Johann Lamont : I can see how cheery everybody is at that prospect, yet again. I am beginning to take it personally.
I thank Lord McCluskey and his team for their report.
I recognise that it is an important contribution to a broader debate about the justice system.
I was struck by the history lesson on Scots law that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave us in his opening speech, and by his comments on the critical duty that we have to defend the integrity of Scots law.
It is a concern that we can shift from having pride in the development of the legal system over time to reflecting an instinctive chauvinism for anything that happens to be Scottish—the idea that, because something is Scottish, it must be good.
The reality is that the legal system, like many other things, is a living thing that is shaped by people.s experiences over a long time.
It is not our job simply to preserve everything as it is and ever was, but that is a way of sustaining that system of justice.
The reality is that, historically, we cannot be complacent about ordinary Scottish people.s experience of the judicial system, which will have changed over time directly because of that experience.
Historically, people have experienced a system that was not fair.
It did not offer access and it was not perfect.
If the cabinet secretary starts from a position that it is as it is and will ever be thus—that is, perfect—we will not be able to respond to the concerns of individuals in our communities.
Kevin Stewart: Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: I will just make this point.
I reflect on Maureen Watt’s concerns about individual judgments.
I share her concerns, and I have shared the anguish of individual constituents who are simply bewildered by the decisions that the courts make.
However, that applies at every level of the court system; it is not unique to the Supreme Court.
It is a challenge for all of us to sustain the independence of the judicial system while we understand that people feel frustrated by individual findings in individual courts.
We have to work through that and give people confidence, but the issue is not particular to the Supreme Court, so it should not be considered in those terms.
To use Stewart Maxwell's favourite word, I was "astonished" by the way in which the cabinet secretary responded to my intervention about the extent to which the issue, no matter how important it is, reflects the priorities of the people whom we represent.
It is not in any way to diminish the work of the legal experts who produced the report to say that we should urgently address the concerns about the chaos in the prosecution service.
It would be good to find the Cabinet Secretary for Justice as exercised by those concerns as he has been by his particular interpretation of what is happening in the Supreme Court.
In order to resolve his concern about my intervention, perhaps he will agree to make an urgent statement to the Parliament next week on the serious implications of what is happening in what is a very stretched service, and the implications for access to justice and people's confidence in the justice system.
I will welcome his contribution if he commits himself to making that statement.
I respect the senior judges and others who have contributed to the debate, but I would take the cabinet secretary's scolding—he returned to it three times—a little easier if it was not delivered by a Cabinet Secretary for Justice who has abused Scots justice, berated "ambulance-chasing" lawyers and threatened to withhold money from the courts.
In welcoming Lord McCluskey to listen to this afternoon.s debate, I wonder whether he might be rather surprised by the way in which his report is being spun by the cabinet secretary and, indeed, by the First Minister.
The reality is that the report rebuts the Scottish Government,s central contention when the issue was first raised—that the Supreme Court should not have a role in human rights cases and that it should not be higher than the apex of the current court system.
Jim Eadie (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP): Does the member agree that the limited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as recommended in Lord McCluskey’s report should be made explicit in the Scotland Bill, and will she use her influence with her Westminster colleagues to ensure that that proposition is taken forward?
Johann Lamont: We have said that all of Lord McCluskey’s recommendations should be interrogated closely and debated.
I do not see why we need to jump to proposing that the issue be dealt with immediately in the Scotland Bill, particularly given that learned people in the legal profession do not speak with a unified voice on this issue.
Obviously, everyone agrees with the independence of the Scottish justice system. However, Lord McCluskey does not say that that independence has been undermined. Indeed, Lord Hope ignored the court's apex structure in the Fraser case and recognised that he did not have general jurisdiction.
It is important that any assertion that the justice system.s independence has been undermined does not become fact.
If there is any evidence that that is the case, the cabinet secretary should tell us which of the accepted canons of Scots law have been overturned to justify the statement that the system.s independence has been undermined.
Even his own report did not find that.
It is also clear that Lord McCluskey’s report does not endorse the argument—which I acknowledge has not been marshalled today, although it has been in the past—that it would be better to have a Scottish supreme court or to have people lingering in the courts of Strasbourg waiting for decisions that it would be for them to go to London.
It was all about geography rather than the rights of the person who is seeking vindication.
Surely the important test is to have efficient access to justice and an effective justice system for Scottish citizens and communities.
We acknowledge that there is an interesting and important debate to be had about certification, but we should also point out that the view that is set out in the McCluskey report does not reflect the views of the whole legal establishment.
It is nonsense to say that there is a unified view on the matter, so we will want to be persuaded, on the balance of the arguments, of what the best approach might be.
I have to say that cabinet secretary's approach to this particular aspect reflects his approach to the whole matter.
When he says to me, in his most reverential tone, that we must respect the views of a serious and senior legal figure when he argues for certification, what he actually means is that we should listen to senior legal voices if they agree with him.
That is simply unacceptable.
Derek Mackay: Given that the member has returned to the issue of the cabinet secretary’s style, can she suggest which Labour leadership candidate Kenny MacAskill should style himself on? Should he style himself on, for example, Ian Davidson, who threatens to give people who disagree with him a doing—allegedly?
Johann Lamont: I believe that the cabinet secretary berated me for not taking the issue seriously.
He might want to have a word with his own back bencher in that regard.
As far as certification is concerned, we need to understand whether it might have any unintended consequences that have not been thought through and we need to realise that there are complexities to deal with.
I certainly feel that the cabinet secretary has gleefully picked on this particular issue because it gives him threadbare vindication for his and the First Minister.s entirely inappropriate and disproportionate behaviour in the past.
Having caused a huge fuss, they have had to search manfully through the report to find some issue that they can hold up and say must be considered.
I agree that the issue should be debated, but it does not merit the diatribe to which the legal profession and others were subjected.
The cabinet secretary says that we need to reflect on and listen to what those in the legal profession who understand these things have to say, but he must understand how appalled those people were by the tone that he and the First Minister adopted. Their comments were not worthy of back benchers, never mind people in the offices that they hold.
We welcome the report and any debate that gives us an opportunity to think about how we can have a justice system that people have confidence in and which gives them access to justice.
As I have said, we all know that the courts make decisions that people find bewildering, but there is no suggestion that Supreme Court decisions are not rooted in interpretation of the ECHR.
There is a bigger challenge for all of us: it is to ensure that we have a justice system that is properly resourced and in which people know they can get a fair hearing and know that those who disrupt their communities and create victims are held to account.
That is the bigger debate that we should be having, rather than one that is predicated on the false premise of an attack on the independence of the judicial system that is merited neither by what is happening nor by the findings of Lord McCluskey.
1.10.11
Upper Clyde Shipbuilders : Scottish Parliament debate 15th. September 2011
In the elections in May this year we saw many changes and most of them were unpalatable to people on this side of the chamber, but there was at least one little change that gave me cheer on being re-elected: it was the extending of my new constituency into Govan to include for the first time the Govan shipyards—that is a matter of great pride to me.
I shall be brief, as I realise that there are still many people who want to contribute to the debate, but I emphasise that this is not just about celebrating a little bit of history and is not just some romantic nostalgia; we are marking the foresight, determination and solidarity of the workforce in the UCS work-in.
We are recognising the way in which their inspirational and moral case was prosecuted, drawing support within my city of Glasgow, throughout Scotland and across the United Kingdom and beyond; support that was shaped by an understanding of the injustice and economic vandalism that was being pursued against skilled working people.
That campaign is a strong memory from my teenage years and, like the Lee Jeans campaign in the early 1980s, it provided a spark of light in dark times.
Those campaigns threw up leaders, heroes and heroines, men and women who stepped up to the mark and drove to success, and we celebrate them.
However, we also know that it was about not just those who became household names but the strength of workmates, their fellow trade unionists and their families and communities, who created the power to shift apparently unmoveable obstacles and stopped the Tories in their tracks.
There is an essential truth here: although individuals can make the case, can represent, can agitate and can give eloquent voice to the demands of the many, it is movements—the labour and trade union movement, the women's movement and the co-operative movement, among others—that deliver change over time.
We salute all of those who came together in a common endeavour, demanding the same things that the STUC, the unions and our communities are still demanding today: a strong economy, yes, but also a shared prosperity created by Government action and support.
In marking this anniversary, we reflect on the history and are proud of it.
However, critically, we celebrate the legacy—the skilled jobs still in Govan now, and high-quality jobs in engineering and shipbuilding in the Govan of the future, supporting and sustaining that community and beyond. We remember the soaring speeches, but it is the legacy for which we owe the UCS workers our heartfelt thanks.
Again now we hear the Tories with their certainty—that if it isn't hurting, it isn't working.
In these tough times, we should reflect on the fact that those with power will be judged not on the speeches that they make on the economy, but on the choices that they make, on the actions that they take, and on whether what they do makes a difference to the lives of our young people and future generations.
We salute the workers of the UCS for what they did, for the pride with which they did it, and—centrally—for the legacy that they left behind.
I shall be brief, as I realise that there are still many people who want to contribute to the debate, but I emphasise that this is not just about celebrating a little bit of history and is not just some romantic nostalgia; we are marking the foresight, determination and solidarity of the workforce in the UCS work-in.
We are recognising the way in which their inspirational and moral case was prosecuted, drawing support within my city of Glasgow, throughout Scotland and across the United Kingdom and beyond; support that was shaped by an understanding of the injustice and economic vandalism that was being pursued against skilled working people.
That campaign is a strong memory from my teenage years and, like the Lee Jeans campaign in the early 1980s, it provided a spark of light in dark times.
Those campaigns threw up leaders, heroes and heroines, men and women who stepped up to the mark and drove to success, and we celebrate them.
However, we also know that it was about not just those who became household names but the strength of workmates, their fellow trade unionists and their families and communities, who created the power to shift apparently unmoveable obstacles and stopped the Tories in their tracks.
There is an essential truth here: although individuals can make the case, can represent, can agitate and can give eloquent voice to the demands of the many, it is movements—the labour and trade union movement, the women's movement and the co-operative movement, among others—that deliver change over time.
We salute all of those who came together in a common endeavour, demanding the same things that the STUC, the unions and our communities are still demanding today: a strong economy, yes, but also a shared prosperity created by Government action and support.
In marking this anniversary, we reflect on the history and are proud of it.
However, critically, we celebrate the legacy—the skilled jobs still in Govan now, and high-quality jobs in engineering and shipbuilding in the Govan of the future, supporting and sustaining that community and beyond. We remember the soaring speeches, but it is the legacy for which we owe the UCS workers our heartfelt thanks.
Again now we hear the Tories with their certainty—that if it isn't hurting, it isn't working.
In these tough times, we should reflect on the fact that those with power will be judged not on the speeches that they make on the economy, but on the choices that they make, on the actions that they take, and on whether what they do makes a difference to the lives of our young people and future generations.
We salute the workers of the UCS for what they did, for the pride with which they did it, and—centrally—for the legacy that they left behind.
27.6.11
Speech in Debate on Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill 23 June 2011
We all acknowledge the significance of the debate and the importance of the issue.
I will speak first about the timing and why that matters.
The Lord Advocate said that we had a choice: we could talk to ourselves for a while, or we could just get on with it.
Even with the very limited scrutiny that the Justice Committee could give to the bill, it was able to raise important questions—not in a hostile way, and not in a way that would be difficult for the Government—that I, for one, had not thought of before.
Our process strengthens any legislation, even when we start from the point of view of supporting a bill.
I hope that, in her summing up, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs will make it clear that she disagrees fundamentally with the approach that the Lord Advocate took when he made his comments.
After the election, the Scottish Labour Party in particular wished to acknowledge what the SNP had done in winning the election.
We said that we wanted to co-operate with the Scottish Government wherever we could, but that we reserved the right not to do so where we disagreed.
When I said that—I have said it publicly—I did not imagine that the argument that I would get into would be on sectarianism, an issue that all members of the Parliament—particularly Jack McConnell during his time as First Minister—have highlighted and on which they have demanded that action be taken.
It is a matter of huge frustration that, instead of taking the current approach, we could have built unity by working through the parliamentary process on good proposed legislation, and thereby sent out a very strong message.
The Government has made it difficult for people to build that unity.
I object in the strongest of terms to any implication that says that we do not care about sectarianism if we oppose the bill.
That is fundamentally unfair and unjust.
We want to ensure that, if the bill is enacted, the voice coming from the Parliament says that we are united in opposing the behaviour that has promoted it and that we take the matter seriously.
We do not want the law to be implemented in such a way that people can deride and disregard it.
We have lost an opportunity, at this early stage, to build such unity.
We were explicitly told by ministers, by means of an argument that I found I could accept, that the clubs wanted the legislation to be in place before the new season started.
That was a powerful argument for supporting the passage of the bill, but the clubs have in fact told us that that is simply not the case.
We must ask what the truth of the matter is.
Sadly, I am left with the feeling that the First Minister thought that it was a good idea to get the legislation in before the next season, and his ministers have been left to develop a post hoc rationalisation for doing that.
Margo MacDonald: If the First Minister and the Government were, at this late stage, to be persuaded by the arguments that the bill must be given greater scrutiny, would the Opposition find it in their hearts to applaud that step back rather than condemn it?
Johann Lamont: Absolutely. I am happy to condemn the SNP on a range of things, including its objections to the constitutional settlement but, on this issue, we can be united on getting the right legislation through.
During stages 2 and 3 we want to do what we can to make the bill as strong as possible and we will reserve our judgment on the bill until the end of that period.
John Lamont talked about Catholic schools.
In my constituency, I have Catholic and non-denominational schools of which I am immensely proud.
It is inconsistent for people to argue that children going to separate schools causes discrimination, when we know that, historically, that is not the case. Further, it certainly does not make sense for someone who advocates private education to say that those difficulties are the consequence of separating children.
Alison McInnes asked a number of questions and I would welcome the minister making a commitment to answer them in writing, because that would help us in our further consideration of the bill.
There is a place for legislation that sends signals, clarifies issues and ensures that people understand that the subject with which it deals is a problem, so we do not simply say that there is no place for this kind of legislation.
We will make a judgment on the bill after interrogating it further at stages 2 and 3.
I will ask the minister a number of questions.
We accept that there are issues around breach of the peace legislation that can weaken the possibility of securing a conviction.
I accept the role of legislation in naming the crime, which is why I support legislation on stalking and legislation that identifies trafficking and domestic abuse.
I understand why that is being done and I do not think that that, in itself, should be an objection.
We have significant concerns, however, about how the legislation will be policed in public houses.
I am not talking about a ridiculous scenario.
I am concerned about the possibility that someone who is abusive and offends people in a pub in which the television is not on will not commit a crime, while someone who does so when the television is on will commit a crime.
How will that be policed?
Who should someone complain to?
How will we train people who work in pubs to deal with that situation?
That is not a trivial point; it is important.
Related to that is the question whether someone who commits an offence was or was not going to the football, or had been going to go the football but changed their mind.
Those who do not wish this legislation to work will make hay in those areas and we must acknowledge that there are those who do not want it to work.
I am not being mischievous, but there are people who, by the very nature of their bigoted behaviour, will want to find ways of undermining people’s confidence in the legislation.
Equally, we need to know what advice the police are getting.
We are asking the police to implement legislation as it is getting royal assent.
How do we imagine that they are being trained?
What are they to be told that they have to do?
I would like reassurance on that matter.
Another area that we would like the minister to consider further concerns the question of domestic premises.
Bob Doris made the point that sectarianism does not happen only at Celtic and Rangers games, but it is also true that it does not happen only at football games. Do we imaging that the bigot leaves his bigotry at the turnstile as he heads home?
I know that, in our communities, sectarianism is the abuse of choice and that, when a football match is on, someone who has hostility to his neighbour will use their faith against them as a means of abusing them.
