Scottish Labour Party conference guide : http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/conference2009
Dundee Labour conference website : http://www.dundeelabour.com
23.2.09
Ministerial changes Speech in the Scottish Parliament 12 February 2009
One of the few pleasures of being in opposition is spectating as the Government party experiences a reshuffle and watching its impact on the selected individuals who have lost their jobs, on those who have gained the exciting opportunity that ministerial office presents and, of course, on those who have doggedly sought preferment but been disappointed.
Perhaps next time.
I should predicate my comments by saying that it is a great privilege to be in ministerial office.
I wish those who are departing office well and send every good wish to those who are going into office, which is a privilege to which we all aspire.
As ever, the First Minister's cohorts have been spinning fit to burst but, even by the First Minister's standards, the spin has stretched credibility to breaking point.
First, we are told that Mike Russell is to be responsible for the national conversation.
That responsibility is to be given to a man who has shown no evidence whatever throughout his parliamentary career that he understands that conversation includes people other than himself speaking and that it might possibly involve listening rather than lecturing.
Secondly, we are told that Alex Neil represents fresh talent and that he is a critic being brought into the fold.
With all due respect, I go back a long way with Alex Neil—so far that I can remember when he believed that social justice should be at the centre of Government policy, not in the margins where Mr Salmond's trickle-down economics place it—but not even he, who has shown a remarkable ability to argue for anything in the past year and a half, could possibly characterise himself as a fresh face.
I can only hazard a guess at how those SNP members whose faces are a deal fresher than mine or Mr Neil's feel about that.
I considered for a moment the possibility that, in this Parliament of minorities, we should all be allowed to choose an SNP back bencher to be given the job—perhaps someone who has displayed a scintilla of independent thought—but even I, optimistic soul that I am, recognise a tough job when I see one.
In the unreal world that is the Parliament, where the first rule should always be to expect the unexpected, the transformation of Alex Neil, the alleged critic, from thorn in the flesh to Salmond's little helper has been breathtaking.
Week after week, we have witnessed him in full flow, shouting, bawling and crawling in equal measure.
The reality of course is that the loyalty of the back benchers has been bought by the promise of the one thing that unites them—a Government that is focused entirely on seeking constitutional fights as a means of separating us from the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is the key message of the ministerial and other decisions that Mr Salmond has made this week: separation is now everything.
Ministers who are departing office should not blame themselves or allow themselves to be joined to the long list of alibis that the First Minister uses at every opportunity.
They could work only with the cards that they were dealt.
The Government has failed in its housing policy, which prompted the lobbying today by trade unionists, housing organisations and community volunteers; in its environmental policy, which seeks to privatise our forests, as a result of listening to Rothschild rather than rural workers; in its culture policy, which prompted unprecedented unity of artists in protest; and its schools policy, which—remarkably—has not resulted in the building of one school being commissioned in nearly two years.
I welcome the new ministers to their posts and urge them to do in government what they did not do on the back benches—to speak up.
I urge them to do what their boss regularly fails to do—to listen to those who live with the consequences of the misguided action in their ministerial portfolios and the wilful lack of action by the Government on the economy.
If the new ministers do that, perhaps the First Minister's failed policies might be challenged.
Labour members understand that the critical issue is that the Government should work in the interests of the people of Scotland.
All the reshuffles in the world will not make the difference that we need, which would come from the First Minister, the Cabinet, ministers and the governing party putting aside their constitutional obsessions and using their existing powers to support families and communities throughout Scotland.
If the ministerial change brings about such a change, that will be welcome.
Perhaps next time.
I should predicate my comments by saying that it is a great privilege to be in ministerial office.
I wish those who are departing office well and send every good wish to those who are going into office, which is a privilege to which we all aspire.
As ever, the First Minister's cohorts have been spinning fit to burst but, even by the First Minister's standards, the spin has stretched credibility to breaking point.
First, we are told that Mike Russell is to be responsible for the national conversation.
That responsibility is to be given to a man who has shown no evidence whatever throughout his parliamentary career that he understands that conversation includes people other than himself speaking and that it might possibly involve listening rather than lecturing.
Secondly, we are told that Alex Neil represents fresh talent and that he is a critic being brought into the fold.
With all due respect, I go back a long way with Alex Neil—so far that I can remember when he believed that social justice should be at the centre of Government policy, not in the margins where Mr Salmond's trickle-down economics place it—but not even he, who has shown a remarkable ability to argue for anything in the past year and a half, could possibly characterise himself as a fresh face.
I can only hazard a guess at how those SNP members whose faces are a deal fresher than mine or Mr Neil's feel about that.
I considered for a moment the possibility that, in this Parliament of minorities, we should all be allowed to choose an SNP back bencher to be given the job—perhaps someone who has displayed a scintilla of independent thought—but even I, optimistic soul that I am, recognise a tough job when I see one.
