will not make the difference that we need, which would come from the First Minister, the Cabinet, ministers and the governing party putting aside their constitutional obsessions and using their existing powers to support families and communities throughout Scotland.
If the ministerial change brings about such a change, that will be welcome.
Perhaps next time.
I should predicate my comments by saying that it is a great privilege to be in ministerial office.
I wish those who are departing office well and send every good wish to those who are going into office, which is a privilege to which we all aspire.
As ever, the First Minister's cohorts have been spinning fit to burst but, even by the First Minister's standards, the spin has stretched credibility to breaking point.
First, we are told that Mike Russell is to be responsible for the national conversation.
That responsibility is to be given to a man who has shown no evidence whatever throughout his parliamentary career that he understands that conversation includes people other than himself speaking and that it might possibly involve listening rather than lecturing.
Secondly, we are told that Alex Neil represents fresh talent and that he is a critic being brought into the fold.
With all due respect, I go back a long way with Alex Neil—so far that I can remember when he believed that social justice should be at the centre of Government policy, not in the margins where Mr Salmond's trickle-down economics place it—but not even he, who has shown a remarkable ability to argue for anything in the past year and a half, could possibly characterise himself as a fresh face.
I can only hazard a guess at how those SNP members whose faces are a deal fresher than mine or Mr Neil's feel about that.
I considered for a moment the possibility that, in this Parliament of minorities, we should all be allowed to choose an SNP back bencher to be given the job—perhaps someone who has displayed a scintilla of independent thought—but even I, optimistic soul that I am, recognise a tough job when I see one.
In the unreal world that is the Parliament, where the first rule should always be to expect the unexpected, the transformation of Alex Neil, the alleged critic, from thorn in the flesh to Salmond's little helper has been breathtaking.
Week after week, we have witnessed him in full flow, shouting, bawling and crawling in equal measure.
The reality of course is that the loyalty of the back benchers has been bought by the promise of the one thing that unites them—a Government that is focused entirely on seeking constitutional fights as a means of separating us from the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is the key message of the ministerial and other decisions that Mr Salmond has made this week: separation is now everything.
Ministers who are departing office should not blame themselves or allow themselves to be joined to the long list of alibis that the First Minister uses at every opportunity.
They could work only with the cards that they were dealt.
The Government has failed in its housing policy, which prompted the lobbying today by trade unionists, housing organisations and community volunteers; in its environmental policy, which seeks to privatise our forests, as a result of listening to Rothschild rather than rural workers; in its culture policy, which prompted unprecedented unity of artists in protest; and its schools policy, which—remarkably—has not resulted in the building of one school being commissioned in nearly two years.
I welcome the new ministers to their posts and urge them to do in government what they did not do on the back benches—to speak up.
I urge them to do what their boss regularly fails to do—to listen to those who live with the consequences of the misguided action in their ministerial portfolios and the wilful lack of action by the Government on the economy.
If the new ministers do that, perhaps the First Minister's failed policies might be challenged.
Labour members understand that the critical issue is that the Government should work in the interests of the people of Scotland.
All the reshuffles in the world will not make the difference that we need, which would come from the First Minister, the Cabinet, ministers and the governing party putting aside their constitutional obsessions and using their existing powers to support families and communities throughout Scotland.
If the ministerial change brings about such a change, that will be welcome.
Housing Speech in the Scottish Parliament 12 February 2009
It is important for members to discuss housing and to end the Government's obsession with assertion over action.
If ever there was an example of government by alibi, it was Nicola Sturgeon's speech.
She talked about what everybody else's responsibilities are and wilfully refused to reflect on her own policy, "Firm Foundations".
I hope that she listened to what Ross Finnie said about the six council houses, particularly as her Government has emphasised the continuing and critical role of housing associations in its policy.
The power of the threat of a Labour debate on housing is remarkable: there has been half a U-turn on a key policy on HAG spending.
Given the absolute certainty about previous HAG assumptions, perhaps the minister could clarify what consultation took place with the housing sector on the new assumptions.
I fear that they may have been plucked out of the air in a panic. Two Mondays ago, the then housing minister, Stewart Maxwell—to whom I pay tribute; I have enjoyed debating with him—stated that the grant formula was costing housing associations an extra £10,000 per house, but that that could be tackled by using reserves or borrowing.
Four days later, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced that the issue was being revisited.
Poor Mr Maxwell.
He gallantly defended the Scottish National Party's policy while both the policy's demise and his own were being plotted.
The Parliament has already agreed that the Scottish Government's housing policy is seriously flawed.