We would like to know whether it is possible for the bill to encompass those situations.
It is important that we do not allow the bill to be about just football.
If we had had longer to think about the matter, we might have wanted to amend the hate crime legislation in a different way in order to identify specific behaviours in our community and in the football ground.
In saying all that, I do not want to gainsay the important response to the events of last year.
I want the minister to respond in particular to the points from Tim Hopkins about why condition B in section 5(5) identifies only religious hatred and to say whether she would consider expanding that condition.
I also ask the minister to respond to the critical issue of the sunset clause.
For us, it is not a get-out clause.
We must identify now how the review would take place and who would be involved in it.
I would like the monitoring of the bill to be reported to the Parliament within six months and at regular intervals thereafter.
If we get confidence on those matters, it might be that that would give us confidence in supporting legislation that we know must be seen as a response to unacceptable behaviour that has shamed us and shamed Scotland in the way that the minister identified.
I will speak first about the timing and why that matters.
The Lord Advocate said that we had a choice: we could talk to ourselves for a while, or we could just get on with it.
Even with the very limited scrutiny that the Justice Committee could give to the bill, it was able to raise important questions—not in a hostile way, and not in a way that would be difficult for the Government—that I, for one, had not thought of before.
Our process strengthens any legislation, even when we start from the point of view of supporting a bill.
I hope that, in her summing up, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs will make it clear that she disagrees fundamentally with the approach that the Lord Advocate took when he made his comments.
After the election, the Scottish Labour Party in particular wished to acknowledge what the SNP had done in winning the election.
We said that we wanted to co-operate with the Scottish Government wherever we could, but that we reserved the right not to do so where we disagreed.
When I said that—I have said it publicly—I did not imagine that the argument that I would get into would be on sectarianism, an issue that all members of the Parliament—particularly Jack McConnell during his time as First Minister—have highlighted and on which they have demanded that action be taken.
It is a matter of huge frustration that, instead of taking the current approach, we could have built unity by working through the parliamentary process on good proposed legislation, and thereby sent out a very strong message.
The Government has made it difficult for people to build that unity.
I object in the strongest of terms to any implication that says that we do not care about sectarianism if we oppose the bill.
That is fundamentally unfair and unjust.
We want to ensure that, if the bill is enacted, the voice coming from the Parliament says that we are united in opposing the behaviour that has promoted it and that we take the matter seriously.
We do not want the law to be implemented in such a way that people can deride and disregard it.
We have lost an opportunity, at this early stage, to build such unity.
We were explicitly told by ministers, by means of an argument that I found I could accept, that the clubs wanted the legislation to be in place before the new season started.
That was a powerful argument for supporting the passage of the bill, but the clubs have in fact told us that that is simply not the case.
We must ask what the truth of the matter is.
Sadly, I am left with the feeling that the First Minister thought that it was a good idea to get the legislation in before the next season, and his ministers have been left to develop a post hoc rationalisation for doing that.
Margo MacDonald: If the First Minister and the Government were, at this late stage, to be persuaded by the arguments that the bill must be given greater scrutiny, would the Opposition find it in their hearts to applaud that step back rather than condemn it?
Johann Lamont: Absolutely. I am happy to condemn the SNP on a range of things, including its objections to the constitutional settlement but, on this issue, we can be united on getting the right legislation through.
During stages 2 and 3 we want to do what we can to make the bill as strong as possible and we will reserve our judgment on the bill until the end of that period.
John Lamont talked about Catholic schools.
In my constituency, I have Catholic and non-denominational schools of which I am immensely proud.
It is inconsistent for people to argue that children going to separate schools causes discrimination, when we know that, historically, that is not the case. Further, it certainly does not make sense for someone who advocates private education to say that those difficulties are the consequence of separating children.
Alison McInnes asked a number of questions and I would welcome the minister making a commitment to answer them in writing, because that would help us in our further consideration of the bill.
There is a place for legislation that sends signals, clarifies issues and ensures that people understand that the subject with which it deals is a problem, so we do not simply say that there is no place for this kind of legislation.
We will make a judgment on the bill after interrogating it further at stages 2 and 3.
I will ask the minister a number of questions.
We accept that there are issues around breach of the peace legislation that can weaken the possibility of securing a conviction.
I accept the role of legislation in naming the crime, which is why I support legislation on stalking and legislation that identifies trafficking and domestic abuse.
I understand why that is being done and I do not think that that, in itself, should be an objection.
We have significant concerns, however, about how the legislation will be policed in public houses.
I am not talking about a ridiculous scenario.
I am concerned about the possibility that someone who is abusive and offends people in a pub in which the television is not on will not commit a crime, while someone who does so when the television is on will commit a crime.
How will that be policed?
Who should someone complain to?
How will we train people who work in pubs to deal with that situation?
That is not a trivial point; it is important.
Related to that is the question whether someone who commits an offence was or was not going to the football, or had been going to go the football but changed their mind.
Those who do not wish this legislation to work will make hay in those areas and we must acknowledge that there are those who do not want it to work.
I am not being mischievous, but there are people who, by the very nature of their bigoted behaviour, will want to find ways of undermining people’s confidence in the legislation.
Equally, we need to know what advice the police are getting.
We are asking the police to implement legislation as it is getting royal assent.
How do we imagine that they are being trained?
What are they to be told that they have to do?
I would like reassurance on that matter.
Another area that we would like the minister to consider further concerns the question of domestic premises.
Bob Doris made the point that sectarianism does not happen only at Celtic and Rangers games, but it is also true that it does not happen only at football games. Do we imaging that the bigot leaves his bigotry at the turnstile as he heads home?
I know that, in our communities, sectarianism is the abuse of choice and that, when a football match is on, someone who has hostility to his neighbour will use their faith against them as a means of abusing them.
We would like to know whether it is possible for the bill to encompass those situations.
It is important that we do not allow the bill to be about just football.
If we had had longer to think about the matter, we might have wanted to amend the hate crime legislation in a different way in order to identify specific behaviours in our community and in the football ground.
In saying all that, I do not want to gainsay the important response to the events of last year.
I want the minister to respond in particular to the points from Tim Hopkins about why condition B in section 5(5) identifies only religious hatred and to say whether she would consider expanding that condition.
I also ask the minister to respond to the critical issue of the sunset clause.
For us, it is not a get-out clause.
We must identify now how the review would take place and who would be involved in it.
I would like the monitoring of the bill to be reported to the Parliament within six months and at regular intervals thereafter.
If we get confidence on those matters, it might be that that would give us confidence in supporting legislation that we know must be seen as a response to unacceptable behaviour that has shamed us and shamed Scotland in the way that the minister identified.
17.6.11
Speech in debate on Sectarianism and Anti-Irish Racism 15 June 2011
I am happy to contribute to the debate, but I am depressed that we have to have it. I commend Bob Doris both on his motion and on his speech—especially the point that he made about the real challenge that we face in this regard, which is that something as horrific as what happened to our Deputy Presiding Officer in the previous session was seen somehow as being something to be explained away.
In other circumstances, blaming the victim for bringing something on themselves by how they dressed or spoke would have been seen as being entirely unacceptable, but in this instance it was seen as providing some kind of justification for what had happened.
That is a particularly important point that we must confront.
This is a serious issue because, apart from anything else, sectarianism undermines our sense of a diverse Scotland, in which we can be proud of celebrating difference. We have often heard the phrase ―One Scotland, many cultures‖.
We are happy to see people embrace that, so it is depressing to recognise that it is not the experience of some of our communities and people.
Bob Doris has recognised that both sectarianism and anti-Irish racism are significant.
We know that the impact of sectarianism and racism in our communities is corrosive. They create difficulties and challenges and they undermine our wish to see harmony across our communities.
I acknowledge the need for legislation and appreciate that we will not discuss that at length today.
However, it is hard to see how the mindset and action of someone who was willing to post three letters with bullets to Trish Godman, among others, can be sorted out simply by legislation on sectarianism.
As the minister has recognised, we must be mindful of the significance of legislation itself.
In the circumstances, the broader issues that we have to address go far beyond anything in that regard for tackling terrorism.
We need to have a serious debate, with proper consideration of the various options. I understand that the Government has said that the new legislation needs to be in place in time for the new football season, but I express the concern that if the legislation is introduced at the beginning of the season and is not effective—and is seen to be ineffective—we might end up making things worse and giving succour to those who wish to continue to express sectarian views.
However, as we have said, we will work as constructively as possible around the proposed legislation.
As with controversial legislation in the past, the parliamentary process offers a means to build support for what is being attempted.
It is possible to get people to see the need for it and to sign up for it.
That is particularly important in this context.
The issue will be about not just the new legislation at a punitive level; it will also be about getting people to challenge attitudes and behaviours where they see them and where they realise that the measures are ineffective.
As Bob Doris pointed out, this is not just about football.
Sectarian abuse is the abuse of choice in too many communities where there is conflict between neighbours.
It happens not just in the football stadium; it happens in the pub.
I do not know whether the minister still intends to legislate in that regard.
In football, we also have our greatest resource in tackling sectarian behaviour. There has been evidence in the past that it was football supporters themselves who took on the sexists and the racists on their terraces and stopped behaviour that was regarded as the norm 20 or 30 years ago.
We must harness their commitment to, and pride in, their clubs and we must speak to the football trusts and work with them in taking on the job of challenging such attitudes.
The mindset will have to shift.
On the critical importance of education, our young people probably embrace more than anyone else the initiatives that Jack McConnell put in place for getting young people to work together to challenge sectarianism.
We must harness that energy of bringing people together once more.
Furthermore, we should harness the energy of voluntary organisations, which can go into communities and make the changes and the arguments for the change to which we all aspire.
We can unite on a range of issues in recognising the importance of effective legislation, but let us also harness all those people in footballing communities and elsewhere who are as hostile to and disturbed by sectarianism and racism as everyone in the chamber.
In other circumstances, blaming the victim for bringing something on themselves by how they dressed or spoke would have been seen as being entirely unacceptable, but in this instance it was seen as providing some kind of justification for what had happened.
That is a particularly important point that we must confront.
This is a serious issue because, apart from anything else, sectarianism undermines our sense of a diverse Scotland, in which we can be proud of celebrating difference. We have often heard the phrase ―One Scotland, many cultures‖.
We are happy to see people embrace that, so it is depressing to recognise that it is not the experience of some of our communities and people.
Bob Doris has recognised that both sectarianism and anti-Irish racism are significant.
We know that the impact of sectarianism and racism in our communities is corrosive. They create difficulties and challenges and they undermine our wish to see harmony across our communities.
I acknowledge the need for legislation and appreciate that we will not discuss that at length today.
However, it is hard to see how the mindset and action of someone who was willing to post three letters with bullets to Trish Godman, among others, can be sorted out simply by legislation on sectarianism.
As the minister has recognised, we must be mindful of the significance of legislation itself.
In the circumstances, the broader issues that we have to address go far beyond anything in that regard for tackling terrorism.
We need to have a serious debate, with proper consideration of the various options. I understand that the Government has said that the new legislation needs to be in place in time for the new football season, but I express the concern that if the legislation is introduced at the beginning of the season and is not effective—and is seen to be ineffective—we might end up making things worse and giving succour to those who wish to continue to express sectarian views.
However, as we have said, we will work as constructively as possible around the proposed legislation.
As with controversial legislation in the past, the parliamentary process offers a means to build support for what is being attempted.
It is possible to get people to see the need for it and to sign up for it.
That is particularly important in this context.
The issue will be about not just the new legislation at a punitive level; it will also be about getting people to challenge attitudes and behaviours where they see them and where they realise that the measures are ineffective.
As Bob Doris pointed out, this is not just about football.
Sectarian abuse is the abuse of choice in too many communities where there is conflict between neighbours.
It happens not just in the football stadium; it happens in the pub.
I do not know whether the minister still intends to legislate in that regard.
In football, we also have our greatest resource in tackling sectarian behaviour. There has been evidence in the past that it was football supporters themselves who took on the sexists and the racists on their terraces and stopped behaviour that was regarded as the norm 20 or 30 years ago.
We must harness their commitment to, and pride in, their clubs and we must speak to the football trusts and work with them in taking on the job of challenging such attitudes.
The mindset will have to shift.
On the critical importance of education, our young people probably embrace more than anyone else the initiatives that Jack McConnell put in place for getting young people to work together to challenge sectarianism.
We must harness that energy of bringing people together once more.
Furthermore, we should harness the energy of voluntary organisations, which can go into communities and make the changes and the arguments for the change to which we all aspire.
We can unite on a range of issues in recognising the importance of effective legislation, but let us also harness all those people in footballing communities and elsewhere who are as hostile to and disturbed by sectarianism and racism as everyone in the chamber.
Speech in the debate Taking Scotland Forward : Justice 15 June 2011
I welcome the opportunity to open on behalf of the Labour Party in my new role as our spokesperson for justice, which is such an important area of responsibility for the Scottish Government and the Parliament.
This is quite a difficult speech to craft properly; there are so many areas on which I could spend a great deal of time.
I welcome the fact that the justice secretary has outlined a range of areas in which his Government intends to move forward.
The reality is that the driving force for the next period will be the Scottish Government.
It will shape the justice agenda, to which we hope to be able to contribute, so we welcome the justice secretary’s commitment to working with the Opposition.
I will make a couple of general points about the justice portfolio and then I will make some specific comments about particular areas, although inevitably there will be areas that I will not have time to cover.
Where we can, we are keen to work with the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that
Scotland’s justice system is underpinned by fairness, transparency and consistency. We also want to make sure that it has as its central and powerful focus ensuring that our communities are safe, that protection is afforded to individuals and families, that criminality is deterred, and that victims are confident not only that they will be listened to but that they are at the centre of the process and—critically—believe that to be the case.
From the inception of the Parliament, Labour has always sought to stand on the side of the victim, listening properly and closely to what they describe as their experience, and seeking to respond to that.
We sometimes talk about justice issues in a cartoon-like way, but when people talked about the impact of youth disorder on their young people, children or grandchildren, we listened.
When people spoke about the impact of unregulated private landlords driving down the confidence of communities and allowing them to disintegrate, we listened.
People have described to us the community bullying and talked about the silence that they feel they need to keep because they fear what will happen when they speak up, and we have heard about the sense of injustice of the rape victim or the victim of violence and their feeling that the system does not understand their experience and compounds that injustice in the court system.
Those were the driving voices of justice policy in our time in government and, in part, since then.
We have understood how dangerous it is when those who commit violent crime, organise crime and prey on individuals and families feel empowered and unchallengeable, and when their victims feel that they are being silenced and ignored, or when the only alternatives that are apparent to victims are to stop complaining or to take the law into their own hands.
We do not need to reflect for more than a moment to recognise that we cannot overstate the impact of that lack of confidence of individuals and communities in the authority of the justice system.
The driving force for us is to shape legislation and action that understand that impact and respond to those experiences.
We must realise that it is not enough to assert our compassion and that we must do the tough stuff of government—getting the detail right and putting in place the resources to ensure that people’s voices are heard and that we can make a difference.
In the first full debate on justice in the new session, we need to be honest and rigorous.
We must recognise that our role, as the Opposition, is to co-operate when we can, but to challenge when it is necessary for us to do so. Across the Parliament, we recognise the challenge that the sectarianism that reflects on us as a society presents for all of us, but our view is that there is no quick fix to a problem that has existed for a significant period—it is a long-term problem that will not be fixed simply by legislation.
We have a concern—at this stage, I highlight it only as a concern—about the pace at which the minister and his Government are going.
In The Times this week, the Lord Advocate was quoted as saying:
―Passing laws is what the Parliament is there for. Yes we could spend a few months talking about it and then passing it. Or we could just get on and do it and have it in place in time for the football season starting.‖
I understand the impulse to move quickly, but the fact is that the parliamentary process does not involve only us talking to one another; it is about breaching the walls of the Parliament to allow those who understand the issues to help shape legislation.