In the unreal world that is the Parliament, where the first rule should always be to expect the unexpected, the transformation of Alex Neil, the alleged critic, from thorn in the flesh to Salmond's little helper has been breathtaking.
Week after week, we have witnessed him in full flow, shouting, bawling and crawling in equal measure.
The reality of course is that the loyalty of the back benchers has been bought by the promise of the one thing that unites them—a Government that is focused entirely on seeking constitutional fights as a means of separating us from the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is the key message of the ministerial and other decisions that Mr Salmond has made this week: separation is now everything.
Ministers who are departing office should not blame themselves or allow themselves to be joined to the long list of alibis that the First Minister uses at every opportunity.
They could work only with the cards that they were dealt.
The Government has failed in its housing policy, which prompted the lobbying today by trade unionists, housing organisations and community volunteers; in its environmental policy, which seeks to privatise our forests, as a result of listening to Rothschild rather than rural workers; in its culture policy, which prompted unprecedented unity of artists in protest; and its schools policy, which—remarkably—has not resulted in the building of one school being commissioned in nearly two years.
I welcome the new ministers to their posts and urge them to do in government what they did not do on the back benches—to speak up.
I urge them to do what their boss regularly fails to do—to listen to those who live with the consequences of the misguided action in their ministerial portfolios and the wilful lack of action by the Government on the economy.
If the new ministers do that, perhaps the First Minister's failed policies might be challenged.
Labour members understand that the critical issue is that the Government should work in the interests of the people of Scotland.
All the reshuffles in the world will not make the difference that we need, which would come from the First Minister, the Cabinet, ministers and the governing party putting aside their constitutional obsessions and using their existing powers to support families and communities throughout Scotland.
If the ministerial change brings about such a change, that will be welcome.
Housing Speech in the Scottish Parliament 12 February 2009
It is important for members to discuss housing and to end the Government's obsession with assertion over action.
If ever there was an example of government by alibi, it was Nicola Sturgeon's speech.
She talked about what everybody else's responsibilities are and wilfully refused to reflect on her own policy, "Firm Foundations".
I hope that she listened to what Ross Finnie said about the six council houses, particularly as her Government has emphasised the continuing and critical role of housing associations in its policy.
The power of the threat of a Labour debate on housing is remarkable: there has been half a U-turn on a key policy on HAG spending.
Given the absolute certainty about previous HAG assumptions, perhaps the minister could clarify what consultation took place with the housing sector on the new assumptions.
I fear that they may have been plucked out of the air in a panic. Two Mondays ago, the then housing minister, Stewart Maxwell—to whom I pay tribute; I have enjoyed debating with him—stated that the grant formula was costing housing associations an extra £10,000 per house, but that that could be tackled by using reserves or borrowing.
Four days later, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced that the issue was being revisited.
Poor Mr Maxwell.
He gallantly defended the Scottish National Party's policy while both the policy's demise and his own were being plotted.
The Parliament has already agreed that the Scottish Government's housing policy is seriously flawed.
Despite that, the Scottish Government persists with it.
Cuts in HAG levels will lead to rent increases or increased borrowing at the worst possible time, and the introduction of a lead developer model can be seen as undermining entirely the critical role of community-based housing associations.
Are we to assume that the cabinet secretary, in supporting our motion and agreeing that there should be flexibility on procurement, is finally burying the lead developer role?
Will she confirm that, given the GHA's role as a transitional body, its aspiration to be a lead developer will simply not be allowed to be fulfilled?
The problem with the firm foundations approach is that if the Scottish Government persists with it, it will seriously undermine the role of community-controlled housing associations.
The approach is predicated on an assumption that housing associations have been feather-bedded in some ways. Reserves are talked about, but the reality is that they are used to plan not two years ahead, but five, 10, 15 and 20 years in advance.
The very thing that sustained housing associations at a time when council houses were falling into disrepair because they had been starved of investment is now being used inappropriately.
There is talk of economies of scale.
We know the pressures of diseconomies of scale.
A big organisation spends without thinking.
We need to reassert the importance of housing associations in community regeneration and in sustaining local communities.
The Scottish Government must listen to those who tell it that such an approach will strengthen the role of the national housing associations at the expense of local housing associations.
The cabinet secretary must back off.
In particular, in summing up, she should address a key point about the implications of the lead developer role that has been raised with me.
The lead developer proposals would not allow charities—which the vast majority of the housing associations are—to undertake such a role.
Things would need to be changed to allow subsidiaries to do that.
Subsidiaries will not be registered social landlords, so they will not be able to receive HAG, which will then go to end users.
The reason for the proposal in the first place—to give all the resources to a one-stop shop of regional experts—would be undermined, European procurement rules would apply to the procurement of the lead developer and things would have to be opened up to the private sector.
Surely that is not the Government's intention.
We should apply the Swinney test to that policy, bearing it in mind that destroying community-controlled housing associations was not in the SNP's manifesto.
The Parliament has voted against the policy and times have changed.