Despite that, the Scottish Government persists with it.
Cuts in HAG levels will lead to rent increases or increased borrowing at the worst possible time, and the introduction of a lead developer model can be seen as undermining entirely the critical role of community-based housing associations.
Are we to assume that the cabinet secretary, in supporting our motion and agreeing that there should be flexibility on procurement, is finally burying the lead developer role?
Will she confirm that, given the GHA's role as a transitional body, its aspiration to be a lead developer will simply not be allowed to be fulfilled?
The problem with the firm foundations approach is that if the Scottish Government persists with it, it will seriously undermine the role of community-controlled housing associations.
The approach is predicated on an assumption that housing associations have been feather-bedded in some ways. Reserves are talked about, but the reality is that they are used to plan not two years ahead, but five, 10, 15 and 20 years in advance.
The very thing that sustained housing associations at a time when council houses were falling into disrepair because they had been starved of investment is now being used inappropriately.
There is talk of economies of scale.
We know the pressures of diseconomies of scale.
A big organisation spends without thinking.
We need to reassert the importance of housing associations in community regeneration and in sustaining local communities.
The Scottish Government must listen to those who tell it that such an approach will strengthen the role of the national housing associations at the expense of local housing associations.
The cabinet secretary must back off.
In particular, in summing up, she should address a key point about the implications of the lead developer role that has been raised with me.
The lead developer proposals would not allow charities—which the vast majority of the housing associations are—to undertake such a role.
Things would need to be changed to allow subsidiaries to do that.
Subsidiaries will not be registered social landlords, so they will not be able to receive HAG, which will then go to end users.
The reason for the proposal in the first place—to give all the resources to a one-stop shop of regional experts—would be undermined, European procurement rules would apply to the procurement of the lead developer and things would have to be opened up to the private sector.
Surely that is not the Government's intention.
We should apply the Swinney test to that policy, bearing it in mind that destroying community-controlled housing associations was not in the SNP's manifesto.
The Parliament has voted against the policy and times have changed.
The worrying conclusion that we have to draw is that the reason why we shall not get the cabinet secretary to admit that she is wrong—and she is—and the reason why she will not dump the policy along with the local income tax, is that it does not require parliamentary endorsement.
The Scottish Government will persist with the policy not because it is right, but because it can.
That is the approach of the pre-1999 Scottish Office and its administrative devolution for ministers, rather than that of a Scottish Government that is accountable to Parliament and, through it, to all those who are highly exercised and concerned about the current approach.
We all agree that we are in challenging, fast-changing and difficult times, but the test of Government is whether it makes the situation better or worse.
This Scottish Government currently fails that test in relation to housing and the sustainability of social rented housing at community level.
It is time for the cabinet secretary to recognise that graciously, think again, dump the "Firm Foundations" document and policy—which the Parliament has opposed—and work with housing associations, MSPs and those in the housing sector to develop a housing policy that will make a difference to our communities.
If ever there was an example of government by alibi, it was Nicola Sturgeon's speech.
She talked about what everybody else's responsibilities are and wilfully refused to reflect on her own policy, "Firm Foundations".
I hope that she listened to what Ross Finnie said about the six council houses, particularly as her Government has emphasised the continuing and critical role of housing associations in its policy.
The power of the threat of a Labour debate on housing is remarkable: there has been half a U-turn on a key policy on HAG spending.
Given the absolute certainty about previous HAG assumptions, perhaps the minister could clarify what consultation took place with the housing sector on the new assumptions.
I fear that they may have been plucked out of the air in a panic. Two Mondays ago, the then housing minister, Stewart Maxwell—to whom I pay tribute; I have enjoyed debating with him—stated that the grant formula was costing housing associations an extra £10,000 per house, but that that could be tackled by using reserves or borrowing.
Four days later, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced that the issue was being revisited.
Poor Mr Maxwell.
He gallantly defended the Scottish National Party's policy while both the policy's demise and his own were being plotted.
The Parliament has already agreed that the Scottish Government's housing policy is seriously flawed.
Despite that, the Scottish Government persists with it.
Cuts in HAG levels will lead to rent increases or increased borrowing at the worst possible time, and the introduction of a lead developer model can be seen as undermining entirely the critical role of community-based housing associations.
Are we to assume that the cabinet secretary, in supporting our motion and agreeing that there should be flexibility on procurement, is finally burying the lead developer role?
Will she confirm that, given the GHA's role as a transitional body, its aspiration to be a lead developer will simply not be allowed to be fulfilled?