Neither as a minister nor as a back bencher have I ever come across a piece of legislation than has not been strengthened immensely by the end of the process as a result of the way in which, through the committee structure, people have shaped it. We have genuine concerns about what the Lord Advocate said—and not only in relation to the proposed sectarianism bill, which we all want to work, because there is nothing worse than legislation that is derided as soon as it enters the system.
If the Government’s attitude is that the time that is spent in the committee process is just time that is spent talking, it is missing one of the key strengths of our parliamentary and legislative process.
It is with a genuine sense of co-operation that I urge the minister to reflect on the seriousness of getting the proposed legislation right.
Equally, there needs to be honesty on police numbers.
In its evidence on the budget process, Unison said that the budget for 2011-12 could mean the loss of 1,100 civilian police jobs. That would surely have an impact on front-line policing, and we need to interrogate that matter further.
Would that mean police being taken from front-line jobs to do the administrative work?
In my view, that would be a big step back from where we were before.
On short sentences, I urge the minister not to stick to the position that he has held in the past.
We recognise the importance of rehabilitation.
Our view is that if we have effective community service orders, short sentences will wither on the vine, but the approach that the Government is taking means that the risk is being borne by those communities in which there are people who believe that they are untouchable and for whom CSOs have not worked.
We know that one in three CSOs is breached, and there are disturbing figures that show that the length of time that it takes to complete a CSO is stretching.
I urge the minister to reflect on that. Our communities need the certainty of knowing that CSOs are effective before we signal a shift away from the position that prison can have a role to play.
On antisocial behaviour, we need to understand the persistent nature of the harassment, intolerance and intimidation that can make people’s lives a misery. Antisocial behaviour orders emerged out of that experience, and if they are ineffective, we need to think how we can make them more effective rather than simply dismissing them.
There is a gap between criminal acts and the low-level, persistent, horrible and nasty way in which some people conduct themselves, which must be addressed.
The slightly sneering tone that sometimes comes from some quarters on ASBOs does not serve our communities well, and I would welcome discussion of how we can deal with that.
I hear what the minister says on knife crime.
We also understand that the courts must play a role in deterring young men from destroying their own lives, not just those of their victims.
We know that the culture of routinely carrying a knife brings with it a heavy price that is paid by people throughout our communities.
We know what it means for the victims and their families. When we spoke before about mandatory sentencing in this area, there was a sense of outrage and offence among the people in our communities who were told that the court system could not make a distinction between a carpet fitter and a man with a machete down in his sock going into a dance hall.
That beggars belief.
It is important that we recognise the fear of knife crime in some of our communities and that we address the problem seriously.
On following a positive agenda, as I have said, it is important that we co-operate where we can.
I hear what the minister says about public sector reform.
We will support a reorganisation of police and fire services where we can, as long as there is confidence that there remains local accountability and direction in setting policing priorities.
On women offenders and Cornton Vale, it is important that we work together.
We acknowledge the establishment of the commission, but over the past 18 months we have been concerned about the absence of leadership in addressing the problem of women offenders in Cornton Vale.
We will also work on sexual offences issues, including the rolling out of domestic abuse courts.
We will draw on the experience of the advice, support, safety and information services together project to understand how domestic abuse is experienced and the way in which the court system does not seem able to offer support when there are breaches of bail.
When people are not automatically remanded, there are consequences for the families involved.
We understand the importance of the powers in the proceeds of crime legislation, but we ask that that money be invested in those communities from where the money was harvested in the first place.
Across the Parliament, members are committed to trying to address the issues that bring out crime and mean that people become the victims of crime—and not just within the narrow focus of the justice portfolio.
We will support the Government in creating a strong economy and jobs where that approach can make a difference.
We are happy to work with the Government where the focus is on addressing the lived experience of crime and injustice in our communities. Where our job is to challenge, we will do that.
However, we want a justice system in which victims of crime can have real confidence.
I look forward to our doing our part to create that system in the coming period.
Speech in debate on Taking Scotland Forward 26 May 2011
I do not want to start my first speech back in the Parliament by attacking the Tories, but I was going to pad out my generous 13 minutes by reading out the list of fabulous maiden speakers, and that has now been denied me.
I offer my congratulations to all those who made their maiden speeches today.
Murdo Fraser is right to point out that their substantial contribution to today’s debate augurs very well for this session of Parliament.
I will talk about some of them in particular, but that should not reflect on the contributions of those whom I do not mention.
I am exceptionally grateful to be back in Parliament after going through an exceptionally tough election night.
At a personal level, I am grateful to the voters of Glasgow Pollok for returning me here.
In these tough times—they were tough for the Labour Party on that night—I have been given an added challenge.
I know that, in these days of co-operation and the new politics, and in recognition of the SNP’s victory, I will have to be very good.
However, to speak for a generous 13 minutes while continuing that approach might stretch even my capacity, so I hope that members will forgive me if I say anything that is not absolutely in the spirit of the new politics.
Of all the speeches that we heard today, I remark in particular on that of our own leader, Iain Gray.
We are exceptionally proud of our leader, and no more so than today.
He captured not only the challenge for Labour of co-operating with a majority Government in these new times but the challenge for the Scottish Government of listening to others, doing the hard work of moving from aspiration to delivery and recognising that we have ideas—as have members on all sides of the chamber—that we wish to contribute to that very important job.
The new word is positivity, and members will know that I ooze positivity from every pore.
However, I say gently to some of the SNP members in the chamber—particularly to those who spoke this morning rather than this afternoon—that we have got it: we know that the SNP won the election.
We are determined to co-operate where we can, but SNP members should understand that co-operation is not capitulation.
It seemed this morning that they were happy to be congratulated but became slightly more disgruntled when they were being criticised.
SNP members have a very strong platform, but they must recognise that, throughout Scotland as well as in the chamber, there will be times when we disagree with them and we are entitled to be heard.
I present a further challenge, this time to Scottish Government back benchers, because it is important that, if they challenge their own Government, their voices can be heard.
As for maiden speeches, I was very struck by Joan McAlpine’s comments about this young Parliament’s proud legacy, particularly with regard to the land question.
I find it interesting that her view on land took her to the SNP while my view of the Scottish landowners and what they did to my forebears made me a socialist, not a nationalist.
I hope that, in recognising the importance of the Commonwealth games, John Mason also recognises Glasgow City Council’s critical role over a long time in putting in place the buildings and capacity that resulted in our winning the bid.
Too often Glasgow is vilified; in fact, it showed vision in understanding sport’s power to change lives and how something like the Commonwealth games can not only present the city and Scotland in a positive light but support community regeneration and local employment.
There is a powerful message in all of that for the Scottish Government not only about the importance of its partnership with Scotland’s biggest city but about how public funding and procurement can tackle low-pay issues in the public, voluntary and private sectors.
I was surprised to hear that Kezia Dugdale’s speech has been regarded as controversial, because I felt that it said something very powerful about our role in the Parliament.
It is not sufficient for any of us simply to talk about what we care about or believe in; we have to do the heavy lifting of Government to deliver on targets.
For example, I regret the fact that, over the past four years, child poverty increased instead of going down. Government needs to focus on such questions.
Acknowledging Graeme Pearson’s wealth of experience, I nevertheless want to highlight in particular his comments about the proceeds of crime, which are harvested from some of our poorest communities.
That money ought to be directed back into the communities that suffer most from organised crime.
I welcomed Kevin Stewart’s speech, in which he made the case for support for his own city.
We will all have to face that challenge; indeed, the Scottish Government itself faces the challenge of balancing these demands for justice and fairness.
James Dornan said that we now have a can-do Government.
However, the problem is that, over the past fortnight, we have heard excessive comment about what we cannot do because of the powers that we do not have.
It is important that the can-do message is made stronger.
I thought that Annabelle Ewing was deliberately trying to wind me up when she described 6 May as a very enjoyable day.
If I remember correctly, it was not quite so enjoyable for some of us.
She also mentioned boldness of thinking, but the fact is that she will have to tell us what the plan for corporation tax will be if it comes to the Parliament.
If it means simply giving tax cuts to big business, I have to say that I do not believe that that will be in tune with the views of the people of Scotland.
On the purpose of devolution itself, the First Minister said:
“Devolution was born for a purpose: to let Scotland find peace with herself and for our nation to become comfortable in her own skin.”
Well, maybe—but for some of us it was also about bringing power closer to where people lived, understanding their experiences, listening to the solutions that they had devised and using Government’s power to implement them.
It is about protecting people in these very tough times, given what is coming from Westminster.
There is, for example, a challenge in health. I agree with Christine Grahame about health inequalities.
None of us can allow ourselves to get to the point where we simply say that the statistics prove that the health service is okay, despite the fact that those who use it and work in it are saying something entirely different.
Moreover, we know that we are committed to free education, but what are we actually saying about the further education sector and what are we doing to resist the trade-off between having no tuition fees and closing down places in higher education, which will discriminate against the poorest in our communities?
We opened up higher education to those in my generation who had not been allowed to go to university and such places should not be closed and denied to the same people.
Neil Bibby and other members have mentioned youth unemployment.
I reiterate the request or demand that we look at low pay and the living wage.
There is a pay freeze that is mitigated for the lowest paid in the health service and the Scottish Government, but that mitigation is not happening in local government.
Some 70 per cent of those in low-paid jobs in local government are women.
I ask the Government again to consider that issue and whether there is any sense of justice, to ensure that the poorest do not bear the burden of these challenging times.
We must also consider what is happening in the voluntary sector.
We say that there are no compulsory redundancies in the public sector, but we know that, with contracts that are delivered inside the voluntary sector on behalf of the public sector, women are losing not 2 or 3 per cent of their wages but a third of them.
That is happening in a restructuring that has been brought about because of pressures on contracts that are going into the voluntary sector.
It is important that procurement protects those jobs and workers.
We all have aspirations for Scotland, of course.
The advance copies of the First Minister’s statement included the words “Check against delivery”.
We will also check his and his Government’s commitments against delivery.
He said that the Government will make housing a priority, but it is a fact that investment in housing has been continually deprioritised in the past four years.
The capacity of housing associations to deliver has been reduced by a reduction in the subsidy.
The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment (Alex Neil): I point out that we will build more than 6,000 houses next year, which compares with fewer than 5,000 houses built when Johann Lamont was the minister.
Johann Lamont: Alex Neil will find that the housing numbers have fallen in the past year and that a funding structure has been put in place that will mean that housing associations and co-operatives will not be able to deliver the developments that they said they would.
I urge the Government to look at the issue of co-operatives and mutuals, which we said a lot about in our manifesto, and to consider our financial inclusion strategy. There is no doubt that legal and illegal loan sharks are circling in some of our communities that are pressured by wage cuts and so on.
It is the job of Government to protect and sustain credit unions and do the broader work of financial inclusion in those terms.
On justice, I echo our commitment to support the Scottish Government in tackling inequality and discrimination in whatever way they are expressed in our communities, but it is important to listen to the lived experience of people in our communities. If tough sentencing is a lever against sectarian abuse, it must also be a way of addressing the scourge of knife crime in our communities.
The First Minister said that we can have ambitions, and he talked about powers. He said that acting “within the restricted powers of this Parliament ... does not confine our ambitions for Scotland, but it confines our ability to achieve those ambitions.”
We want the Government also to focus on what it can achieve with the powers that it has.
The First Minister’s statement must not be an alibi.
We want him to be ambitious with the capacity that he already has to address the needs of carers, to support women and children who face domestic abuse, and to tackle inequality in our communities.
In conclusion, the Labour Party has had a tough time, from which we will rebuild and restrengthen ourselves, but it is as nothing compared with the tough times that families and individuals in our communities are facing.
We know that there will be a constitutional debate; we understand that and recognise the SNP’s majority.
However, I reiterate the demand that the referendum be brought forward and sorted. As the debate on constitutional powers continues, the importance of giving equal attention to the needs that we saw in the election campaign and before must be recognised.
It must be understood that equal time must be given to the tough job of delivering on the priorities of the people in this country in respect of jobs, education and health, which members across the chamber recognise.
Where the Government focuses on those priorities, it will be guaranteed the Opposition’s support.
I offer my congratulations to all those who made their maiden speeches today.
Murdo Fraser is right to point out that their substantial contribution to today’s debate augurs very well for this session of Parliament.
I will talk about some of them in particular, but that should not reflect on the contributions of those whom I do not mention.
I am exceptionally grateful to be back in Parliament after going through an exceptionally tough election night.
At a personal level, I am grateful to the voters of Glasgow Pollok for returning me here.
In these tough times—they were tough for the Labour Party on that night—I have been given an added challenge.
I know that, in these days of co-operation and the new politics, and in recognition of the SNP’s victory, I will have to be very good.
However, to speak for a generous 13 minutes while continuing that approach might stretch even my capacity, so I hope that members will forgive me if I say anything that is not absolutely in the spirit of the new politics.
Of all the speeches that we heard today, I remark in particular on that of our own leader, Iain Gray.
We are exceptionally proud of our leader, and no more so than today.
He captured not only the challenge for Labour of co-operating with a majority Government in these new times but the challenge for the Scottish Government of listening to others, doing the hard work of moving from aspiration to delivery and recognising that we have ideas—as have members on all sides of the chamber—that we wish to contribute to that very important job.
The new word is positivity, and members will know that I ooze positivity from every pore.
However, I say gently to some of the SNP members in the chamber—particularly to those who spoke this morning rather than this afternoon—that we have got it: we know that the SNP won the election.
We are determined to co-operate where we can, but SNP members should understand that co-operation is not capitulation.
It seemed this morning that they were happy to be congratulated but became slightly more disgruntled when they were being criticised.
SNP members have a very strong platform, but they must recognise that, throughout Scotland as well as in the chamber, there will be times when we disagree with them and we are entitled to be heard.
I present a further challenge, this time to Scottish Government back benchers, because it is important that, if they challenge their own Government, their voices can be heard.
As for maiden speeches, I was very struck by Joan McAlpine’s comments about this young Parliament’s proud legacy, particularly with regard to the land question.
I find it interesting that her view on land took her to the SNP while my view of the Scottish landowners and what they did to my forebears made me a socialist, not a nationalist.
I hope that, in recognising the importance of the Commonwealth games, John Mason also recognises Glasgow City Council’s critical role over a long time in putting in place the buildings and capacity that resulted in our winning the bid.
Too often Glasgow is vilified; in fact, it showed vision in understanding sport’s power to change lives and how something like the Commonwealth games can not only present the city and Scotland in a positive light but support community regeneration and local employment.
There is a powerful message in all of that for the Scottish Government not only about the importance of its partnership with Scotland’s biggest city but about how public funding and procurement can tackle low-pay issues in the public, voluntary and private sectors.
I was surprised to hear that Kezia Dugdale’s speech has been regarded as controversial, because I felt that it said something very powerful about our role in the Parliament.
It is not sufficient for any of us simply to talk about what we care about or believe in; we have to do the heavy lifting of Government to deliver on targets.
For example, I regret the fact that, over the past four years, child poverty increased instead of going down. Government needs to focus on such questions.
Acknowledging Graeme Pearson’s wealth of experience, I nevertheless want to highlight in particular his comments about the proceeds of crime, which are harvested from some of our poorest communities.
That money ought to be directed back into the communities that suffer most from organised crime.
I welcomed Kevin Stewart’s speech, in which he made the case for support for his own city.
We will all have to face that challenge; indeed, the Scottish Government itself faces the challenge of balancing these demands for justice and fairness.
James Dornan said that we now have a can-do Government.
However, the problem is that, over the past fortnight, we have heard excessive comment about what we cannot do because of the powers that we do not have.
It is important that the can-do message is made stronger.