The worrying conclusion that we have to draw is that the reason why we shall not get the cabinet secretary to admit that she is wrong—and she is—and the reason why she will not dump the policy along with the local income tax, is that it does not require parliamentary endorsement.
The Scottish Government will persist with the policy not because it is right, but because it can.
That is the approach of the pre-1999 Scottish Office and its administrative devolution for ministers, rather than that of a Scottish Government that is accountable to Parliament and, through it, to all those who are highly exercised and concerned about the current approach.
We all agree that we are in challenging, fast-changing and difficult times, but the test of Government is whether it makes the situation better or worse.
This Scottish Government currently fails that test in relation to housing and the sustainability of social rented housing at community level.
It is time for the cabinet secretary to recognise that graciously, think again, dump the "Firm Foundations" document and policy—which the Parliament has opposed—and work with housing associations, MSPs and those in the housing sector to develop a housing policy that will make a difference to our communities.
If ever there was an example of government by alibi, it was Nicola Sturgeon's speech.
She talked about what everybody else's responsibilities are and wilfully refused to reflect on her own policy, "Firm Foundations".
I hope that she listened to what Ross Finnie said about the six council houses, particularly as her Government has emphasised the continuing and critical role of housing associations in its policy.
The power of the threat of a Labour debate on housing is remarkable: there has been half a U-turn on a key policy on HAG spending.
Given the absolute certainty about previous HAG assumptions, perhaps the minister could clarify what consultation took place with the housing sector on the new assumptions.
I fear that they may have been plucked out of the air in a panic. Two Mondays ago, the then housing minister, Stewart Maxwell—to whom I pay tribute; I have enjoyed debating with him—stated that the grant formula was costing housing associations an extra £10,000 per house, but that that could be tackled by using reserves or borrowing.
Four days later, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced that the issue was being revisited.
Poor Mr Maxwell.
He gallantly defended the Scottish National Party's policy while both the policy's demise and his own were being plotted.
The Parliament has already agreed that the Scottish Government's housing policy is seriously flawed.
Despite that, the Scottish Government persists with it.
Cuts in HAG levels will lead to rent increases or increased borrowing at the worst possible time, and the introduction of a lead developer model can be seen as undermining entirely the critical role of community-based housing associations.
Are we to assume that the cabinet secretary, in supporting our motion and agreeing that there should be flexibility on procurement, is finally burying the lead developer role?
Will she confirm that, given the GHA's role as a transitional body, its aspiration to be a lead developer will simply not be allowed to be fulfilled?
The problem with the firm foundations approach is that if the Scottish Government persists with it, it will seriously undermine the role of community-controlled housing associations.
The approach is predicated on an assumption that housing associations have been feather-bedded in some ways. Reserves are talked about, but the reality is that they are used to plan not two years ahead, but five, 10, 15 and 20 years in advance.
The very thing that sustained housing associations at a time when council houses were falling into disrepair because they had been starved of investment is now being used inappropriately.
There is talk of economies of scale.
We know the pressures of diseconomies of scale.
A big organisation spends without thinking.
We need to reassert the importance of housing associations in community regeneration and in sustaining local communities.
The Scottish Government must listen to those who tell it that such an approach will strengthen the role of the national housing associations at the expense of local housing associations.
The cabinet secretary must back off.
In particular, in summing up, she should address a key point about the implications of the lead developer role that has been raised with me.
The lead developer proposals would not allow charities—which the vast majority of the housing associations are—to undertake such a role.
Things would need to be changed to allow subsidiaries to do that.
Subsidiaries will not be registered social landlords, so they will not be able to receive HAG, which will then go to end users.
The reason for the proposal in the first place—to give all the resources to a one-stop shop of regional experts—would be undermined, European procurement rules would apply to the procurement of the lead developer and things would have to be opened up to the private sector.
Surely that is not the Government's intention.
We should apply the Swinney test to that policy, bearing it in mind that destroying community-controlled housing associations was not in the SNP's manifesto.
The Parliament has voted against the policy and times have changed.
The worrying conclusion that we have to draw is that the reason why we shall not get the cabinet secretary to admit that she is wrong—and she is—and the reason why she will not dump the policy along with the local income tax, is that it does not require parliamentary endorsement.
The Scottish Government will persist with the policy not because it is right, but because it can.
That is the approach of the pre-1999 Scottish Office and its administrative devolution for ministers, rather than that of a Scottish Government that is accountable to Parliament and, through it, to all those who are highly exercised and concerned about the current approach.
We all agree that we are in challenging, fast-changing and difficult times, but the test of Government is whether it makes the situation better or worse.
This Scottish Government currently fails that test in relation to housing and the sustainability of social rented housing at community level.
It is time for the cabinet secretary to recognise that graciously, think again, dump the "Firm Foundations" document and policy—which the Parliament has opposed—and work with housing associations, MSPs and those in the housing sector to develop a housing policy that will make a difference to our communities.