The problem with the firm foundations approach is that if the Scottish Government persists with it, it will seriously undermine the role of community-controlled housing associations.
The approach is predicated on an assumption that housing associations have been feather-bedded in some ways. Reserves are talked about, but the reality is that they are used to plan not two years ahead, but five, 10, 15 and 20 years in advance.
The very thing that sustained housing associations at a time when council houses were falling into disrepair because they had been starved of investment is now being used inappropriately.
There is talk of economies of scale.
We know the pressures of diseconomies of scale.
A big organisation spends without thinking.
We need to reassert the importance of housing associations in community regeneration and in sustaining local communities.
The Scottish Government must listen to those who tell it that such an approach will strengthen the role of the national housing associations at the expense of local housing associations.
The cabinet secretary must back off.
In particular, in summing up, she should address a key point about the implications of the lead developer role that has been raised with me.
The lead developer proposals would not allow charities—which the vast majority of the housing associations are—to undertake such a role.
Things would need to be changed to allow subsidiaries to do that.
Subsidiaries will not be registered social landlords, so they will not be able to receive HAG, which will then go to end users.
The reason for the proposal in the first place—to give all the resources to a one-stop shop of regional experts—would be undermined, European procurement rules would apply to the procurement of the lead developer and things would have to be opened up to the private sector.
Surely that is not the Government's intention.
We should apply the Swinney test to that policy, bearing it in mind that destroying community-controlled housing associations was not in the SNP's manifesto.
The Parliament has voted against the policy and times have changed.
The worrying conclusion that we have to draw is that the reason why we shall not get the cabinet secretary to admit that she is wrong—and she is—and the reason why she will not dump the policy along with the local income tax, is that it does not require parliamentary endorsement.
The Scottish Government will persist with the policy not because it is right, but because it can.
That is the approach of the pre-1999 Scottish Office and its administrative devolution for ministers, rather than that of a Scottish Government that is accountable to Parliament and, through it, to all those who are highly exercised and concerned about the current approach.
We all agree that we are in challenging, fast-changing and difficult times, but the test of Government is whether it makes the situation better or worse.
This Scottish Government currently fails that test in relation to housing and the sustainability of social rented housing at community level.
It is time for the cabinet secretary to recognise that graciously, think again, dump the "Firm Foundations" document and policy—which the Parliament has opposed—and work with housing associations, MSPs and those in the housing sector to develop a housing policy that will make a difference to our communities.
Human Trafficking Speech in the Scottish Parliament 05 February 2009
I begin by acknowledging the contribution of the Presiding Officer, Trish Godman, to ensuring that the subject has remained a political issue.
I appreciate that she is not in a position just now to express her views, but her record is there to be recognised.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the chamber.
The importance of the motion lies in the fact that it not only describes something terrible but considers ways in which we can address the issues.
When I read the motion and became aware of the issues, the capacity of some people for cruelty and the willingness to perpetrate that cruelty against other human beings took my breath away.
The danger is that, in being appalled, we are also paralysed and fear that we can do nothing to address that level of cruelty.
If we do not act, however, we give up on so many people who are facing problems.
We have a responsibility to act.
One reason why I welcome the debate is that it enables us to consider how we can support action to address the problem.
It is clear that the issue is not particularly about women, but it is disproportionately experienced by women.
It is therefore important to make the connection with the abuse of women, male violence against women and the unequal status of women in this country and elsewhere.
I believe that those factors play a part in ensuring that it is disproportionately women who suffer from being trafficked and abused by men.
It is critical that we support the organisations and groups that reach out to vulnerable people, who might be fearful of speaking out and do not know where to go.
It is essential that we use the networks within communities to give people the confidence to speak out.
That is true domestically just as it is true for those who are trafficked into the country.
We also need to challenge the perpetrators—not just those who traffic, but those who go and use and abuse trafficked women
The Women's Support Project in Glasgow has done some significant research on the attitudes of men who use prostitutes.
One of its stunning findings was that, although a significant number of the men suspected that women were there through no choice of their own, that they had been forced to be there and that they may have been trafficked, that bore no relationship to whether the men would use those women.
The notion that prostitution is a fair transaction between men and women is exposed by that.
The men knew that the women could have been victims of trafficking, but that made no difference to whether they chose to continue.
We heard about Germany.
Why was there a demand for prostitutes there?
Who would use them?
I know that Trish Godman has made representations to Glasgow City Council about the Commonwealth games and the need to challenge attitudes there.