I thought that Annabelle Ewing was deliberately trying to wind me up when she described 6 May as a very enjoyable day.
If I remember correctly, it was not quite so enjoyable for some of us.
She also mentioned boldness of thinking, but the fact is that she will have to tell us what the plan for corporation tax will be if it comes to the Parliament.
If it means simply giving tax cuts to big business, I have to say that I do not believe that that will be in tune with the views of the people of Scotland.
On the purpose of devolution itself, the First Minister said:
“Devolution was born for a purpose: to let Scotland find peace with herself and for our nation to become comfortable in her own skin.”
Well, maybe—but for some of us it was also about bringing power closer to where people lived, understanding their experiences, listening to the solutions that they had devised and using Government’s power to implement them.
It is about protecting people in these very tough times, given what is coming from Westminster.
There is, for example, a challenge in health. I agree with Christine Grahame about health inequalities.
None of us can allow ourselves to get to the point where we simply say that the statistics prove that the health service is okay, despite the fact that those who use it and work in it are saying something entirely different.
Moreover, we know that we are committed to free education, but what are we actually saying about the further education sector and what are we doing to resist the trade-off between having no tuition fees and closing down places in higher education, which will discriminate against the poorest in our communities?
We opened up higher education to those in my generation who had not been allowed to go to university and such places should not be closed and denied to the same people.
Neil Bibby and other members have mentioned youth unemployment.
I reiterate the request or demand that we look at low pay and the living wage.
There is a pay freeze that is mitigated for the lowest paid in the health service and the Scottish Government, but that mitigation is not happening in local government.
Some 70 per cent of those in low-paid jobs in local government are women.
I ask the Government again to consider that issue and whether there is any sense of justice, to ensure that the poorest do not bear the burden of these challenging times.
We must also consider what is happening in the voluntary sector.
We say that there are no compulsory redundancies in the public sector, but we know that, with contracts that are delivered inside the voluntary sector on behalf of the public sector, women are losing not 2 or 3 per cent of their wages but a third of them.
That is happening in a restructuring that has been brought about because of pressures on contracts that are going into the voluntary sector.
It is important that procurement protects those jobs and workers.
We all have aspirations for Scotland, of course.
The advance copies of the First Minister’s statement included the words “Check against delivery”.
We will also check his and his Government’s commitments against delivery.
He said that the Government will make housing a priority, but it is a fact that investment in housing has been continually deprioritised in the past four years.
The capacity of housing associations to deliver has been reduced by a reduction in the subsidy.
The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment (Alex Neil): I point out that we will build more than 6,000 houses next year, which compares with fewer than 5,000 houses built when Johann Lamont was the minister.
Johann Lamont: Alex Neil will find that the housing numbers have fallen in the past year and that a funding structure has been put in place that will mean that housing associations and co-operatives will not be able to deliver the developments that they said they would.
I urge the Government to look at the issue of co-operatives and mutuals, which we said a lot about in our manifesto, and to consider our financial inclusion strategy. There is no doubt that legal and illegal loan sharks are circling in some of our communities that are pressured by wage cuts and so on.
It is the job of Government to protect and sustain credit unions and do the broader work of financial inclusion in those terms.
On justice, I echo our commitment to support the Scottish Government in tackling inequality and discrimination in whatever way they are expressed in our communities, but it is important to listen to the lived experience of people in our communities. If tough sentencing is a lever against sectarian abuse, it must also be a way of addressing the scourge of knife crime in our communities.
The First Minister said that we can have ambitions, and he talked about powers. He said that acting “within the restricted powers of this Parliament ... does not confine our ambitions for Scotland, but it confines our ability to achieve those ambitions.”
We want the Government also to focus on what it can achieve with the powers that it has.
The First Minister’s statement must not be an alibi.
We want him to be ambitious with the capacity that he already has to address the needs of carers, to support women and children who face domestic abuse, and to tackle inequality in our communities.
In conclusion, the Labour Party has had a tough time, from which we will rebuild and restrengthen ourselves, but it is as nothing compared with the tough times that families and individuals in our communities are facing.
We know that there will be a constitutional debate; we understand that and recognise the SNP’s majority.
However, I reiterate the demand that the referendum be brought forward and sorted. As the debate on constitutional powers continues, the importance of giving equal attention to the needs that we saw in the election campaign and before must be recognised.
It must be understood that equal time must be given to the tough job of delivering on the priorities of the people in this country in respect of jobs, education and health, which members across the chamber recognise.
Where the Government focuses on those priorities, it will be guaranteed the Opposition’s support.
22.3.11
5.12.10
A Budget for Scotland’s People Scottish Parliament speech 25 November 2010
I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Labour Party.
I recognise that it is an important debate for the people of Scotland. It is not our intention for this to be a yah-boo debate; it is not a debate for the sake of it, but one that is of significance for all Scotland.
As members might be aware, I am not an aficionado of budget debates.
However, this is not simply a debate for the parties' finance spokespeople—which is why I am opening—but one that is at the heart of Labour's concerns and, I believe, the concerns of others about the Scottish National Party's approach and attitude to the development of the budget and the consequences for individuals, families and communities throughout Scotland.
Our motion recognises the reality in Scotland of uncertainty, anxiety, stress and fear for what the future may bring. Our job—the purpose of the Scottish Parliament—is to protect people and to take action that offers greater stability and certainty.
The evident uncertainty is corrosive; it is a threat that is not easily captured in a ledger but which fundamentally impacts on people's lives.
Our central argument is that the Scottish Government is compounding that uncertainty.
Yes—Mr Swinney is demanding efficiencies and outlining his spending priorities for the next year, but the reality is that he is preventing a wide range of public and voluntary bodies and local authorities from being able to plan and make informed choices about the future.
The Scottish Government has the information.
It can help, but chooses not to by refusing to give spending projections for the period of the comprehensive spending review.
When the Scottish Government is challenged about its many failures, broken promises or incompetences, it often says that it is a minority Government.
That is not, in itself, the problem: the problem is that it is a minority that is incapable of seeking compromise and consensus.
Instead of seeking co-operation to support people in these tough times, it acts in a way that keeps MSPs in this Parliament in the dark and, more important, which keeps in the dark crucial public bodies and organisations that are striving to deliver front-line services.
It is our contention that that is a dereliction of duty and an abdication of responsibility: those are sacrificed on the altar of party interest, not in the country's interest.
At decision time today, there will be an opportunity for the Parliament to assert itself against that minority control over the Parliament's powers, and to confirm its disapproval of the approach and its consequences for the people whom we represent.
If successful, it will be a challenge to the Scottish Government to accept accountability and to act accordingly to create more certainty and give people more protection.
I expect that, if the motion is supported at decision time, the Minister for Parliamentary Business will report as a matter of urgency on how he plans to enact that decision of the Parliament.
We want the Scottish Government to take an approach that recognises the challenge not only for ministers but for all those who depend on the Government's funding. Mr Swinney said in his budget statement that this is not a one-year problem and then revealed that he would provide only a one-year budget. That contradiction is as odd as it is unacceptable.
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP): Why does the Labour Party want to win the election next year but operate an SNP budget? You are basically calling for us to set a budget for a four-year term of office throughout which you hope to be in power. Is that because you want to sit in office—if you win, which is unlikely—and blame the SNP for all the cuts that were imposed thanks to the incompetence of the previous United Kingdom Labour Government?
Johann Lamont: That intervention was self-evidently ludicrous.
We make the point—I will make it again later—that this is not about elections but about serving the people of this country.
Mr Swinney says that it is difficult in these unprecedented times to do as we suggest, but in Wales people have the information and in England people have the information.
Earlier in the week, the Northern Ireland Government indicated that it would provide spending plans for 2011-12 to 2014-15 as part of its budget process.
I even understand that in the Republic of Ireland—despite the system there being under terrible pressure—the Government has made it clear that any budget that it produces will provide plans for a period far beyond the next year.
In a previous debate, when Mr Swinney was being asked to produce an indicative budget ahead of the comprehensive spending review, he replied that Wales had taken the same approach as he had; that he and the Welsh finance minister were as one and had decided
"to wait until the comprehensive spending review had been undertaken".
Mr Swinney asked Andy Kerr:
"If that approach is good enough for Welsh Labour, why is it not good enough for Scottish Labour?"—[Official Report, 4 November 2010; c 29972.]
In the same way, we might now ask: if a spending review for the comprehensive spending review period is good enough for England, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, why is it not good enough for Scotland?
Why, uniquely, are we incapable of doing it?
What is unique about our civil servants that renders them incapable of identifying options for spend beyond the next year?
Is Mr Swinney really saying that no work has been done, or is being done, to prepare spending plans?
If the work has been done, why could it not be done as part of the budget process?
Were civil servants instructed not to do the work?
If they are doing that work, why is it not being harnessed to create certainty for all those who seek to meet need in our communities?
The truth is that Mr Swinney has that information; he just does not want to share it.
"But", says Mr Swinney, "we can't because there are big issues here. We have asked Campbell Christie and his commission to look at them and we can't give details until Parliament has had the opportunity to consider the commission's proposals."
We might say that there is evidently no rush, but Mr Swinney is asking us to set aside the fact that the logic of that position, given the breadth and depth of the commission's remit, is that no decisions could be taken on anything.
At the same time, Mr Swinney has blithely ruled out much of the independent budget review and has made significant spending commitments at his party conference.
To accept Mr Swinney's position, one must also disregard the fact that the commission has been told by the Scottish Government that its purpose is long term and that, in an earlier debate, Mr Swinney said that that purpose would allow
"the focusing of medium-term financial priorities."—[Official Report, 4 November 2010; c 29976.]
We all know, however, that the reality is that Mr Swinney is now using the commission as a short-term alibi to get him through the winter and into election time. [Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer: Order.
Johann Lamont: I call in evidence someone whom I would not necessarily happily quote. In an interview in Holyrood magazine of 18 October, Alex Salmond argued that what is happening in Westminster in relation to cuts is about election timetables.
He reflected that
"electoral, political and economic cycles don't always fall in the same way and politicians should have a higher duty and the duty is more to the economic cycle than the political cycle."
Mr Salmond clearly needs to have some firm words with Mr Swinney and himself.
I recognise many of those who have agreed to serve on the commission and the qualities that they bring, but the slightest glance at its remit, which embraces not only delivery of services, but improvement of services and tackling of inequality and its causes—among a host of other things—makes it clear that its purpose is not just about rationalising the landscape in tough times in order to inform immediate spending decisions. It is about far more.
So substantial is its work that it is entirely illogical to call it in aid against publishing spending plans and giving people the information that they need to plan.
I am sure that the commission will make interesting recommendations, but its remit is, in my view, so substantial that it is, in fact, one of the central purposes of Government.
We have to ask what Mr Swinney and his colleagues have been doing for the last number of years.
Why did they not notice that challenging times were ahead and act then by harnessing the talents within government, in the Parliament and throughout Scotland to prepare, rather than cobbling a commission together now, with a glorious remit and short timescale, which reflects not on the commission members but on the motives of those who have set it up and on the short-termism of the Scottish Government?
Mr Swinney may try to dismiss the issue at the centre of our motion as being some kind of academic issue about budget processes, and as being of interest only to the pointy heads.
It is not, however, academic or obscure; it is not just for the number crunchers.
Budgets are living documents.
They are the expression of priorities and, in their delivery, they give shape and direction to the society we wish to live in and they shape people's life chances.
In the tough times, these choices are ever more critical.
Local authorities, health boards, voluntary organisations and police boards, which are all on the front line, want and deserve some certainty and the ability to plan.
They want that not for the sake of it but because they care deeply about their health provision, their care services, their responsibility for people with learning disabilities, their ability to create economic opportunities and their creation of sustainable communities.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Strathclyde police authority, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, Consumer Focus Scotland and a range of other organisations have all asked for the certainty of a spending review. When they ask for that certainty, are they all wrong?
My colleagues will focus on the impact of the budget in more detail, but it is self-evidently contradictory to demand efficiencies without a timescale in which to make those demands realistic and achievable.
I predict that, instead of demonstrating increased rationality in their decisions, organisations will become risk averse and perhaps cut services that might otherwise have survived, thereby creating the worst kind of short-termism.
In its written evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, COSLA said:
"This puts Scottish Local Government at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the UK ... Had we been able to see the resources over a longer time frame this would enable Local Government to plan more effectively and perhaps avoid cuts which may hurt our communities unnecessarily."
That is the charge.
Not only is it displaying short-termism, but the Government is creating a situation in which people are making cuts that may be unnecessary.
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP): Johann Lamont cited several organisations that support a three or four-year budget. If she gives such weight to external bodies, why did the Labour Party give such little weight to all the external bodies that wanted minimum pricing?
Johann Lamont: This is a serious debate about the Government's choices.
The historic concordat suggested that the SNP listened to local government.
The charge is very serious.
Who pays?
I will give just one example: the care worker who is waiting to find out whether they have a job as the result of a commissioning agreement, while the voluntary organisation that has made a bid waits for the decision of local government, which is waiting for the Scottish Government's decision.
What is the impact on that individual worker and his or her capacity to deliver the service?
They do no know whether they will have a job or should look for another.
It is demoralising and reduces the local capacity to be efficient.
For some, it is much worse.
I understand that Employers in Voluntary Housing, with the help of the Scottish Housing Regulator, has issued guidance for housing associations and co-operatives about the challenge of the current economic situation.
Banks are reported to be eagerly seeking to review deals for risk, and will possibly increase costs and charges, while the housing association grant has already been cut, increased and then cut again and is unpredictable.
In such circumstances, the lack of information for future planning may have a devastating effect by undermining the sector's capacity to thrive and deliver economic opportunity.
The call for the sector to be more efficient is entirely undermined by the Scottish Government's approach, which hampers housing associations' attempts to do what they do best—planning, preparing, delivering and maintaining.
The Government's approach to the budget disregards the needs of local people and is symptomatic of the SNP's overall approach, which is that it is cynical, self-serving and incapable of separating the country's interests from the party interest.
If Mr Swinney is to be worthy of his office, he should use the powers that he has to help people throughout Scotland. At the very least, he should stop being a hindrance to those who want to make a difference to individuals and their families.
In refusing the spending review, he is not taking a technical step but making an active choice.
Mr Swinney lacks the political will do what his office demands, and his purpose is to serve his party, not his country, and to put his own interests ahead of the future of people in our communities.
That is his narrow, SNP party-political choice, but—
Members: Oh!
Johann Lamont: The consequences of that choice will be felt by those who are weakest in defending themselves—the people who seek jobs and who rely on services. [Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer: Order.
Johann Lamont: I ask members to support the motion. The people of Scotland deserve better.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that the Scottish Government has been presented with its spending budgets for the four-year spending review period yet has chosen to provide local authorities, NHS boards, universities, colleges, the voluntary sector and the wider public sector with only one-year budget proposals for 2011-12; believes that such uncertainty is corrosive as it does not allow those organisations to plan effectively; believes that this inability to plan will have an adverse impact on services, individuals, families and communities, and calls on the Scottish
Government to follow the example of the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and publish indicative figures until at least 2013-14, in addition to its planned one-year budget for 2011-12.
I recognise that it is an important debate for the people of Scotland. It is not our intention for this to be a yah-boo debate; it is not a debate for the sake of it, but one that is of significance for all Scotland.
As members might be aware, I am not an aficionado of budget debates.
However, this is not simply a debate for the parties' finance spokespeople—which is why I am opening—but one that is at the heart of Labour's concerns and, I believe, the concerns of others about the Scottish National Party's approach and attitude to the development of the budget and the consequences for individuals, families and communities throughout Scotland.
Our motion recognises the reality in Scotland of uncertainty, anxiety, stress and fear for what the future may bring. Our job—the purpose of the Scottish Parliament—is to protect people and to take action that offers greater stability and certainty.