Human Trafficking Speech in the Scottish Parliament 05 February 2009
I begin by acknowledging the contribution of the Presiding Officer, Trish Godman, to ensuring that the subject has remained a political issue.
I appreciate that she is not in a position just now to express her views, but her record is there to be recognised.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the chamber.
The importance of the motion lies in the fact that it not only describes something terrible but considers ways in which we can address the issues.
When I read the motion and became aware of the issues, the capacity of some people for cruelty and the willingness to perpetrate that cruelty against other human beings took my breath away.
The danger is that, in being appalled, we are also paralysed and fear that we can do nothing to address that level of cruelty.
If we do not act, however, we give up on so many people who are facing problems.
We have a responsibility to act.
One reason why I welcome the debate is that it enables us to consider how we can support action to address the problem.
It is clear that the issue is not particularly about women, but it is disproportionately experienced by women.
It is therefore important to make the connection with the abuse of women, male violence against women and the unequal status of women in this country and elsewhere.
I believe that those factors play a part in ensuring that it is disproportionately women who suffer from being trafficked and abused by men.
It is critical that we support the organisations and groups that reach out to vulnerable people, who might be fearful of speaking out and do not know where to go.
It is essential that we use the networks within communities to give people the confidence to speak out.
That is true domestically just as it is true for those who are trafficked into the country.
We also need to challenge the perpetrators—not just those who traffic, but those who go and use and abuse trafficked women
The Women's Support Project in Glasgow has done some significant research on the attitudes of men who use prostitutes.
One of its stunning findings was that, although a significant number of the men suspected that women were there through no choice of their own, that they had been forced to be there and that they may have been trafficked, that bore no relationship to whether the men would use those women.
The notion that prostitution is a fair transaction between men and women is exposed by that.
The men knew that the women could have been victims of trafficking, but that made no difference to whether they chose to continue.
We heard about Germany.
Why was there a demand for prostitutes there?
Who would use them?
I know that Trish Godman has made representations to Glasgow City Council about the Commonwealth games and the need to challenge attitudes there.
It is critical that we put the matter in context and address the question of the perpetrators.
As has been suggested, legislation might need to be developed on the Swedish model, but the Scottish Parliament passed relevant legislation before the 2007 election, and that legislation needs to be enforced, because it focuses on the perpetrators and puts the matter in that context.
I remind the minister that, although local authorities operate under financial constraints, there are soft budget lines, and those are the lines that should support groups that go out and support women.
However, there is nobody to speak up for that in the hard battle of financial choices.
I hope that the minister will address that problem.
We need education in our communities.
We need to talk about what is happening and the connection with violence against women.
We need to protect those who have been trafficked, and we need to ensure that the focus on perpetrators is not lost. People are appalled by the notion of trafficking.
That is straightforward, but it is more difficult to consider what creates the demand.
The minister will have the support of all members if he is willing to address that.
We should examine the legislative measures that are in place, consider how well they are working and encourage further enforcement of them, because they shift the balance from those who allegedly make the choice to go into prostitution to those who create the demand in the first place and continue to use prostitutes despite the evidence, which is visible to them, that some of the most vulnerable people have been placed there for abuse through no choice of their own.
I appreciate that she is not in a position just now to express her views, but her record is there to be recognised.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the chamber.
The importance of the motion lies in the fact that it not only describes something terrible but considers ways in which we can address the issues.
When I read the motion and became aware of the issues, the capacity of some people for cruelty and the willingness to perpetrate that cruelty against other human beings took my breath away.
The danger is that, in being appalled, we are also paralysed and fear that we can do nothing to address that level of cruelty.
If we do not act, however, we give up on so many people who are facing problems.
We have a responsibility to act.
One reason why I welcome the debate is that it enables us to consider how we can support action to address the problem.
It is clear that the issue is not particularly about women, but it is disproportionately experienced by women.
It is therefore important to make the connection with the abuse of women, male violence against women and the unequal status of women in this country and elsewhere.
I believe that those factors play a part in ensuring that it is disproportionately women who suffer from being trafficked and abused by men.
It is critical that we support the organisations and groups that reach out to vulnerable people, who might be fearful of speaking out and do not know where to go.
It is essential that we use the networks within communities to give people the confidence to speak out.
That is true domestically just as it is true for those who are trafficked into the country.
We also need to challenge the perpetrators—not just those who traffic, but those who go and use and abuse trafficked women
The Women's Support Project in Glasgow has done some significant research on the attitudes of men who use prostitutes.
One of its stunning findings was that, although a significant number of the men suspected that women were there through no choice of their own, that they had been forced to be there and that they may have been trafficked, that bore no relationship to whether the men would use those women.
The notion that prostitution is a fair transaction between men and women is exposed by that.
The men knew that the women could have been victims of trafficking, but that made no difference to whether they chose to continue.
We heard about Germany.
Why was there a demand for prostitutes there?