It is critical that we put the matter in context and address the question of the perpetrators.
As has been suggested, legislation might need to be developed on the Swedish model, but the Scottish Parliament passed relevant legislation before the 2007 election, and that legislation needs to be enforced, because it focuses on the perpetrators and puts the matter in that context.
I remind the minister that, although local authorities operate under financial constraints, there are soft budget lines, and those are the lines that should support groups that go out and support women.
However, there is nobody to speak up for that in the hard battle of financial choices.
I hope that the minister will address that problem.
We need education in our communities.
We need to talk about what is happening and the connection with violence against women.
We need to protect those who have been trafficked, and we need to ensure that the focus on perpetrators is not lost. People are appalled by the notion of trafficking.
That is straightforward, but it is more difficult to consider what creates the demand.
The minister will have the support of all members if he is willing to address that.
We should examine the legislative measures that are in place, consider how well they are working and encourage further enforcement of them, because they shift the balance from those who allegedly make the choice to go into prostitution to those who create the demand in the first place and continue to use prostitutes despite the evidence, which is visible to them, that some of the most vulnerable people have been placed there for abuse through no choice of their own.
I appreciate that she is not in a position just now to express her views, but her record is there to be recognised.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the chamber.
The importance of the motion lies in the fact that it not only describes something terrible but considers ways in which we can address the issues.
When I read the motion and became aware of the issues, the capacity of some people for cruelty and the willingness to perpetrate that cruelty against other human beings took my breath away.
The danger is that, in being appalled, we are also paralysed and fear that we can do nothing to address that level of cruelty.
If we do not act, however, we give up on so many people who are facing problems.
We have a responsibility to act.
One reason why I welcome the debate is that it enables us to consider how we can support action to address the problem.
It is clear that the issue is not particularly about women, but it is disproportionately experienced by women.
It is therefore important to make the connection with the abuse of women, male violence against women and the unequal status of women in this country and elsewhere.
I believe that those factors play a part in ensuring that it is disproportionately women who suffer from being trafficked and abused by men.
It is critical that we support the organisations and groups that reach out to vulnerable people, who might be fearful of speaking out and do not know where to go.
It is essential that we use the networks within communities to give people the confidence to speak out.
That is true domestically just as it is true for those who are trafficked into the country.
We also need to challenge the perpetrators—not just those who traffic, but those who go and use and abuse trafficked women
The Women's Support Project in Glasgow has done some significant research on the attitudes of men who use prostitutes.
One of its stunning findings was that, although a significant number of the men suspected that women were there through no choice of their own, that they had been forced to be there and that they may have been trafficked, that bore no relationship to whether the men would use those women.
The notion that prostitution is a fair transaction between men and women is exposed by that.
The men knew that the women could have been victims of trafficking, but that made no difference to whether they chose to continue.
We heard about Germany.
Why was there a demand for prostitutes there?
Who would use them?
I know that Trish Godman has made representations to Glasgow City Council about the Commonwealth games and the need to challenge attitudes there.
It is critical that we put the matter in context and address the question of the perpetrators.
As has been suggested, legislation might need to be developed on the Swedish model, but the Scottish Parliament passed relevant legislation before the 2007 election, and that legislation needs to be enforced, because it focuses on the perpetrators and puts the matter in that context.
I remind the minister that, although local authorities operate under financial constraints, there are soft budget lines, and those are the lines that should support groups that go out and support women.
However, there is nobody to speak up for that in the hard battle of financial choices.
I hope that the minister will address that problem.
We need education in our communities.
We need to talk about what is happening and the connection with violence against women.
We need to protect those who have been trafficked, and we need to ensure that the focus on perpetrators is not lost. People are appalled by the notion of trafficking.
That is straightforward, but it is more difficult to consider what creates the demand.
The minister will have the support of all members if he is willing to address that.
We should examine the legislative measures that are in place, consider how well they are working and encourage further enforcement of them, because they shift the balance from those who allegedly make the choice to go into prostitution to those who create the demand in the first place and continue to use prostitutes despite the evidence, which is visible to them, that some of the most vulnerable people have been placed there for abuse through no choice of their own.
9.2.09
Scottish Budget, speech in the Scottish Parliament 04/02/2009
The budget process is always difficult, and it is self-evidently more difficult for Opposition members because the budget bill can never be a neutral document.
The budget reflects the priorities of the Scottish National Party; it is not a Labour budget, so it is our responsibility to try to influence and shape it.