The evident uncertainty is corrosive; it is a threat that is not easily captured in a ledger but which fundamentally impacts on people's lives.
Our central argument is that the Scottish Government is compounding that uncertainty.
Yes—Mr Swinney is demanding efficiencies and outlining his spending priorities for the next year, but the reality is that he is preventing a wide range of public and voluntary bodies and local authorities from being able to plan and make informed choices about the future.
The Scottish Government has the information.
It can help, but chooses not to by refusing to give spending projections for the period of the comprehensive spending review.
When the Scottish Government is challenged about its many failures, broken promises or incompetences, it often says that it is a minority Government.
That is not, in itself, the problem: the problem is that it is a minority that is incapable of seeking compromise and consensus.
Instead of seeking co-operation to support people in these tough times, it acts in a way that keeps MSPs in this Parliament in the dark and, more important, which keeps in the dark crucial public bodies and organisations that are striving to deliver front-line services.
It is our contention that that is a dereliction of duty and an abdication of responsibility: those are sacrificed on the altar of party interest, not in the country's interest.
At decision time today, there will be an opportunity for the Parliament to assert itself against that minority control over the Parliament's powers, and to confirm its disapproval of the approach and its consequences for the people whom we represent.
If successful, it will be a challenge to the Scottish Government to accept accountability and to act accordingly to create more certainty and give people more protection.
I expect that, if the motion is supported at decision time, the Minister for Parliamentary Business will report as a matter of urgency on how he plans to enact that decision of the Parliament.
We want the Scottish Government to take an approach that recognises the challenge not only for ministers but for all those who depend on the Government's funding. Mr Swinney said in his budget statement that this is not a one-year problem and then revealed that he would provide only a one-year budget. That contradiction is as odd as it is unacceptable.
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP): Why does the Labour Party want to win the election next year but operate an SNP budget? You are basically calling for us to set a budget for a four-year term of office throughout which you hope to be in power. Is that because you want to sit in office—if you win, which is unlikely—and blame the SNP for all the cuts that were imposed thanks to the incompetence of the previous United Kingdom Labour Government?
Johann Lamont: That intervention was self-evidently ludicrous.
We make the point—I will make it again later—that this is not about elections but about serving the people of this country.
Mr Swinney says that it is difficult in these unprecedented times to do as we suggest, but in Wales people have the information and in England people have the information.
Earlier in the week, the Northern Ireland Government indicated that it would provide spending plans for 2011-12 to 2014-15 as part of its budget process.
I even understand that in the Republic of Ireland—despite the system there being under terrible pressure—the Government has made it clear that any budget that it produces will provide plans for a period far beyond the next year.
In a previous debate, when Mr Swinney was being asked to produce an indicative budget ahead of the comprehensive spending review, he replied that Wales had taken the same approach as he had; that he and the Welsh finance minister were as one and had decided
"to wait until the comprehensive spending review had been undertaken".
Mr Swinney asked Andy Kerr:
"If that approach is good enough for Welsh Labour, why is it not good enough for Scottish Labour?"—[Official Report, 4 November 2010; c 29972.]
In the same way, we might now ask: if a spending review for the comprehensive spending review period is good enough for England, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, why is it not good enough for Scotland?
Why, uniquely, are we incapable of doing it?
What is unique about our civil servants that renders them incapable of identifying options for spend beyond the next year?
Is Mr Swinney really saying that no work has been done, or is being done, to prepare spending plans?
If the work has been done, why could it not be done as part of the budget process?
Were civil servants instructed not to do the work?
If they are doing that work, why is it not being harnessed to create certainty for all those who seek to meet need in our communities?
The truth is that Mr Swinney has that information; he just does not want to share it.
"But", says Mr Swinney, "we can't because there are big issues here. We have asked Campbell Christie and his commission to look at them and we can't give details until Parliament has had the opportunity to consider the commission's proposals."
We might say that there is evidently no rush, but Mr Swinney is asking us to set aside the fact that the logic of that position, given the breadth and depth of the commission's remit, is that no decisions could be taken on anything.
At the same time, Mr Swinney has blithely ruled out much of the independent budget review and has made significant spending commitments at his party conference.
To accept Mr Swinney's position, one must also disregard the fact that the commission has been told by the Scottish Government that its purpose is long term and that, in an earlier debate, Mr Swinney said that that purpose would allow
"the focusing of medium-term financial priorities."—[Official Report, 4 November 2010; c 29976.]
We all know, however, that the reality is that Mr Swinney is now using the commission as a short-term alibi to get him through the winter and into election time. [Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer: Order.
Johann Lamont: I call in evidence someone whom I would not necessarily happily quote. In an interview in Holyrood magazine of 18 October, Alex Salmond argued that what is happening in Westminster in relation to cuts is about election timetables.
He reflected that
"electoral, political and economic cycles don't always fall in the same way and politicians should have a higher duty and the duty is more to the economic cycle than the political cycle."
Mr Salmond clearly needs to have some firm words with Mr Swinney and himself.
I recognise many of those who have agreed to serve on the commission and the qualities that they bring, but the slightest glance at its remit, which embraces not only delivery of services, but improvement of services and tackling of inequality and its causes—among a host of other things—makes it clear that its purpose is not just about rationalising the landscape in tough times in order to inform immediate spending decisions. It is about far more.
So substantial is its work that it is entirely illogical to call it in aid against publishing spending plans and giving people the information that they need to plan.
I am sure that the commission will make interesting recommendations, but its remit is, in my view, so substantial that it is, in fact, one of the central purposes of Government.
We have to ask what Mr Swinney and his colleagues have been doing for the last number of years.
Why did they not notice that challenging times were ahead and act then by harnessing the talents within government, in the Parliament and throughout Scotland to prepare, rather than cobbling a commission together now, with a glorious remit and short timescale, which reflects not on the commission members but on the motives of those who have set it up and on the short-termism of the Scottish Government?
Mr Swinney may try to dismiss the issue at the centre of our motion as being some kind of academic issue about budget processes, and as being of interest only to the pointy heads.
It is not, however, academic or obscure; it is not just for the number crunchers.
Budgets are living documents.
They are the expression of priorities and, in their delivery, they give shape and direction to the society we wish to live in and they shape people's life chances.
In the tough times, these choices are ever more critical.
Local authorities, health boards, voluntary organisations and police boards, which are all on the front line, want and deserve some certainty and the ability to plan.
They want that not for the sake of it but because they care deeply about their health provision, their care services, their responsibility for people with learning disabilities, their ability to create economic opportunities and their creation of sustainable communities.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Strathclyde police authority, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, Consumer Focus Scotland and a range of other organisations have all asked for the certainty of a spending review. When they ask for that certainty, are they all wrong?
My colleagues will focus on the impact of the budget in more detail, but it is self-evidently contradictory to demand efficiencies without a timescale in which to make those demands realistic and achievable.
I predict that, instead of demonstrating increased rationality in their decisions, organisations will become risk averse and perhaps cut services that might otherwise have survived, thereby creating the worst kind of short-termism.
In its written evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, COSLA said:
"This puts Scottish Local Government at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the UK ... Had we been able to see the resources over a longer time frame this would enable Local Government to plan more effectively and perhaps avoid cuts which may hurt our communities unnecessarily."
That is the charge.
Not only is it displaying short-termism, but the Government is creating a situation in which people are making cuts that may be unnecessary.
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP): Johann Lamont cited several organisations that support a three or four-year budget. If she gives such weight to external bodies, why did the Labour Party give such little weight to all the external bodies that wanted minimum pricing?
Johann Lamont: This is a serious debate about the Government's choices.
The historic concordat suggested that the SNP listened to local government.
The charge is very serious.
Who pays?
I will give just one example: the care worker who is waiting to find out whether they have a job as the result of a commissioning agreement, while the voluntary organisation that has made a bid waits for the decision of local government, which is waiting for the Scottish Government's decision.
What is the impact on that individual worker and his or her capacity to deliver the service?
They do no know whether they will have a job or should look for another.
It is demoralising and reduces the local capacity to be efficient.
For some, it is much worse.
I understand that Employers in Voluntary Housing, with the help of the Scottish Housing Regulator, has issued guidance for housing associations and co-operatives about the challenge of the current economic situation.
Banks are reported to be eagerly seeking to review deals for risk, and will possibly increase costs and charges, while the housing association grant has already been cut, increased and then cut again and is unpredictable.
In such circumstances, the lack of information for future planning may have a devastating effect by undermining the sector's capacity to thrive and deliver economic opportunity.
The call for the sector to be more efficient is entirely undermined by the Scottish Government's approach, which hampers housing associations' attempts to do what they do best—planning, preparing, delivering and maintaining.
The Government's approach to the budget disregards the needs of local people and is symptomatic of the SNP's overall approach, which is that it is cynical, self-serving and incapable of separating the country's interests from the party interest.
If Mr Swinney is to be worthy of his office, he should use the powers that he has to help people throughout Scotland. At the very least, he should stop being a hindrance to those who want to make a difference to individuals and their families.
In refusing the spending review, he is not taking a technical step but making an active choice.
Mr Swinney lacks the political will do what his office demands, and his purpose is to serve his party, not his country, and to put his own interests ahead of the future of people in our communities.
That is his narrow, SNP party-political choice, but—
Members: Oh!
Johann Lamont: The consequences of that choice will be felt by those who are weakest in defending themselves—the people who seek jobs and who rely on services. [Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer: Order.
Johann Lamont: I ask members to support the motion. The people of Scotland deserve better.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that the Scottish Government has been presented with its spending budgets for the four-year spending review period yet has chosen to provide local authorities, NHS boards, universities, colleges, the voluntary sector and the wider public sector with only one-year budget proposals for 2011-12; believes that such uncertainty is corrosive as it does not allow those organisations to plan effectively; believes that this inability to plan will have an adverse impact on services, individuals, families and communities, and calls on the Scottish
Government to follow the example of the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and publish indicative figures until at least 2013-14, in addition to its planned one-year budget for 2011-12.
Housing Bill Scottish Parliament speech 3 November 2010
Suitably chastised by the minister, I will do my best to be consensual.
However, when I express different views, I do so because I disagree with him.
As we move forward, seeking a false consensus is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
We have indicated that we are happy to support many of the bill's provisions.
In particular, I note and concur with the minister's comments on veterans' entitlements.
However, I do not think that the bill deserves to be described as radical.
Some of members' disappointment about the bill arises from the overblown rhetoric that the minister used in the early days about his plans to abolish the right to buy.
When we voted on the issue, it was recognised that the minister had overstated the case and that past changes had made the really big difference.
There is an overall challenge in relation to housing.
It is about the availability of housing to individuals and their families, but it is also about housing's role in sustaining communities, especially at this difficult time.
The minister will be aware of the term "community anchors".
Often, housing associations play that role.
We should tread gently when we move into that area, to ensure that we do not damage the role that housing providers—housing associations and councils—can play in communities.
We will have a tough budget decision to make, and housing providers will play a critical role in determining what happens in the future.
The plans for housing benefit at United Kingdom level have many implications both for individuals and for those who are planning and making decisions at community level.
For example, a housing association might be faced with a tenant who has rigorously paid their rent, who has been unemployed for a year, and who discovers that their housing benefit is to be cut by 10 per cent because they have stayed on jobseekers allowance.
That sort of situation has implications for housing associations and other organisations that generally manage things in a businesslike way.
I have no doubt that the proposals also have implications for people in supported accommodation—there are people with learning disabilities who are currently supported, and we do not know what the proposals will mean for Women's Aid refuges and so on.
I am sure that we will have to revisit the impacts of the housing benefit proposals on housing as a whole.
Tough decisions have to be made, of course, and one of the frustrations felt in my party comes from the silliness of some of the things that the minister and the Scottish National Party have said in the past about the division between our support for council housing and RSLs.
We took a tough decision to support stock transfer in Glasgow.
We brought £1.2 billion into the city.
If ever there was a Labour legacy for tough times, it is the fact that properties are still being improved there and there is still new build.
There is a new-build development in my constituency, which is creating jobs in the construction industry, and the private sector has embraced that.
The idea that spending through the public purse does not support private investment and activity is false.
We should be careful about making false divisions, which do not help the debate.
I am genuinely disappointed about the decision to remove the whole question of the private sector.
The minister says that it is water under the bridge, but the single most significant concern that is brought to me and others in our casework is to do with the quality of rented accommodation in the private sector.
Sarah Boyack highlighted the question of party flats, and Pauline McNeill mentioned houses in multiple occupation. There is also the matter of addressing antisocial behaviour, which Charlie Gordon raised.
It is unfortunate that, when it was indicated at stage 1 that there was a problem, the minister did not sort it out. There is a sense of urgency.
People do not want those issues to be dealt with slowly.
I am concerned that the HMO provisions are not coming until 2011.
There is an issue around the regulator.
We know the importance of having solid regulation, but there is a concern that the regulator will increasingly focus on community-controlled housing associations, despite the fact that they generally perform better in inspections.
The fear is that the regulator will get a notion that bigger is somehow better, so that there could be forced mergers, although we know that the lesson from the community-controlled movement has been that managing things locally, with control going down to local communities, makes a difference.
Alex Neil: At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to avoid forced mergers. The approval of the tenants will now be required before any merger or takeover happens.
Johann Lamont: I welcome that, but we should ensure that the regulator's approach is light touch.
We do not want to kill innovation at a local level in housing.
There is uncertainty about the fact that housing association grant has gone up and down.
It has been put to me that there is a fear that banks will use that as an opportunity to intervene and review, and perhaps change the arrangements that they have made with housing associations. That is of concern.
We have already discussed the controversial issues around homelessness, but I reiterate that the issue is the provision of support at the right stage.
We have been talking about preventative spend.
If we can address the issue at an early stage, ensuring that other agencies are engaged, that will be significant.
We welcome the Scottish social housing charter, but it has to be real.
We need to listen to what tenants say about allocations policy; about the difficulties of evicting difficult tenants, particularly drug dealers; about the need to address antisocial behaviour, and the need to bring back a community aspect to how antisocial behaviour is addressed; about sensitive lets and people being told that they cannot identify categories of housing for older people, whose whole lives might be disrupted by younger people being placed in a way that is inappropriate for both of them; and about the role of private landlords.
The social housing charter should reflect those concerns of tenants.
It should also reflect the fact that tenants want there to be mixed, safe communities.
There is a gap between that and what the regulator says.
There are also concerns about rent levels going up more quickly for councils and about increased debt being masked by low interest rates.
We are happy to support the bill for the limited changes that it creates, but we trust that we can engage with the minister on the many issues where action is necessary.
However, when I express different views, I do so because I disagree with him.
As we move forward, seeking a false consensus is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
We have indicated that we are happy to support many of the bill's provisions.
In particular, I note and concur with the minister's comments on veterans' entitlements.
However, I do not think that the bill deserves to be described as radical.
Some of members' disappointment about the bill arises from the overblown rhetoric that the minister used in the early days about his plans to abolish the right to buy.
When we voted on the issue, it was recognised that the minister had overstated the case and that past changes had made the really big difference.
There is an overall challenge in relation to housing.
It is about the availability of housing to individuals and their families, but it is also about housing's role in sustaining communities, especially at this difficult time.
The minister will be aware of the term "community anchors".
Often, housing associations play that role.
We should tread gently when we move into that area, to ensure that we do not damage the role that housing providers—housing associations and councils—can play in communities.
We will have a tough budget decision to make, and housing providers will play a critical role in determining what happens in the future.
The plans for housing benefit at United Kingdom level have many implications both for individuals and for those who are planning and making decisions at community level.
For example, a housing association might be faced with a tenant who has rigorously paid their rent, who has been unemployed for a year, and who discovers that their housing benefit is to be cut by 10 per cent because they have stayed on jobseekers allowance.
That sort of situation has implications for housing associations and other organisations that generally manage things in a businesslike way.