Who would use them?
I know that Trish Godman has made representations to Glasgow City Council about the Commonwealth games and the need to challenge attitudes there.
It is critical that we put the matter in context and address the question of the perpetrators.
As has been suggested, legislation might need to be developed on the Swedish model, but the Scottish Parliament passed relevant legislation before the 2007 election, and that legislation needs to be enforced, because it focuses on the perpetrators and puts the matter in that context.
I remind the minister that, although local authorities operate under financial constraints, there are soft budget lines, and those are the lines that should support groups that go out and support women.
However, there is nobody to speak up for that in the hard battle of financial choices.
I hope that the minister will address that problem.
We need education in our communities.
We need to talk about what is happening and the connection with violence against women.
We need to protect those who have been trafficked, and we need to ensure that the focus on perpetrators is not lost. People are appalled by the notion of trafficking.
That is straightforward, but it is more difficult to consider what creates the demand.
The minister will have the support of all members if he is willing to address that.
We should examine the legislative measures that are in place, consider how well they are working and encourage further enforcement of them, because they shift the balance from those who allegedly make the choice to go into prostitution to those who create the demand in the first place and continue to use prostitutes despite the evidence, which is visible to them, that some of the most vulnerable people have been placed there for abuse through no choice of their own.
9.2.09
Scottish Budget, speech in the Scottish Parliament 04/02/2009
The budget process is always difficult, and it is self-evidently more difficult for Opposition members because the budget bill can never be a neutral document.
The budget reflects the priorities of the Scottish National Party; it is not a Labour budget, so it is our responsibility to try to influence and shape it.
That is an understandable part of the process—our role throughout the process has been to seek to influence and shape the budget in the direction of the commitments that Labour would have made and the strategy that we would have had.
Nevertheless, the budget bill that we are debating is not the one that we would have introduced.
There is frustration that the budget process has been characterised in commentaries as being about playing games.
The sense that horse trading and game playing were going on was reinforced by decisions that the cabinet secretary made, such as his singling out of Edinburgh instead of addressing the needs of all our cities.
There is recognition that problems have been caused by the presentation of decisions and by the pretence that there was no serious negotiation by Labour before last week's vote, which is simply not true.
The process was too much about the arithmetic in the Parliament and not enough about genuinely reaching out to members to find ways of improving the budget.
There has also been frustration about the pretence that, in seeking to support proposals that would improve the budget, we somehow supported the whole budget.
It is dishonest to suggest that members who sought to persuade the cabinet secretary of the strength of a particular approach had a reckless disregard for the impact on local communities.
That is simply not true—what is happening in our communities has driven and motivated serious negotiation on the part of the Labour Party.
We focused on key issues and we sought to support families and communities who are facing the current economic challenge, so we welcome the announcement of what we sought: a secure guarantee to people who are currently in apprenticeship placements.
As a consequence, many young people and their families can have certainty when before there was a great deal of uncertainty.
For that alone, today will have been a good day at the office.
We urged the Government to understand the critical role of Government intervention and action that goes beyond simple assertion.
We recognised the importance of supporting people who face unemployment and transition to other jobs.
We sought significant increases in the number of apprenticeships because we know our history and we remember what happened when Government took a laissez-faire approach and abandoned young people and families to the scourge of unemployment.
We recognised the opportunity that apprenticeships would provide for training and planning for the future.
The change that we secured in the Scottish budget is a Labour dividend for families; at last there is a firm commitment on apprenticeships.
Critical issues will come into play in the delivery of that commitment.
In the past, I have raised significant issues about the importance of equality proofing and anti-poverty proofing the budget and the role of equality impact assessments.
I remain concerned that, although the budget allocates moneys, it does not do the hard job of ensuring that we meet the diversity of need in our communities.
We can have no confidence that there is any understanding of how people experience disadvantage and discrimination if the budget process does not explicitly set out how such an understanding is arrived at.
Single outcome agreements play a critical part in addressing need locally, and the social inclusion budget has been entirely devolved to local government.
Stewart Maxwell has said that equality impact assessments should be done but that if they are not done it is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate.
Such a process would take a long time, and there is a simpler solution, which I urge ministers to accept: if they think that equality impact assessment of single outcome agreements should be undertaken because of how such agreements affect communities, they should say that an agreement will not be accepted without evidence that an equality impact assessment has been done.
It is as simple as that.
I want to ensure that the shift in the budget addresses need.
The cabinet secretary has considered Labour's case for modern apprenticeships, and I urge him to apply an equalities approach, too.
It is not enough to assert that Government policy inevitably helps disadvantaged people.
It has been claimed that free school meals, free prescriptions and the council tax freeze benefit the poor, but in a written answer to a parliamentary question the Government confirmed that there is no evidence of such benefit.
We need evidence, so that we can ensure that what we do makes a difference.
As part of the summit on apprenticeships, the cabinet secretary must commit to addressing structural employment issues such as segregation, which reinforces the position of women.