That is an understandable part of the process—our role throughout the process has been to seek to influence and shape the budget in the direction of the commitments that Labour would have made and the strategy that we would have had.
Nevertheless, the budget bill that we are debating is not the one that we would have introduced.
There is frustration that the budget process has been characterised in commentaries as being about playing games.
The sense that horse trading and game playing were going on was reinforced by decisions that the cabinet secretary made, such as his singling out of Edinburgh instead of addressing the needs of all our cities.
There is recognition that problems have been caused by the presentation of decisions and by the pretence that there was no serious negotiation by Labour before last week's vote, which is simply not true.
The process was too much about the arithmetic in the Parliament and not enough about genuinely reaching out to members to find ways of improving the budget.
There has also been frustration about the pretence that, in seeking to support proposals that would improve the budget, we somehow supported the whole budget.
It is dishonest to suggest that members who sought to persuade the cabinet secretary of the strength of a particular approach had a reckless disregard for the impact on local communities.
That is simply not true—what is happening in our communities has driven and motivated serious negotiation on the part of the Labour Party.
We focused on key issues and we sought to support families and communities who are facing the current economic challenge, so we welcome the announcement of what we sought: a secure guarantee to people who are currently in apprenticeship placements.
As a consequence, many young people and their families can have certainty when before there was a great deal of uncertainty.
For that alone, today will have been a good day at the office.
We urged the Government to understand the critical role of Government intervention and action that goes beyond simple assertion.
We recognised the importance of supporting people who face unemployment and transition to other jobs.
We sought significant increases in the number of apprenticeships because we know our history and we remember what happened when Government took a laissez-faire approach and abandoned young people and families to the scourge of unemployment.
We recognised the opportunity that apprenticeships would provide for training and planning for the future.
The change that we secured in the Scottish budget is a Labour dividend for families; at last there is a firm commitment on apprenticeships.
Critical issues will come into play in the delivery of that commitment.
In the past, I have raised significant issues about the importance of equality proofing and anti-poverty proofing the budget and the role of equality impact assessments.
I remain concerned that, although the budget allocates moneys, it does not do the hard job of ensuring that we meet the diversity of need in our communities.
We can have no confidence that there is any understanding of how people experience disadvantage and discrimination if the budget process does not explicitly set out how such an understanding is arrived at.
Single outcome agreements play a critical part in addressing need locally, and the social inclusion budget has been entirely devolved to local government.
Stewart Maxwell has said that equality impact assessments should be done but that if they are not done it is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate.
Such a process would take a long time, and there is a simpler solution, which I urge ministers to accept: if they think that equality impact assessment of single outcome agreements should be undertaken because of how such agreements affect communities, they should say that an agreement will not be accepted without evidence that an equality impact assessment has been done.
It is as simple as that.
I want to ensure that the shift in the budget addresses need.
The cabinet secretary has considered Labour's case for modern apprenticeships, and I urge him to apply an equalities approach, too.
It is not enough to assert that Government policy inevitably helps disadvantaged people.
It has been claimed that free school meals, free prescriptions and the council tax freeze benefit the poor, but in a written answer to a parliamentary question the Government confirmed that there is no evidence of such benefit.
We need evidence, so that we can ensure that what we do makes a difference.
As part of the summit on apprenticeships, the cabinet secretary must commit to addressing structural employment issues such as segregation, which reinforces the position of women.
If apprenticeships are segregated, it is inevitable that women's experience of low pay will continue.
We must consider the sectors in which apprenticeships are offered.
Are we improving the care sector, in which there are many women workers?
We must address that issue.
We have to consider what we say to employers.
I was told today that an apprentice hairdresser earns £60 a week for a 45-hour week.
That is unacceptable and would not happen in England.
I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that the summit on apprenticeships addresses that.
An understanding of those issues is critical to driving social inclusion.
How much of the town centre regeneration money will go to our most-deprived communities?
How will PACE meet the needs of people with disabilities, who are more disadvantaged in the employment market?
We need to understand that equality is not a bonus but at the core of spending decisions and policy documents.
Otherwise, the budget decisions that we make today will reinforce inequality rather than challenge it.
I welcome the shift that the cabinet secretary has made, but I urge him to ensure that, when he allocates funds for his commitments, he considers how his allocation meets the needs of particular groups in our communities.
That is central to our approach, and I look forward to him acknowledging that in his closing speech.
The budget reflects the priorities of the Scottish National Party; it is not a Labour budget, so it is our responsibility to try to influence and shape it.