I have no doubt that the proposals also have implications for people in supported accommodation—there are people with learning disabilities who are currently supported, and we do not know what the proposals will mean for Women's Aid refuges and so on.
I am sure that we will have to revisit the impacts of the housing benefit proposals on housing as a whole.
Tough decisions have to be made, of course, and one of the frustrations felt in my party comes from the silliness of some of the things that the minister and the Scottish National Party have said in the past about the division between our support for council housing and RSLs.
We took a tough decision to support stock transfer in Glasgow.
We brought £1.2 billion into the city.
If ever there was a Labour legacy for tough times, it is the fact that properties are still being improved there and there is still new build.
There is a new-build development in my constituency, which is creating jobs in the construction industry, and the private sector has embraced that.
The idea that spending through the public purse does not support private investment and activity is false.
We should be careful about making false divisions, which do not help the debate.
I am genuinely disappointed about the decision to remove the whole question of the private sector.
The minister says that it is water under the bridge, but the single most significant concern that is brought to me and others in our casework is to do with the quality of rented accommodation in the private sector.
Sarah Boyack highlighted the question of party flats, and Pauline McNeill mentioned houses in multiple occupation. There is also the matter of addressing antisocial behaviour, which Charlie Gordon raised.
It is unfortunate that, when it was indicated at stage 1 that there was a problem, the minister did not sort it out. There is a sense of urgency.
People do not want those issues to be dealt with slowly.
I am concerned that the HMO provisions are not coming until 2011.
There is an issue around the regulator.
We know the importance of having solid regulation, but there is a concern that the regulator will increasingly focus on community-controlled housing associations, despite the fact that they generally perform better in inspections.
The fear is that the regulator will get a notion that bigger is somehow better, so that there could be forced mergers, although we know that the lesson from the community-controlled movement has been that managing things locally, with control going down to local communities, makes a difference.
Alex Neil: At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to avoid forced mergers. The approval of the tenants will now be required before any merger or takeover happens.
Johann Lamont: I welcome that, but we should ensure that the regulator's approach is light touch.
We do not want to kill innovation at a local level in housing.
There is uncertainty about the fact that housing association grant has gone up and down.
It has been put to me that there is a fear that banks will use that as an opportunity to intervene and review, and perhaps change the arrangements that they have made with housing associations. That is of concern.
We have already discussed the controversial issues around homelessness, but I reiterate that the issue is the provision of support at the right stage.
We have been talking about preventative spend.
If we can address the issue at an early stage, ensuring that other agencies are engaged, that will be significant.
We welcome the Scottish social housing charter, but it has to be real.
We need to listen to what tenants say about allocations policy; about the difficulties of evicting difficult tenants, particularly drug dealers; about the need to address antisocial behaviour, and the need to bring back a community aspect to how antisocial behaviour is addressed; about sensitive lets and people being told that they cannot identify categories of housing for older people, whose whole lives might be disrupted by younger people being placed in a way that is inappropriate for both of them; and about the role of private landlords.
The social housing charter should reflect those concerns of tenants.
It should also reflect the fact that tenants want there to be mixed, safe communities.
There is a gap between that and what the regulator says.
There are also concerns about rent levels going up more quickly for councils and about increased debt being masked by low interest rates.
We are happy to support the bill for the limited changes that it creates, but we trust that we can engage with the minister on the many issues where action is necessary.
Supported Employment Workplaces Scottish Parliament speech 7 October 2010
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was slightly late for the beginning of the debate.
I was delighted not to miss any speeches, other than part of the speech by my colleague Lewis Macdonald [Laughter.]
I had a good sense of what he was going to say, so it was fine.
This is an important debate but we must put it in context.
In their briefings, Leonard Cheshire Disability and others reflected that challenging the scandalous level of unemployment among people with disabilities must be about more than tackling the issue of sheltered workplaces.
I could not agree more.
There is a demonstration today in the Parliament highlighting the need to recognise the human rights of disabled people at a time when budget choices are being made.
That understanding of the broader context of the needs of disabled people has meant that we on this side of the chamber continue to press for a skills strategy that understands inequality in the workplace, the lack of opportunity for people and the challenges faced by disabled people in particular.
That is why we have been so critical of the single outcome agreement process.
I am sure that Bill Kidd will agree that the Government has persistently refused to ensure that single outcome agreements that determine spending in local authorities are equality impact assessed.
If that is not done, how can we ensure that the needs of disabled people in relation to education, employment strategies and every local authority service are being met, and that the political choices that are currently being made do not disproportionately disadvantage people with disabilities?
That is the reason for our commitment to the broader issues of disability and it is why we continue to express concern that the changed role for Scottish Enterprise means that it is not working to address the employment needs of people with disabilities in the way that it might have done in the past.
We look to Westminster with dread as we see the downgrading of a commitment to tackle inequality and the possible dismantling of the bodies that monitor progress in equality.
Not only is it possible that people will be more disadvantaged, but there will be no machinery to ensure that decisions on that are challenged.
However, the fact that we cannot do everything does not mean that we cannot do anything.
I was surprised by the defensiveness of some members in their speeches. Dr McKee, especially, seemed to expend more energy on explaining why things could not be done than on considering the positives.
That is in sharp contrast to Frank McAveety's contribution, in which he explained precisely how someone who has political power can make political choices that can make a difference.
It is disappointing that action on supported workplaces, using article 19, has not been properly recognised.
Despite what the minister said, I remain disappointed that the huge project at the Southern general has done so little. The minister says that it is a problem if we make one person het. I say to the minister that he is het.
He is the minister. He has the capacity—a capacity that some of us long for—to drive things forward.
We want the Government to lead by example.
The minister is not a dispassionate observer of what is happening at Blindcraft and how we can make a difference using article 19.
There is a huge issue about mainstreaming employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
We should challenge employers on their disgraceful record.
We owe it to people who work in sheltered workplaces not to say, "You can only go that way."
We must recognise that there is the opportunity to go either way.
I accept what Gavin Brown said about the importance of debating in measured tones.
I am a good example of how that is done.
However, I wonder whether people in the disabled community sometimes feel that our measured tones reflect complacency. No member would want that.
In the Tory amendment, Gavin Brown talks about balance and the importance of reflecting the challenges for some public bodies.
We recognise that and we would hope that the timetable would reflect the fact that some bodies will be unable to move as quickly as others.
However, that must not slow the process down; we must recognise the power of the measure.
We understand the differences among various bodies, but we expect speedy action from the minister on publishing the timetable.
We do not want Gavin Brown's amendment to be a get-out clause, but we acknowledge that in speaking he made a number of positive suggestions about subcontractors and, on that basis, we can support his amendment.
Mike Pringle talked about how difficult it is to support sheltered workplaces in tough economic times, but the reality is that when we are in tough economic times, because of what is happening at a UK level, people with disabilities are particularly vulnerable.
We must do more and not use the economic situation as an explanation for doing less.
Tackling inequality is not a task just for when the sun shines; at this time, we need even more positive action to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups.
Ian McKee made the same point.
He said that we are in tough times and so perhaps we should expect that the more vulnerable people will suffer. However, that should be not an excuse for not acting, but an imperative to act.
The implication of what Ian McKee said is that we are talking about good works, charity and doing people a favour. It is not about that; it is about allowing people a level playing field on which they can show and prove their potential. In a decent society, we owe it to people with disabilities to support them; it is not a question of our feeling good about offering them an opportunity, in the way that was suggested.
Ian McKee: The implication of what I said in my speech is that when the hard times come, there is little point in continuing to subsidise the production of something for which the market is falling. We should be devising sustainable ways of changing patterns so that the needs of the future—not of the past—are considered.
Johann Lamont: In tough times, the Government should redouble its efforts to make a difference and should use the powers that it has to do that.
I agree absolutely with Bill Kidd in commending Glasgow City Council and its work through the Commonwealth group and City Building, but we know that it did not happen by accident. It happened because active political choices were made.
We can make a difference to disabled people through the use of specific contracts and I was disturbed by the minister's blinkered view, which he has given in Parliament before, that the Scottish Government does not really need anything that sheltered workplaces make.
If there was a disabled champion in the Government, they would look at the contracts, speak to the sheltered workplaces and have a dialogue about the potential for them to meet the Scottish Government's desires.
I made a point about the concerns about the Southern general hospital, where a huge opportunity was missed.
Jim Mather: I wonder whether the member heard me talk about the Southern general in specific terms. If she did not, she can refer to the Official Report.
Johann Lamont: I listened all too carefully.
I accept that the Government has used community benefit clauses; what I am saying is that not one contract has been reserved under article 19.
A huge opportunity, which would have increased the benefits that come from the community benefit clauses, has been missed.
No one is in favour of tokenism, but if every public body in Scotland reserved one contract to a sheltered workplace, let us imagine the difference that that would make to the workplaces and what it would tell the public body about how things can be done.
It would make a seismic change that would move such contracts from tokenism to common practice.
There is a broader issue about understanding the power of the public purse to drive change and create opportunities, especially at a time of economic difficulties.
The idea that public spending is problematic is promulgated at a UK level, but we know that public investment can stimulate private sector activity.
In housing, for example, the Scottish Government rightly brought forward its budget because the private sector understood that public money could sustain jobs and skills in the short term.
It is simply not good enough for ministers—this is a feature of the SNP—to go on at length about what they care about and develop strategies and then not do the hard work of delivering on those strategies.
It is a question of tough action and getting the contracts in place.
That, rather than reflecting on the discussion and explaining how somebody else is not doing the work, is how we can make a difference.
With a budget of £8 billion, the reservation of one contract—possibly—is abject failure and it speaks of the values and priorities of the Scottish Government.
It is hardly surprising when the Government's entire mindset is to talk about the powers that the Parliament does not have.
The Government should use the powers that it has to create economic opportunity and to drive good practice into the private sector.
We will support both amendments because of the key recognition that the Government has not done enough so far and that a timetable will be produced.
This is not a question of tokenism.
The minister said that the Government does not rely on article 19 alone, but the problem is that it does not rely on it at all.
That is about its priorities.
The minister mentioned Donald Dewar.
Donald Dewar understood that we get power to make a difference to people's lives.
The Government should use the power that it has to make the difference and to support sheltered workplaces.
I was delighted not to miss any speeches, other than part of the speech by my colleague Lewis Macdonald [Laughter.]
I had a good sense of what he was going to say, so it was fine.
This is an important debate but we must put it in context.
In their briefings, Leonard Cheshire Disability and others reflected that challenging the scandalous level of unemployment among people with disabilities must be about more than tackling the issue of sheltered workplaces.
I could not agree more.
There is a demonstration today in the Parliament highlighting the need to recognise the human rights of disabled people at a time when budget choices are being made.
That understanding of the broader context of the needs of disabled people has meant that we on this side of the chamber continue to press for a skills strategy that understands inequality in the workplace, the lack of opportunity for people and the challenges faced by disabled people in particular.
That is why we have been so critical of the single outcome agreement process.
I am sure that Bill Kidd will agree that the Government has persistently refused to ensure that single outcome agreements that determine spending in local authorities are equality impact assessed.
If that is not done, how can we ensure that the needs of disabled people in relation to education, employment strategies and every local authority service are being met, and that the political choices that are currently being made do not disproportionately disadvantage people with disabilities?
That is the reason for our commitment to the broader issues of disability and it is why we continue to express concern that the changed role for Scottish Enterprise means that it is not working to address the employment needs of people with disabilities in the way that it might have done in the past.
We look to Westminster with dread as we see the downgrading of a commitment to tackle inequality and the possible dismantling of the bodies that monitor progress in equality.
Not only is it possible that people will be more disadvantaged, but there will be no machinery to ensure that decisions on that are challenged.
However, the fact that we cannot do everything does not mean that we cannot do anything.
I was surprised by the defensiveness of some members in their speeches. Dr McKee, especially, seemed to expend more energy on explaining why things could not be done than on considering the positives.
That is in sharp contrast to Frank McAveety's contribution, in which he explained precisely how someone who has political power can make political choices that can make a difference.
It is disappointing that action on supported workplaces, using article 19, has not been properly recognised.
Despite what the minister said, I remain disappointed that the huge project at the Southern general has done so little. The minister says that it is a problem if we make one person het. I say to the minister that he is het.
He is the minister. He has the capacity—a capacity that some of us long for—to drive things forward.
We want the Government to lead by example.
The minister is not a dispassionate observer of what is happening at Blindcraft and how we can make a difference using article 19.
There is a huge issue about mainstreaming employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
We should challenge employers on their disgraceful record.
We owe it to people who work in sheltered workplaces not to say, "You can only go that way."
We must recognise that there is the opportunity to go either way.
I accept what Gavin Brown said about the importance of debating in measured tones.
I am a good example of how that is done.
However, I wonder whether people in the disabled community sometimes feel that our measured tones reflect complacency. No member would want that.
In the Tory amendment, Gavin Brown talks about balance and the importance of reflecting the challenges for some public bodies.
We recognise that and we would hope that the timetable would reflect the fact that some bodies will be unable to move as quickly as others.
However, that must not slow the process down; we must recognise the power of the measure.
We understand the differences among various bodies, but we expect speedy action from the minister on publishing the timetable.
We do not want Gavin Brown's amendment to be a get-out clause, but we acknowledge that in speaking he made a number of positive suggestions about subcontractors and, on that basis, we can support his amendment.
Mike Pringle talked about how difficult it is to support sheltered workplaces in tough economic times, but the reality is that when we are in tough economic times, because of what is happening at a UK level, people with disabilities are particularly vulnerable.
We must do more and not use the economic situation as an explanation for doing less.
Tackling inequality is not a task just for when the sun shines; at this time, we need even more positive action to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups.
Ian McKee made the same point.
He said that we are in tough times and so perhaps we should expect that the more vulnerable people will suffer. However, that should be not an excuse for not acting, but an imperative to act.
The implication of what Ian McKee said is that we are talking about good works, charity and doing people a favour. It is not about that; it is about allowing people a level playing field on which they can show and prove their potential. In a decent society, we owe it to people with disabilities to support them; it is not a question of our feeling good about offering them an opportunity, in the way that was suggested.
Ian McKee: The implication of what I said in my speech is that when the hard times come, there is little point in continuing to subsidise the production of something for which the market is falling. We should be devising sustainable ways of changing patterns so that the needs of the future—not of the past—are considered.
Johann Lamont: In tough times, the Government should redouble its efforts to make a difference and should use the powers that it has to do that.
I agree absolutely with Bill Kidd in commending Glasgow City Council and its work through the Commonwealth group and City Building, but we know that it did not happen by accident. It happened because active political choices were made.
We can make a difference to disabled people through the use of specific contracts and I was disturbed by the minister's blinkered view, which he has given in Parliament before, that the Scottish Government does not really need anything that sheltered workplaces make.
If there was a disabled champion in the Government, they would look at the contracts, speak to the sheltered workplaces and have a dialogue about the potential for them to meet the Scottish Government's desires.
I made a point about the concerns about the Southern general hospital, where a huge opportunity was missed.
Jim Mather: I wonder whether the member heard me talk about the Southern general in specific terms. If she did not, she can refer to the Official Report.
Johann Lamont: I listened all too carefully.
I accept that the Government has used community benefit clauses; what I am saying is that not one contract has been reserved under article 19.
A huge opportunity, which would have increased the benefits that come from the community benefit clauses, has been missed.
No one is in favour of tokenism, but if every public body in Scotland reserved one contract to a sheltered workplace, let us imagine the difference that that would make to the workplaces and what it would tell the public body about how things can be done.
It would make a seismic change that would move such contracts from tokenism to common practice.
There is a broader issue about understanding the power of the public purse to drive change and create opportunities, especially at a time of economic difficulties.
The idea that public spending is problematic is promulgated at a UK level, but we know that public investment can stimulate private sector activity.