If apprenticeships are segregated, it is inevitable that women's experience of low pay will continue.
We must consider the sectors in which apprenticeships are offered.
Are we improving the care sector, in which there are many women workers?
We must address that issue.
We have to consider what we say to employers.
I was told today that an apprentice hairdresser earns £60 a week for a 45-hour week.
That is unacceptable and would not happen in England.
I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that the summit on apprenticeships addresses that.
An understanding of those issues is critical to driving social inclusion.
How much of the town centre regeneration money will go to our most-deprived communities?
How will PACE meet the needs of people with disabilities, who are more disadvantaged in the employment market?
We need to understand that equality is not a bonus but at the core of spending decisions and policy documents.
Otherwise, the budget decisions that we make today will reinforce inequality rather than challenge it.
I welcome the shift that the cabinet secretary has made, but I urge him to ensure that, when he allocates funds for his commitments, he considers how his allocation meets the needs of particular groups in our communities.
That is central to our approach, and I look forward to him acknowledging that in his closing speech.
The budget reflects the priorities of the Scottish National Party; it is not a Labour budget, so it is our responsibility to try to influence and shape it.
That is an understandable part of the process—our role throughout the process has been to seek to influence and shape the budget in the direction of the commitments that Labour would have made and the strategy that we would have had.
Nevertheless, the budget bill that we are debating is not the one that we would have introduced.
There is frustration that the budget process has been characterised in commentaries as being about playing games.
The sense that horse trading and game playing were going on was reinforced by decisions that the cabinet secretary made, such as his singling out of Edinburgh instead of addressing the needs of all our cities.
There is recognition that problems have been caused by the presentation of decisions and by the pretence that there was no serious negotiation by Labour before last week's vote, which is simply not true.
The process was too much about the arithmetic in the Parliament and not enough about genuinely reaching out to members to find ways of improving the budget.
There has also been frustration about the pretence that, in seeking to support proposals that would improve the budget, we somehow supported the whole budget.
It is dishonest to suggest that members who sought to persuade the cabinet secretary of the strength of a particular approach had a reckless disregard for the impact on local communities.
That is simply not true—what is happening in our communities has driven and motivated serious negotiation on the part of the Labour Party.
We focused on key issues and we sought to support families and communities who are facing the current economic challenge, so we welcome the announcement of what we sought: a secure guarantee to people who are currently in apprenticeship placements.
As a consequence, many young people and their families can have certainty when before there was a great deal of uncertainty.
For that alone, today will have been a good day at the office.
We urged the Government to understand the critical role of Government intervention and action that goes beyond simple assertion.
We recognised the importance of supporting people who face unemployment and transition to other jobs.
We sought significant increases in the number of apprenticeships because we know our history and we remember what happened when Government took a laissez-faire approach and abandoned young people and families to the scourge of unemployment.
We recognised the opportunity that apprenticeships would provide for training and planning for the future.
The change that we secured in the Scottish budget is a Labour dividend for families; at last there is a firm commitment on apprenticeships.
Critical issues will come into play in the delivery of that commitment.
In the past, I have raised significant issues about the importance of equality proofing and anti-poverty proofing the budget and the role of equality impact assessments.
I remain concerned that, although the budget allocates moneys, it does not do the hard job of ensuring that we meet the diversity of need in our communities.
We can have no confidence that there is any understanding of how people experience disadvantage and discrimination if the budget process does not explicitly set out how such an understanding is arrived at.
Single outcome agreements play a critical part in addressing need locally, and the social inclusion budget has been entirely devolved to local government.
Stewart Maxwell has said that equality impact assessments should be done but that if they are not done it is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate.
Such a process would take a long time, and there is a simpler solution, which I urge ministers to accept: if they think that equality impact assessment of single outcome agreements should be undertaken because of how such agreements affect communities, they should say that an agreement will not be accepted without evidence that an equality impact assessment has been done.
It is as simple as that.
I want to ensure that the shift in the budget addresses need.
The cabinet secretary has considered Labour's case for modern apprenticeships, and I urge him to apply an equalities approach, too.
It is not enough to assert that Government policy inevitably helps disadvantaged people.
It has been claimed that free school meals, free prescriptions and the council tax freeze benefit the poor, but in a written answer to a parliamentary question the Government confirmed that there is no evidence of such benefit.
We need evidence, so that we can ensure that what we do makes a difference.
As part of the summit on apprenticeships, the cabinet secretary must commit to addressing structural employment issues such as segregation, which reinforces the position of women.
If apprenticeships are segregated, it is inevitable that women's experience of low pay will continue.
We must consider the sectors in which apprenticeships are offered.
Are we improving the care sector, in which there are many women workers?
We must address that issue.
We have to consider what we say to employers.
I was told today that an apprentice hairdresser earns £60 a week for a 45-hour week.
That is unacceptable and would not happen in England.
I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that the summit on apprenticeships addresses that.