That is an understandable part of the process—our role throughout the process has been to seek to influence and shape the budget in the direction of the commitments that Labour would have made and the strategy that we would have had.
Nevertheless, the budget bill that we are debating is not the one that we would have introduced.
There is frustration that the budget process has been characterised in commentaries as being about playing games.
The sense that horse trading and game playing were going on was reinforced by decisions that the cabinet secretary made, such as his singling out of Edinburgh instead of addressing the needs of all our cities.
There is recognition that problems have been caused by the presentation of decisions and by the pretence that there was no serious negotiation by Labour before last week's vote, which is simply not true.
The process was too much about the arithmetic in the Parliament and not enough about genuinely reaching out to members to find ways of improving the budget.
There has also been frustration about the pretence that, in seeking to support proposals that would improve the budget, we somehow supported the whole budget.
It is dishonest to suggest that members who sought to persuade the cabinet secretary of the strength of a particular approach had a reckless disregard for the impact on local communities.
That is simply not true—what is happening in our communities has driven and motivated serious negotiation on the part of the Labour Party.
We focused on key issues and we sought to support families and communities who are facing the current economic challenge, so we welcome the announcement of what we sought: a secure guarantee to people who are currently in apprenticeship placements.
As a consequence, many young people and their families can have certainty when before there was a great deal of uncertainty.
For that alone, today will have been a good day at the office.
We urged the Government to understand the critical role of Government intervention and action that goes beyond simple assertion.
We recognised the importance of supporting people who face unemployment and transition to other jobs.
We sought significant increases in the number of apprenticeships because we know our history and we remember what happened when Government took a laissez-faire approach and abandoned young people and families to the scourge of unemployment.
We recognised the opportunity that apprenticeships would provide for training and planning for the future.
The change that we secured in the Scottish budget is a Labour dividend for families; at last there is a firm commitment on apprenticeships.
Critical issues will come into play in the delivery of that commitment.
In the past, I have raised significant issues about the importance of equality proofing and anti-poverty proofing the budget and the role of equality impact assessments.
I remain concerned that, although the budget allocates moneys, it does not do the hard job of ensuring that we meet the diversity of need in our communities.
We can have no confidence that there is any understanding of how people experience disadvantage and discrimination if the budget process does not explicitly set out how such an understanding is arrived at.
Single outcome agreements play a critical part in addressing need locally, and the social inclusion budget has been entirely devolved to local government.
Stewart Maxwell has said that equality impact assessments should be done but that if they are not done it is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate.
Such a process would take a long time, and there is a simpler solution, which I urge ministers to accept: if they think that equality impact assessment of single outcome agreements should be undertaken because of how such agreements affect communities, they should say that an agreement will not be accepted without evidence that an equality impact assessment has been done.
It is as simple as that.
I want to ensure that the shift in the budget addresses need.
The cabinet secretary has considered Labour's case for modern apprenticeships, and I urge him to apply an equalities approach, too.
It is not enough to assert that Government policy inevitably helps disadvantaged people.
It has been claimed that free school meals, free prescriptions and the council tax freeze benefit the poor, but in a written answer to a parliamentary question the Government confirmed that there is no evidence of such benefit.
We need evidence, so that we can ensure that what we do makes a difference.
As part of the summit on apprenticeships, the cabinet secretary must commit to addressing structural employment issues such as segregation, which reinforces the position of women.
If apprenticeships are segregated, it is inevitable that women's experience of low pay will continue.
We must consider the sectors in which apprenticeships are offered.
Are we improving the care sector, in which there are many women workers?
We must address that issue.
We have to consider what we say to employers.
I was told today that an apprentice hairdresser earns £60 a week for a 45-hour week.
That is unacceptable and would not happen in England.
I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that the summit on apprenticeships addresses that.
An understanding of those issues is critical to driving social inclusion.
How much of the town centre regeneration money will go to our most-deprived communities?
How will PACE meet the needs of people with disabilities, who are more disadvantaged in the employment market?
We need to understand that equality is not a bonus but at the core of spending decisions and policy documents.
Otherwise, the budget decisions that we make today will reinforce inequality rather than challenge it.
I welcome the shift that the cabinet secretary has made, but I urge him to ensure that, when he allocates funds for his commitments, he considers how his allocation meets the needs of particular groups in our communities.
That is central to our approach, and I look forward to him acknowledging that in his closing speech.
Gaelic Language Plan speech Scottish Parliament 29/01/09
I have the honour of contributing a very small footnote to the history of this young Parliament—indeed, to the history of the Scottish Parliament in general—as I was the first person to speak in a debate in the Scottish Parliament in the proud language of my forebears.