In housing, for example, the Scottish Government rightly brought forward its budget because the private sector understood that public money could sustain jobs and skills in the short term.
It is simply not good enough for ministers—this is a feature of the SNP—to go on at length about what they care about and develop strategies and then not do the hard work of delivering on those strategies.
It is a question of tough action and getting the contracts in place.
That, rather than reflecting on the discussion and explaining how somebody else is not doing the work, is how we can make a difference.
With a budget of £8 billion, the reservation of one contract—possibly—is abject failure and it speaks of the values and priorities of the Scottish Government.
It is hardly surprising when the Government's entire mindset is to talk about the powers that the Parliament does not have.
The Government should use the powers that it has to create economic opportunity and to drive good practice into the private sector.
We will support both amendments because of the key recognition that the Government has not done enough so far and that a timetable will be produced.
This is not a question of tokenism.
The minister said that the Government does not rely on article 19 alone, but the problem is that it does not rely on it at all.
That is about its priorities.
The minister mentioned Donald Dewar.
Donald Dewar understood that we get power to make a difference to people's lives.
The Government should use the power that it has to make the difference and to support sheltered workplaces.
Scottish Government’s programme Scottish Parliament speech 8 September 2010
In his statement, the First Minister said:
"The people, when they voted for this Parliament, voted for a legislature that would be bold and would act to protect their values."
No one would disagree with that.
We recognise that Labour's legacy to Scotland has been a Scottish Parliament that can protect and work for people in these difficult times.
I was struck by the contrast between—if I may say so—the overblown and rather self-regarding language of the First Minister and the thinness of the programme itself.
The statement was, as usual, full of expressions such as "lead the world" and "being in the vanguard".
It also referred specifically to the exceptional, laudable qualities of the Scottish character, and how compassionate and innovative we are at a time like this—peculiarly so and unlike others, I presume.
I think and suspect that, like all previous statements, this one is not to be taken seriously, because, on the past record, they have never been delivered.
It is ever more evident to me that Mr Salmond lives in the moment.
That is an interesting way to be as a leader, but it creates problems for those who need the Government to act in their interests, because being bold is not only about shouting; it is about taking tough and serious action.
Here we have Mr Salmond's problem: he may wish to govern, but he is also always alive to a choice.
He can choose to make the Scottish Parliament work for the people of Scotland in these tough times and show how it can make a difference, but his problem is that it is his party's interest ever and always to talk about what cannot be done.
Alex Salmond will never make the Parliament work, because his wish for independence relies on showing that it cannot .
I was fascinated by Mr Salmond quoting Edwin Morgan and what that might suggest about his lack of self-awareness.
Was there not a civil servant bold enough to say that perhaps it was not the best idea to quote Edwin Morgan disdaining the "it wizny me" mentality?
Does he not know that his Government is the very embodiment of the "it wizny me" mentality.
We regard as shameless his constant response that he is blameless. I say to Mr Salmond,
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"
It is a serious point because, when the issue was raised earlier, examples of people to blame came from many SNP members.
Times are too serious for us to have government by alibi.
We need people to take the circumstances seriously.
As has been indicated, there are a number of bills that Labour can support.
We recognise certain measures that we can support in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill and I trust that, in turn, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will confirm that she will look seriously at the recommendations of Labour's commission in the way that her colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning took seriously our commission on education. I urge her not to make minimum pricing the whole picture.
The reality is that, given the parliamentary arithmetic, the proposals on minimum pricing will not get through.
It demeans the debate to say that minimum pricing is the only test of people's commitment to tackling alcohol.
Is it not a curiosity that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will persist, knowing full well that it will come to defeat?
I am sure that some of her fundamentalist colleagues, such as Sandra White and Bob Doris, must wonder why the same persistence does not apply to the referendum bill.
We were all surprised by the ditching of the bill, but I understand that we were not as stunned as the Government back benchers who have cheered to the echo over the past three years every turn and shift of their front benchers. They defended the action when the Government ripped off Glasgow.
Did they not, at any point in the last week, finally say to Mr Salmond, "Stop acting the goat and get on with governing this country"?
We are told that they are lukewarm on the proposals, but it took Margo MacDonald to say what they have all been thinking and to argue a case that they did not have the courage to come into the chamber and argue themselves. There is a case for arguing that, as others have suggested, Mr Salmond is like the grand old Duke of York.
That is all right for a kids' party, but that silliness is not what these times deserve.
On the budget, there are pages of defensive lines in the statement about why it is not possible to share with the Parliament the information that would allow us to come together and have a serious understanding of the issues that face us.
On the housing bill, I welcome the proposals on private landlords and ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing whether she would consider supporting Mary Mulligan in bringing those elements of the bill forward into the current Housing (Scotland) Bill, where some elements of the private sector are being addressed.
On the justice system, I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to perhaps look at the continuing problem of the rape conviction levels.
He would get great support from the Labour Party if he addressed some of the ways in which the legislation we passed to protect victims is now being used against them.
On child poverty, the Government is boldly publishing a strategy, but publishing a strategy is not enough: it is necessary to deliver.
A difficulty for the Government is that it has delegated entirely any responsibility for delivery.
One might say that the whole point of the concordat was to be able to say, "it wizny me".
We need to address that issue with local government.
How will we ensure that we tackle the needs of the most vulnerable?
A simple example of something that has been missed out altogether is action for kinship carers.
The Government committed itself to equality and parity between kinship carers and foster carers.
That was signed up to in the concordat, but Mr Russell airily signed it away in order to get a deal on class sizes.
That is unworthy of a Government that wishes to tackle child poverty.
There were grand words in the statement about community benefit, but if we ask the Scottish Government what it is doing now to deliver community benefit clauses in its contracts, or indeed whether it is reserving any work to sheltered workplaces, there is an absolute silence, and in that silence there is an indication of the Government's attitude—"We make the grand statement, but don't ask us to do the hard, deliberate work of making it happen."
Margo MacDonald: Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: I will continue.
The statement says that the Government's priorities are economic recovery, protecting front-line services and developing a low-carbon Scotland.
We wish that that were true.
The problem is that it is not.
We know that the Government is squandering money on the Scottish Futures Trust rather than finding ways of creating a stimulus for construction.
It is talking about schools instead of building them.
It is talking about jobs rather than making a difference in our local communities and expecting Scottish Enterprise and others to work in communities to find jobs and opportunities for our young people.
We are in serious times and we need a First Minister who takes his job seriously and not just himself seriously.
Mr Salmond says that he will appeal to the people because he cannot win the vote in the Parliament, but a dialogue with the people works both ways.
Perhaps Mr Salmond should start listening too.
If he had listened to young people, he would not have prioritised independence over acting on jobs.
If he had listened to the victims of knife crime and their families, he would have supported Labour's demand for action on knife crime and supported minimum custodial sentences for those who carry knives.
If he had listened to women's organisations, he would not have put victims of domestic abuse at further risk by opposing short-term sentences.
The Deputy Presiding Officer: You should be finishing now, Ms Lamont.
Johann Lamont: Mr Salmond says that he will appeal to the people.
He could have dumped the referendum bill two years ago on the basis that he could not get it through and got on with serious business.
Instead, he has taken the disturbing attitude that it is the purpose of the Parliament to deliver him lines for his election campaign.
The people of this country need more from the Parliament.
They need serious business.
The sooner we get people in here who will do that, the better.
"The people, when they voted for this Parliament, voted for a legislature that would be bold and would act to protect their values."
No one would disagree with that.
We recognise that Labour's legacy to Scotland has been a Scottish Parliament that can protect and work for people in these difficult times.
I was struck by the contrast between—if I may say so—the overblown and rather self-regarding language of the First Minister and the thinness of the programme itself.
The statement was, as usual, full of expressions such as "lead the world" and "being in the vanguard".
It also referred specifically to the exceptional, laudable qualities of the Scottish character, and how compassionate and innovative we are at a time like this—peculiarly so and unlike others, I presume.
I think and suspect that, like all previous statements, this one is not to be taken seriously, because, on the past record, they have never been delivered.
It is ever more evident to me that Mr Salmond lives in the moment.
That is an interesting way to be as a leader, but it creates problems for those who need the Government to act in their interests, because being bold is not only about shouting; it is about taking tough and serious action.
Here we have Mr Salmond's problem: he may wish to govern, but he is also always alive to a choice.
He can choose to make the Scottish Parliament work for the people of Scotland in these tough times and show how it can make a difference, but his problem is that it is his party's interest ever and always to talk about what cannot be done.
Alex Salmond will never make the Parliament work, because his wish for independence relies on showing that it cannot .
I was fascinated by Mr Salmond quoting Edwin Morgan and what that might suggest about his lack of self-awareness.
Was there not a civil servant bold enough to say that perhaps it was not the best idea to quote Edwin Morgan disdaining the "it wizny me" mentality?
Does he not know that his Government is the very embodiment of the "it wizny me" mentality.
We regard as shameless his constant response that he is blameless. I say to Mr Salmond,
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"
It is a serious point because, when the issue was raised earlier, examples of people to blame came from many SNP members.
Times are too serious for us to have government by alibi.
We need people to take the circumstances seriously.
As has been indicated, there are a number of bills that Labour can support.
We recognise certain measures that we can support in the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill and I trust that, in turn, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will confirm that she will look seriously at the recommendations of Labour's commission in the way that her colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning took seriously our commission on education. I urge her not to make minimum pricing the whole picture.
The reality is that, given the parliamentary arithmetic, the proposals on minimum pricing will not get through.
It demeans the debate to say that minimum pricing is the only test of people's commitment to tackling alcohol.
Is it not a curiosity that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will persist, knowing full well that it will come to defeat?
I am sure that some of her fundamentalist colleagues, such as Sandra White and Bob Doris, must wonder why the same persistence does not apply to the referendum bill.
We were all surprised by the ditching of the bill, but I understand that we were not as stunned as the Government back benchers who have cheered to the echo over the past three years every turn and shift of their front benchers. They defended the action when the Government ripped off Glasgow.
Did they not, at any point in the last week, finally say to Mr Salmond, "Stop acting the goat and get on with governing this country"?
We are told that they are lukewarm on the proposals, but it took Margo MacDonald to say what they have all been thinking and to argue a case that they did not have the courage to come into the chamber and argue themselves. There is a case for arguing that, as others have suggested, Mr Salmond is like the grand old Duke of York.
That is all right for a kids' party, but that silliness is not what these times deserve.
On the budget, there are pages of defensive lines in the statement about why it is not possible to share with the Parliament the information that would allow us to come together and have a serious understanding of the issues that face us.
On the housing bill, I welcome the proposals on private landlords and ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing whether she would consider supporting Mary Mulligan in bringing those elements of the bill forward into the current Housing (Scotland) Bill, where some elements of the private sector are being addressed.
On the justice system, I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to perhaps look at the continuing problem of the rape conviction levels.
He would get great support from the Labour Party if he addressed some of the ways in which the legislation we passed to protect victims is now being used against them.
On child poverty, the Government is boldly publishing a strategy, but publishing a strategy is not enough: it is necessary to deliver.
A difficulty for the Government is that it has delegated entirely any responsibility for delivery.
One might say that the whole point of the concordat was to be able to say, "it wizny me".
We need to address that issue with local government.
How will we ensure that we tackle the needs of the most vulnerable?
A simple example of something that has been missed out altogether is action for kinship carers.
The Government committed itself to equality and parity between kinship carers and foster carers.
That was signed up to in the concordat, but Mr Russell airily signed it away in order to get a deal on class sizes.
That is unworthy of a Government that wishes to tackle child poverty.
There were grand words in the statement about community benefit, but if we ask the Scottish Government what it is doing now to deliver community benefit clauses in its contracts, or indeed whether it is reserving any work to sheltered workplaces, there is an absolute silence, and in that silence there is an indication of the Government's attitude—"We make the grand statement, but don't ask us to do the hard, deliberate work of making it happen."
Margo MacDonald: Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: I will continue.
The statement says that the Government's priorities are economic recovery, protecting front-line services and developing a low-carbon Scotland.
We wish that that were true.
The problem is that it is not.
We know that the Government is squandering money on the Scottish Futures Trust rather than finding ways of creating a stimulus for construction.
It is talking about schools instead of building them.
It is talking about jobs rather than making a difference in our local communities and expecting Scottish Enterprise and others to work in communities to find jobs and opportunities for our young people.
We are in serious times and we need a First Minister who takes his job seriously and not just himself seriously.
Mr Salmond says that he will appeal to the people because he cannot win the vote in the Parliament, but a dialogue with the people works both ways.
Perhaps Mr Salmond should start listening too.
If he had listened to young people, he would not have prioritised independence over acting on jobs.
If he had listened to the victims of knife crime and their families, he would have supported Labour's demand for action on knife crime and supported minimum custodial sentences for those who carry knives.
If he had listened to women's organisations, he would not have put victims of domestic abuse at further risk by opposing short-term sentences.
The Deputy Presiding Officer: You should be finishing now, Ms Lamont.
Johann Lamont: Mr Salmond says that he will appeal to the people.
He could have dumped the referendum bill two years ago on the basis that he could not get it through and got on with serious business.
Instead, he has taken the disturbing attitude that it is the purpose of the Parliament to deliver him lines for his election campaign.
The people of this country need more from the Parliament.
They need serious business.
The sooner we get people in here who will do that, the better.
7.7.10
Speech in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill 30 June 2010
Stewart Maxwell said that we should not have a straw-man argument or debate positions that are not being put, and should instead reflect seriously on what people are saying in the chamber today. I am therefore surprised that Robert Brown chose to describe those who oppose the proposal as "doomsayers". I do not think that we should call Scottish Women's Aid doomsayers. I think that we should reflect on the fact that, over the years, women's organisations have managed to persuade the legal establishment that the way that things are done does not work in the interests of victims.
The Scottish Government's position is that short-term sentences do not work and that we should use community sentences instead. The logic of that position is that, if community sentences are put in place, short-term sentences will wither on the vine. However, what is being proposed is that the presumption against short-term sentences will be put in place, leaving victims—not the people in this Parliament—to face the risk that that approach will not work.
In the short time that I have, I will not appeal to the minister, as his complacency and arrogance are evident to us all. However, I will appeal to his back benchers, who listen to women's organisations, to listen to what Women's Aid has said. It believes that the criminal behaviour of perpetrators of domestic abuse does not fall into the category of people with chaotic lifestyles, for whom prison is a revolving door, and that a presumption against the use of prison
"will only serve to increase the risks to safety for women, children and young people experiencing domestic abuse"
and will undermine the work that is done within the criminal justice system to address the issues of domestic abuse, and that
"It would be disastrous if the proposals were to foster an attitude amongst abusers that their behaviour was no longer being taken seriously in terms of sentencing".
I know that there are people on the Scottish National Party back benches who are concerned about the issues of women, children and victims of domestic abuse. Do not allow this debate to be characterised as an academic theoretical debate between people who hold different views on prison sentencing. Listen to people on the ground who say that the Government's proposal will put people at risk. If the Government wants to prove that short sentences do not work, it should put money into community payback and let short sentences wither on the vine; it should not do it in the way that is proposed, which is short-term political expediency dressed up as a strategy. Listen to the women's organisations and oppose this proposal. The SNP listens to women's organisations on some issues; it should listen to them on this one, too.
The Scottish Government's position is that short-term sentences do not work and that we should use community sentences instead. The logic of that position is that, if community sentences are put in place, short-term sentences will wither on the vine. However, what is being proposed is that the presumption against short-term sentences will be put in place, leaving victims—not the people in this Parliament—to face the risk that that approach will not work.