An understanding of those issues is critical to driving social inclusion.
How much of the town centre regeneration money will go to our most-deprived communities?
How will PACE meet the needs of people with disabilities, who are more disadvantaged in the employment market?
We need to understand that equality is not a bonus but at the core of spending decisions and policy documents.
Otherwise, the budget decisions that we make today will reinforce inequality rather than challenge it.
I welcome the shift that the cabinet secretary has made, but I urge him to ensure that, when he allocates funds for his commitments, he considers how his allocation meets the needs of particular groups in our communities.
That is central to our approach, and I look forward to him acknowledging that in his closing speech.
Gaelic Language Plan speech Scottish Parliament 29/01/09
I have the honour of contributing a very small footnote to the history of this young Parliament—indeed, to the history of the Scottish Parliament in general—as I was the first person to speak in a debate in the Scottish Parliament in the proud language of my forebears.
It is a language that played a critical part in the soundtrack of my childhood in Glasgow and Tiree.
In my maiden speech in 1999, I made the point that I spoke haltingly in Gaelic—and I speak it even less well now—because of attitudes to Gaelic in the Scotland that I grew up in.
Active decisions were taken to minimise the use of Gaelic and to make no real provision for Gaelic education for the island and Highland diaspora in our cities.
There were many like me who lost the language that they listened to and lived with every day, and there were people such as my grandmother, who through politeness and good manners often spoke in not her first but her second language, believing somehow that she needed to be the person who reached out in order to engage with other people.
During my childhood in Glasgow, the only provision for children like me was to go to interminable Gaelic classes, at which we learned exactly where Mary was—in front of the house, to the side of the house, or on the other side of the house—but which bore no relation to, or gave me any capacity to speak to my family in, the language in which they spoke to one another all the time.
I am glad that there seems to be a consensus on the need to address the question of Gaelic.
Things were not always this way, and we should remember that.
There was hostility, discrimination and lack of understanding that led to people losing the language that their forebears had treasured.
While recognising the progress that has been made, we must recognise those problems, and we need to learn from the journey rather than presume that victory has been won.
I commend those who continue to put pressure on Government at every level in the fight to sustain their language.
They have been innovative and creative in how they have tried to take the language forward.
They have demanded that the needs of Gaelic-speaking communities be met both in the Highlands and in the cities.
They have understood the power of harnessing Gaelic and its culture to address modern culture by giving the language a modern face in music, song and the arts.
That has not just provided a renaissance in traditional Gaelic culture but enriched that culture and, indeed, all our cultures.
That shows the diversity of cultures that have shaped modern Scotland.
On Ted Brocklebank's point, I think that Gaelic has a richness that Scotland can present to the world.
It provides an economic interest for the tourism industry, which is helped by the fact that we have that diversity.
As the very proud auntie of a nephew who is the Gaelic voice of Charlie in the children's television programme "Charlie and Lola", I know that Gaelic can exist in many places beyond the traditional ceilidh.
We must listen to those who understand the connection between the need to sustain Gaelic and the need to will the means for that to happen.
There is a critical connection between the survival of Gaelic and support for Gaelic-medium education, and at the core of my speech is the recognition that Gaelic's fragility is not accidental and that making it secure cannot be accidental either.
That presents a real challenge to every level of Government about how to act.
This is not a time to be feeble.
I welcome the draft language plan, but I caution the minister not to listen to the quiet impossibilists who sometimes give advice to ministers.
What we need is not assertion or appearance but some guarantees.
The phenomenal progress in Gaelic-medium education and the consequential optimism for the language was due to active political decisions by the previous Administration, which are now being built on, and the courage of local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which now has a Gaelic-medium nursery school, primary school and secondary school.
In particular, we should recognise that the introduction of free nursery places accelerated the development of Gaelic by offering a critical place for Gaelic-medium education that has reached out not only to families in which Gaelic had been lost but, in a wonderful way, to families that had no prior connection with the language.
The minister will acknowledge the pressures that are on local government and the anxieties among equality groups generally about the vulnerability of soft budgets during a time of pressures.
It is understandable that there is an anxiety about culture budgets, education budgets and other budgets that have supported the development of Gaelic, and I urge the minister to recognise the vulnerability of traditional Gaelic culture and how young people are reshaping it.
Support is required at every level.
In my final minute, I want to make one or two points about BBC Alba.
We celebrate the channel's early success, and we recognise its critical role and its potential in sustaining the language.
I commend Alasdair Allan—I am not one who is often gracious in the chamber—for becoming an accomplished Gaelic speaker from a starting point of zero.
The minister is a gracious person, but I regret her ungracious remarks about the public appointment of Alasdair Morrison as chair of MG Alba.
Whatever her views on his politics, I am sure that she recognises his intelligence, energy and abiding passion for his native tongue.
I hope that she will assure us today that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to support BBC Alba, given its potential to normalise Gaelic in our communities.