It is a language that played a critical part in the soundtrack of my childhood in Glasgow and Tiree.
In my maiden speech in 1999, I made the point that I spoke haltingly in Gaelic—and I speak it even less well now—because of attitudes to Gaelic in the Scotland that I grew up in.
Active decisions were taken to minimise the use of Gaelic and to make no real provision for Gaelic education for the island and Highland diaspora in our cities.
There were many like me who lost the language that they listened to and lived with every day, and there were people such as my grandmother, who through politeness and good manners often spoke in not her first but her second language, believing somehow that she needed to be the person who reached out in order to engage with other people.
During my childhood in Glasgow, the only provision for children like me was to go to interminable Gaelic classes, at which we learned exactly where Mary was—in front of the house, to the side of the house, or on the other side of the house—but which bore no relation to, or gave me any capacity to speak to my family in, the language in which they spoke to one another all the time.
I am glad that there seems to be a consensus on the need to address the question of Gaelic.
Things were not always this way, and we should remember that.
There was hostility, discrimination and lack of understanding that led to people losing the language that their forebears had treasured.
While recognising the progress that has been made, we must recognise those problems, and we need to learn from the journey rather than presume that victory has been won.
I commend those who continue to put pressure on Government at every level in the fight to sustain their language.
They have been innovative and creative in how they have tried to take the language forward.
They have demanded that the needs of Gaelic-speaking communities be met both in the Highlands and in the cities.
They have understood the power of harnessing Gaelic and its culture to address modern culture by giving the language a modern face in music, song and the arts.
That has not just provided a renaissance in traditional Gaelic culture but enriched that culture and, indeed, all our cultures.
That shows the diversity of cultures that have shaped modern Scotland.
On Ted Brocklebank's point, I think that Gaelic has a richness that Scotland can present to the world.
It provides an economic interest for the tourism industry, which is helped by the fact that we have that diversity.
As the very proud auntie of a nephew who is the Gaelic voice of Charlie in the children's television programme "Charlie and Lola", I know that Gaelic can exist in many places beyond the traditional ceilidh.
We must listen to those who understand the connection between the need to sustain Gaelic and the need to will the means for that to happen.
There is a critical connection between the survival of Gaelic and support for Gaelic-medium education, and at the core of my speech is the recognition that Gaelic's fragility is not accidental and that making it secure cannot be accidental either.
That presents a real challenge to every level of Government about how to act.
This is not a time to be feeble.
I welcome the draft language plan, but I caution the minister not to listen to the quiet impossibilists who sometimes give advice to ministers.
What we need is not assertion or appearance but some guarantees.
The phenomenal progress in Gaelic-medium education and the consequential optimism for the language was due to active political decisions by the previous Administration, which are now being built on, and the courage of local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which now has a Gaelic-medium nursery school, primary school and secondary school.
In particular, we should recognise that the introduction of free nursery places accelerated the development of Gaelic by offering a critical place for Gaelic-medium education that has reached out not only to families in which Gaelic had been lost but, in a wonderful way, to families that had no prior connection with the language.
The minister will acknowledge the pressures that are on local government and the anxieties among equality groups generally about the vulnerability of soft budgets during a time of pressures.
It is understandable that there is an anxiety about culture budgets, education budgets and other budgets that have supported the development of Gaelic, and I urge the minister to recognise the vulnerability of traditional Gaelic culture and how young people are reshaping it.
Support is required at every level.
In my final minute, I want to make one or two points about BBC Alba.
We celebrate the channel's early success, and we recognise its critical role and its potential in sustaining the language.
I commend Alasdair Allan—I am not one who is often gracious in the chamber—for becoming an accomplished Gaelic speaker from a starting point of zero.
The minister is a gracious person, but I regret her ungracious remarks about the public appointment of Alasdair Morrison as chair of MG Alba.
Whatever her views on his politics, I am sure that she recognises his intelligence, energy and abiding passion for his native tongue.
I hope that she will assure us today that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to support BBC Alba, given its potential to normalise Gaelic in our communities.
The minister must recognise that the evident awareness of Scottishness that Gaelic presents is as much about celebrating the differences in our culture as recognising the commonality of some of our traits and characteristics.
This is an opportunity to reaffirm the important role of Gaelic in celebrating what everyone brings to the table and what makes us different and distinct—that is critical to our capacity to celebrate all of Scotland's cultures.
I commend the minister for the consultation on the draft language plan, and I look forward to her continuing energy in supporting this precious language.