In the short time that I have, I will not appeal to the minister, as his complacency and arrogance are evident to us all. However, I will appeal to his back benchers, who listen to women's organisations, to listen to what Women's Aid has said. It believes that the criminal behaviour of perpetrators of domestic abuse does not fall into the category of people with chaotic lifestyles, for whom prison is a revolving door, and that a presumption against the use of prison
"will only serve to increase the risks to safety for women, children and young people experiencing domestic abuse"
and will undermine the work that is done within the criminal justice system to address the issues of domestic abuse, and that
"It would be disastrous if the proposals were to foster an attitude amongst abusers that their behaviour was no longer being taken seriously in terms of sentencing".
I know that there are people on the Scottish National Party back benches who are concerned about the issues of women, children and victims of domestic abuse. Do not allow this debate to be characterised as an academic theoretical debate between people who hold different views on prison sentencing. Listen to people on the ground who say that the Government's proposal will put people at risk. If the Government wants to prove that short sentences do not work, it should put money into community payback and let short sentences wither on the vine; it should not do it in the way that is proposed, which is short-term political expediency dressed up as a strategy. Listen to the women's organisations and oppose this proposal. The SNP listens to women's organisations on some issues; it should listen to them on this one, too.
18.6.10
Poverty Framework speech 17th. June 2010
I am happy to participate in the debate, and I join Alex Neil in supporting the aspiration that he described at the end of his speech. However, the test for us is not our aspiration, but what we do to deliver on it and address the serious issue of poverty, particularly at a time of great change.
The reality of what precipitated the economic crisis—the failures in the global private markets that led to the banking system requiring Government intervention—has curiously been transformed into an argument that the crisis was caused by big government and a public sector that was too big, as if all public sector workers were useless bureaucrats rather than people who are employed to deliver services for some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens. They are people such as care workers, classroom support assistants and those who work in child care, employability and educational support, and they work directly to address issues around poverty. I trust that our Lib Dem colleagues will bring their pressure to bear on the coalition to ensure that the hostility to big government does not involve attacking services that are required by the poorest in our communities.
Labour's amendment acknowledges the existence of the framework approach, but argues that it is not enough to have an approach; we need to be serious about delivering on it. I wish to say something about the weakness of the Scottish Government approach and the gap—not for the first time—between words and action. I will speak about some of the key challenges and provide some examples of how a national approach can be national and how the powers of the Parliament might be used.
The Scottish Government presided this year over an increased budget, but the reality is that whatever the size of the budget, it is simply a dereliction of duty not to maximise its impact among the poorest in our communities. A useful starting point is provided by the Child Poverty Action Group, which argues that the Scottish Government and local government budgets should be poverty proofed. If the Scottish Government took even a moment to poverty proof one of the critical elements that it often identifies in its poverty strategy—the council tax freeze—that would reveal that whatever it is, it is not an anti-poverty strategy. It is disappointing that the Government continues to resist the idea that single outcome agreements should be poverty proofed. I urge the minister to consider taking that approach, because it would cause a shift from asserting good works to doing what works.
The Scottish Government does assertion—indeed, the minister is a master at it—but it must trouble us all that a written answer to Bill Butler revealed that the centrally held poverty budget has been cut by a third. I understand that that funding could be used to support financial advice work, benefit uptake work and so on, which are all important to poor families. If one claims to take a national approach, one needs evidence of its effectiveness. There needs to be monitoring and assessment to test the gap between saying and doing, but also to allow government at every level to reflect on and amend what it is doing to address weaknesses or ineffectiveness.
There is a well-rehearsed debate on the concordat and single outcome agreements. It is not an academic debate; the framework approach is predicated on its being delivered through locally determined single outcome agreements. We can put aside the ludicrous haste with which the concordat and single outcome agreements were cobbled together as an approach; the lack of consultation with, for example, the voluntary sector; and the total lack of thought-through indicators. The reality is now serious. There is no effective monitoring, no reflection on input and clear evidence that too many services are subject to a postcode lottery. We know that local authorities are under pressure and are not helped by claims by the Scottish Government about resources and a lack of funding, and that local authorities are making difficult choices, but surely those choices should be shaped by basic standards across local government throughout the country.
In this carers week, the problem is highlighted by a clear example of what the lack of a national approach means. Information that we obtained under freedom of information legislation about the lack of assessment of unpaid carers showed three staggering elements: the huge variation in approach across Scotland; the apparent reluctance to assess unpaid carers, perhaps because, once assessed, the need has to be met with resources; and the number of local authorities with no information about the number of carers in their area.
Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): The member talks about national projects and policies and working together. What does she say about the green paper on the national project proposed by the Westminster Government that would have taken money away from carers? That is neither national nor local; it is disgraceful.
Johann Lamont: It is also not a policy. There was a green paper and the response to it was unhappy. I am asking us to look at what we can do here. The fact is that currently, only 3 per cent of unpaid carers have their needs assessed and most local authorities do not even know how many unpaid carers they have. That is a simple example. If we acknowledge that, as in the words of the motion, we have a responsibility
"to take long-term measures to tackle drivers of poverty",
what is the Scottish Government doing to address the needs of carers whose caring responsibilities often hold them in poverty? It is simply not good enough to look away or to blame others. If the Government is to take a national approach, it must address the problem of carers' wide variation in experience across the country.
As I said, the framework is underpinned by single outcome agreements. We all acknowledge the role of the voluntary sector in reaching out to communities and understanding how poverty is lived and what needs to change. The sector is pivotal in that regard. However, when voluntary sector organisations persistently express their concerns about the lack of specific indicators to test and shape local government and national priorities—for example, on disability—they are simply ignored. There is a lack of seriousness in the Government's approach that includes a cavalier disregard for any process of reporting, which means that voluntary organisations have to fund their own interrogation of single outcome agreements. If the Government is serious, that cannot be acceptable.
In my remaining time, I will flag up some areas in which the powers of this place could be used more effectively. The minister acknowledged the critical role of work and talked about the concentration of unemployment in some communities. Does he still think that it is acceptable that Scottish Enterprise no longer has any geographical role to support community regeneration and create employment opportunities for people in our poorest communities? It is important to support those who lose their jobs, but we need commitment and evidence of action to deal with those who are further away from work. The danger is that while supporting people who have lost their jobs, those who are further away from the market move even further away as the tougher employability actions of the Government become deprioritised. I urge the minister to reassure us on that point.
The minister spoke about pay issues. We need to establish what is being done to tackle problems around equal pay. I would welcome an update on the role of the Scottish Government in helping women who are currently trapped in equal pay tribunal processes. I would also welcome some progress in what the Scottish Government is doing with regard to the living wage.
Low pay is particularly prevalent in the tourism and retail industries. What is the Scottish Government doing in its tourism strategy to tackle that? What levers are being used to advocate for and reward those businesses that have a living-wage approach? The minister says that the national health service is a living-wage employer. Will he confirm that, in the Scottish Government, the living wage extends to agency and contract workers?
We all recognise the power of public spend. Can the minister confirm that the public procurement process includes a positive assessment for bidders who include commitments to the living wage? Can the minister give examples of how public procurement procedures incorporate the provisions of article 19 of the European directive on public procurement, which allows contracts to be reserved to sheltered workplaces? I would welcome some examples of current spending by the Government where that has been done, as it is an obvious way of tackling poverty among people with disabilities.
In recognising the importance of the Scottish Government's role in tacking poverty, I ask the minister whether he and his colleagues have reflected on what constitutes front-line service—I refer here to the point that I made about the education maintenance allowance. The most vulnerable people need services from mental health groups, carers groups and voluntary organisations to get them to the point where they can access front-line services, and my fear is that those services will be the first to go, and that most vulnerable people will not even get to the point where they can use front-line services in future.
I urge the minister, together with us, to wrestle with these tough questions. What are our priorities? How do we balance the roles of local government, central Government and voluntary organisations? How do we ensure that financial pressures do not impact disproportionately on those who need small amounts of enabling support in order to access services? I also urge the minister to ensure that what he says is followed by action. If he does that, we will certainly support him.
I move amendment S3M-6581.2, to leave out from "to take" to end and insert:
"; further notes the findings of research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust that child, pensioner and overall poverty fell faster in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom during the period of the previous UK administration, led by Labour, but notes concerns raised by anti-poverty organisations, such as Save the Children and the Poverty Alliance, that single outcome agreements do not give sufficient priority to meeting shared poverty targets and have created further problems in terms of monitoring progress and accountability; therefore urges the Scottish Government to review the impact of the concordat and single outcome agreements to ensure a clearer focus on reducing poverty and that measures are put in place to monitor progress made at the national level, and further, in this European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion and given the critical role for the Scottish Government in tackling poverty, calls on it to report to the Parliament detailing how it will use all the powers at its disposal to tackle poverty and disadvantage."
The reality of what precipitated the economic crisis—the failures in the global private markets that led to the banking system requiring Government intervention—has curiously been transformed into an argument that the crisis was caused by big government and a public sector that was too big, as if all public sector workers were useless bureaucrats rather than people who are employed to deliver services for some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens. They are people such as care workers, classroom support assistants and those who work in child care, employability and educational support, and they work directly to address issues around poverty. I trust that our Lib Dem colleagues will bring their pressure to bear on the coalition to ensure that the hostility to big government does not involve attacking services that are required by the poorest in our communities.
Labour's amendment acknowledges the existence of the framework approach, but argues that it is not enough to have an approach; we need to be serious about delivering on it. I wish to say something about the weakness of the Scottish Government approach and the gap—not for the first time—between words and action. I will speak about some of the key challenges and provide some examples of how a national approach can be national and how the powers of the Parliament might be used.
The Scottish Government presided this year over an increased budget, but the reality is that whatever the size of the budget, it is simply a dereliction of duty not to maximise its impact among the poorest in our communities. A useful starting point is provided by the Child Poverty Action Group, which argues that the Scottish Government and local government budgets should be poverty proofed. If the Scottish Government took even a moment to poverty proof one of the critical elements that it often identifies in its poverty strategy—the council tax freeze—that would reveal that whatever it is, it is not an anti-poverty strategy. It is disappointing that the Government continues to resist the idea that single outcome agreements should be poverty proofed. I urge the minister to consider taking that approach, because it would cause a shift from asserting good works to doing what works.
The Scottish Government does assertion—indeed, the minister is a master at it—but it must trouble us all that a written answer to Bill Butler revealed that the centrally held poverty budget has been cut by a third. I understand that that funding could be used to support financial advice work, benefit uptake work and so on, which are all important to poor families. If one claims to take a national approach, one needs evidence of its effectiveness. There needs to be monitoring and assessment to test the gap between saying and doing, but also to allow government at every level to reflect on and amend what it is doing to address weaknesses or ineffectiveness.
There is a well-rehearsed debate on the concordat and single outcome agreements. It is not an academic debate; the framework approach is predicated on its being delivered through locally determined single outcome agreements. We can put aside the ludicrous haste with which the concordat and single outcome agreements were cobbled together as an approach; the lack of consultation with, for example, the voluntary sector; and the total lack of thought-through indicators. The reality is now serious. There is no effective monitoring, no reflection on input and clear evidence that too many services are subject to a postcode lottery. We know that local authorities are under pressure and are not helped by claims by the Scottish Government about resources and a lack of funding, and that local authorities are making difficult choices, but surely those choices should be shaped by basic standards across local government throughout the country.
In this carers week, the problem is highlighted by a clear example of what the lack of a national approach means. Information that we obtained under freedom of information legislation about the lack of assessment of unpaid carers showed three staggering elements: the huge variation in approach across Scotland; the apparent reluctance to assess unpaid carers, perhaps because, once assessed, the need has to be met with resources; and the number of local authorities with no information about the number of carers in their area.
Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP): The member talks about national projects and policies and working together. What does she say about the green paper on the national project proposed by the Westminster Government that would have taken money away from carers? That is neither national nor local; it is disgraceful.
Johann Lamont: It is also not a policy. There was a green paper and the response to it was unhappy. I am asking us to look at what we can do here. The fact is that currently, only 3 per cent of unpaid carers have their needs assessed and most local authorities do not even know how many unpaid carers they have. That is a simple example. If we acknowledge that, as in the words of the motion, we have a responsibility
"to take long-term measures to tackle drivers of poverty",
what is the Scottish Government doing to address the needs of carers whose caring responsibilities often hold them in poverty? It is simply not good enough to look away or to blame others. If the Government is to take a national approach, it must address the problem of carers' wide variation in experience across the country.
As I said, the framework is underpinned by single outcome agreements. We all acknowledge the role of the voluntary sector in reaching out to communities and understanding how poverty is lived and what needs to change. The sector is pivotal in that regard. However, when voluntary sector organisations persistently express their concerns about the lack of specific indicators to test and shape local government and national priorities—for example, on disability—they are simply ignored. There is a lack of seriousness in the Government's approach that includes a cavalier disregard for any process of reporting, which means that voluntary organisations have to fund their own interrogation of single outcome agreements. If the Government is serious, that cannot be acceptable.
In my remaining time, I will flag up some areas in which the powers of this place could be used more effectively. The minister acknowledged the critical role of work and talked about the concentration of unemployment in some communities. Does he still think that it is acceptable that Scottish Enterprise no longer has any geographical role to support community regeneration and create employment opportunities for people in our poorest communities? It is important to support those who lose their jobs, but we need commitment and evidence of action to deal with those who are further away from work. The danger is that while supporting people who have lost their jobs, those who are further away from the market move even further away as the tougher employability actions of the Government become deprioritised. I urge the minister to reassure us on that point.
The minister spoke about pay issues. We need to establish what is being done to tackle problems around equal pay. I would welcome an update on the role of the Scottish Government in helping women who are currently trapped in equal pay tribunal processes. I would also welcome some progress in what the Scottish Government is doing with regard to the living wage.
Low pay is particularly prevalent in the tourism and retail industries. What is the Scottish Government doing in its tourism strategy to tackle that? What levers are being used to advocate for and reward those businesses that have a living-wage approach? The minister says that the national health service is a living-wage employer. Will he confirm that, in the Scottish Government, the living wage extends to agency and contract workers?
We all recognise the power of public spend. Can the minister confirm that the public procurement process includes a positive assessment for bidders who include commitments to the living wage? Can the minister give examples of how public procurement procedures incorporate the provisions of article 19 of the European directive on public procurement, which allows contracts to be reserved to sheltered workplaces? I would welcome some examples of current spending by the Government where that has been done, as it is an obvious way of tackling poverty among people with disabilities.
In recognising the importance of the Scottish Government's role in tacking poverty, I ask the minister whether he and his colleagues have reflected on what constitutes front-line service—I refer here to the point that I made about the education maintenance allowance. The most vulnerable people need services from mental health groups, carers groups and voluntary organisations to get them to the point where they can access front-line services, and my fear is that those services will be the first to go, and that most vulnerable people will not even get to the point where they can use front-line services in future.
I urge the minister, together with us, to wrestle with these tough questions. What are our priorities? How do we balance the roles of local government, central Government and voluntary organisations? How do we ensure that financial pressures do not impact disproportionately on those who need small amounts of enabling support in order to access services? I also urge the minister to ensure that what he says is followed by action. If he does that, we will certainly support him.
I move amendment S3M-6581.2, to leave out from "to take" to end and insert:
"; further notes the findings of research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust that child, pensioner and overall poverty fell faster in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom during the period of the previous UK administration, led by Labour, but notes concerns raised by anti-poverty organisations, such as Save the Children and the Poverty Alliance, that single outcome agreements do not give sufficient priority to meeting shared poverty targets and have created further problems in terms of monitoring progress and accountability; therefore urges the Scottish Government to review the impact of the concordat and single outcome agreements to ensure a clearer focus on reducing poverty and that measures are put in place to monitor progress made at the national level, and further, in this European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion and given the critical role for the Scottish Government in tackling poverty, calls on it to report to the Parliament detailing how it will use all the powers at its disposal to tackle poverty and disadvantage."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)