The minister must recognise that the evident awareness of Scottishness that Gaelic presents is as much about celebrating the differences in our culture as recognising the commonality of some of our traits and characteristics.
This is an opportunity to reaffirm the important role of Gaelic in celebrating what everyone brings to the table and what makes us different and distinct—that is critical to our capacity to celebrate all of Scotland's cultures.
I commend the minister for the consultation on the draft language plan, and I look forward to her continuing energy in supporting this precious language.
It is a language that played a critical part in the soundtrack of my childhood in Glasgow and Tiree.
In my maiden speech in 1999, I made the point that I spoke haltingly in Gaelic—and I speak it even less well now—because of attitudes to Gaelic in the Scotland that I grew up in.
Active decisions were taken to minimise the use of Gaelic and to make no real provision for Gaelic education for the island and Highland diaspora in our cities.
There were many like me who lost the language that they listened to and lived with every day, and there were people such as my grandmother, who through politeness and good manners often spoke in not her first but her second language, believing somehow that she needed to be the person who reached out in order to engage with other people.
During my childhood in Glasgow, the only provision for children like me was to go to interminable Gaelic classes, at which we learned exactly where Mary was—in front of the house, to the side of the house, or on the other side of the house—but which bore no relation to, or gave me any capacity to speak to my family in, the language in which they spoke to one another all the time.
I am glad that there seems to be a consensus on the need to address the question of Gaelic.
Things were not always this way, and we should remember that.
There was hostility, discrimination and lack of understanding that led to people losing the language that their forebears had treasured.
While recognising the progress that has been made, we must recognise those problems, and we need to learn from the journey rather than presume that victory has been won.
I commend those who continue to put pressure on Government at every level in the fight to sustain their language.
They have been innovative and creative in how they have tried to take the language forward.
They have demanded that the needs of Gaelic-speaking communities be met both in the Highlands and in the cities.
They have understood the power of harnessing Gaelic and its culture to address modern culture by giving the language a modern face in music, song and the arts.
That has not just provided a renaissance in traditional Gaelic culture but enriched that culture and, indeed, all our cultures.
That shows the diversity of cultures that have shaped modern Scotland.
On Ted Brocklebank's point, I think that Gaelic has a richness that Scotland can present to the world.
It provides an economic interest for the tourism industry, which is helped by the fact that we have that diversity.
As the very proud auntie of a nephew who is the Gaelic voice of Charlie in the children's television programme "Charlie and Lola", I know that Gaelic can exist in many places beyond the traditional ceilidh.
We must listen to those who understand the connection between the need to sustain Gaelic and the need to will the means for that to happen.
There is a critical connection between the survival of Gaelic and support for Gaelic-medium education, and at the core of my speech is the recognition that Gaelic's fragility is not accidental and that making it secure cannot be accidental either.
That presents a real challenge to every level of Government about how to act.
This is not a time to be feeble.
I welcome the draft language plan, but I caution the minister not to listen to the quiet impossibilists who sometimes give advice to ministers.
What we need is not assertion or appearance but some guarantees.
The phenomenal progress in Gaelic-medium education and the consequential optimism for the language was due to active political decisions by the previous Administration, which are now being built on, and the courage of local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which now has a Gaelic-medium nursery school, primary school and secondary school.
In particular, we should recognise that the introduction of free nursery places accelerated the development of Gaelic by offering a critical place for Gaelic-medium education that has reached out not only to families in which Gaelic had been lost but, in a wonderful way, to families that had no prior connection with the language.
The minister will acknowledge the pressures that are on local government and the anxieties among equality groups generally about the vulnerability of soft budgets during a time of pressures.
It is understandable that there is an anxiety about culture budgets, education budgets and other budgets that have supported the development of Gaelic, and I urge the minister to recognise the vulnerability of traditional Gaelic culture and how young people are reshaping it.
Support is required at every level.
In my final minute, I want to make one or two points about BBC Alba.
We celebrate the channel's early success, and we recognise its critical role and its potential in sustaining the language.
I commend Alasdair Allan—I am not one who is often gracious in the chamber—for becoming an accomplished Gaelic speaker from a starting point of zero.
The minister is a gracious person, but I regret her ungracious remarks about the public appointment of Alasdair Morrison as chair of MG Alba.
Whatever her views on his politics, I am sure that she recognises his intelligence, energy and abiding passion for his native tongue.
I hope that she will assure us today that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to support BBC Alba, given its potential to normalise Gaelic in our communities.
The minister must recognise that the evident awareness of Scottishness that Gaelic presents is as much about celebrating the differences in our culture as recognising the commonality of some of our traits and characteristics.
This is an opportunity to reaffirm the important role of Gaelic in celebrating what everyone brings to the table and what makes us different and distinct—that is critical to our capacity to celebrate all of Scotland's cultures.
I commend the minister for the consultation on the draft language plan, and I look forward to her continuing energy in supporting this precious language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)