It is a language that played a critical part in the soundtrack of my childhood in Glasgow and Tiree.
In my maiden speech in 1999, I made the point that I spoke haltingly in Gaelic—and I speak it even less well now—because of attitudes to Gaelic in the Scotland that I grew up in.
Active decisions were taken to minimise the use of Gaelic and to make no real provision for Gaelic education for the island and Highland diaspora in our cities.
There were many like me who lost the language that they listened to and lived with every day, and there were people such as my grandmother, who through politeness and good manners often spoke in not her first but her second language, believing somehow that she needed to be the person who reached out in order to engage with other people.
During my childhood in Glasgow, the only provision for children like me was to go to interminable Gaelic classes, at which we learned exactly where Mary was—in front of the house, to the side of the house, or on the other side of the house—but which bore no relation to, or gave me any capacity to speak to my family in, the language in which they spoke to one another all the time.
I am glad that there seems to be a consensus on the need to address the question of Gaelic.
Things were not always this way, and we should remember that.
There was hostility, discrimination and lack of understanding that led to people losing the language that their forebears had treasured.
While recognising the progress that has been made, we must recognise those problems, and we need to learn from the journey rather than presume that victory has been won.
I commend those who continue to put pressure on Government at every level in the fight to sustain their language.
They have been innovative and creative in how they have tried to take the language forward.
They have demanded that the needs of Gaelic-speaking communities be met both in the Highlands and in the cities.
They have understood the power of harnessing Gaelic and its culture to address modern culture by giving the language a modern face in music, song and the arts.
That has not just provided a renaissance in traditional Gaelic culture but enriched that culture and, indeed, all our cultures.
That shows the diversity of cultures that have shaped modern Scotland.
On Ted Brocklebank's point, I think that Gaelic has a richness that Scotland can present to the world.
It provides an economic interest for the tourism industry, which is helped by the fact that we have that diversity.
As the very proud auntie of a nephew who is the Gaelic voice of Charlie in the children's television programme "Charlie and Lola", I know that Gaelic can exist in many places beyond the traditional ceilidh.
We must listen to those who understand the connection between the need to sustain Gaelic and the need to will the means for that to happen.
There is a critical connection between the survival of Gaelic and support for Gaelic-medium education, and at the core of my speech is the recognition that Gaelic's fragility is not accidental and that making it secure cannot be accidental either.
That presents a real challenge to every level of Government about how to act.
This is not a time to be feeble.
I welcome the draft language plan, but I caution the minister not to listen to the quiet impossibilists who sometimes give advice to ministers.
What we need is not assertion or appearance but some guarantees.
The phenomenal progress in Gaelic-medium education and the consequential optimism for the language was due to active political decisions by the previous Administration, which are now being built on, and the courage of local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which now has a Gaelic-medium nursery school, primary school and secondary school.
In particular, we should recognise that the introduction of free nursery places accelerated the development of Gaelic by offering a critical place for Gaelic-medium education that has reached out not only to families in which Gaelic had been lost but, in a wonderful way, to families that had no prior connection with the language.
The minister will acknowledge the pressures that are on local government and the anxieties among equality groups generally about the vulnerability of soft budgets during a time of pressures.
It is understandable that there is an anxiety about culture budgets, education budgets and other budgets that have supported the development of Gaelic, and I urge the minister to recognise the vulnerability of traditional Gaelic culture and how young people are reshaping it.
Support is required at every level.
In my final minute, I want to make one or two points about BBC Alba.
We celebrate the channel's early success, and we recognise its critical role and its potential in sustaining the language.
I commend Alasdair Allan—I am not one who is often gracious in the chamber—for becoming an accomplished Gaelic speaker from a starting point of zero.
The minister is a gracious person, but I regret her ungracious remarks about the public appointment of Alasdair Morrison as chair of MG Alba.
Whatever her views on his politics, I am sure that she recognises his intelligence, energy and abiding passion for his native tongue.
I hope that she will assure us today that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to support BBC Alba, given its potential to normalise Gaelic in our communities.
The minister must recognise that the evident awareness of Scottishness that Gaelic presents is as much about celebrating the differences in our culture as recognising the commonality of some of our traits and characteristics.
This is an opportunity to reaffirm the important role of Gaelic in celebrating what everyone brings to the table and what makes us different and distinct—that is critical to our capacity to celebrate all of Scotland's cultures.
I commend the minister for the consultation on the draft language plan, and I look forward to her continuing energy in supporting this precious language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)