Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 29, 2003

Official Report 699KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive's Programme

The first item of business this morning is a debate on the First Minister's statement on the Scottish Executive's programme.

The annual commemoration service at the national war memorial takes place this morning and I preface my remarks by saying that, although I will stay as long as I can to hear the speeches following mine, I will have to leave the chamber at about 10.40. I hope that members will understand.

The partnership agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, "A Partnership for a Better Scotland", together with the statement that the First Minister made yesterday on the Executive's programme for 2003-04, provides a clear, ambitious and radical programme for the second session of the Scottish Parliament. Everything that the Government does will be directed towards delivering the commitments that we have made to the people of Scotland—commitments to encourage and stimulate economic growth, tackle poverty and disadvantage, to improve and sustain our environment and to help all our communities to live securely. Those are the goals that we have set ourselves and the commitments that we are determined to honour.

As the First Minister said yesterday, growing the economy is our top priority. To strengthen public services and to improve the prosperity of all Scotland's people, we need a successful economy. We cannot achieve our social justice goals—better health, improved education, safer communities and the protection of our environment—without economic prosperity. Economic growth is essential if we are to modernise our public services, to increase employment and to generate the wealth to support our people and our communities and, in so doing, to tackle poverty and disadvantage head on.

The challenges facing our economy are complex and require a long-term approach. Not for us the short-term, populist fix; we need a medium to long-term strategic approach. That will involve giving support for innovation and technology transfer to grow high-value and high-skills businesses; working with Scottish businesses to enhance productivity and to improve investment in research and development; and investing in skills and the commercialisation of research.

Crucially, Scotland's future economic success will also depend on our ability to sustain greater entrepreneurial dynamism and creativity. To achieve that, we must support enterprise and responsible risk taking by tackling cultural and social barriers to entrepreneurship. That is why, before the election, the First Minister and I launched the education for enterprise proposals. We want to ensure that every pupil has the opportunity to learn entrepreneurial skills at school; to that end, we shall expand the number of schools involved in the enterprise in education programme from 10 per cent to 100 per cent.

We recognise that Scotland needs the stability of a strong and determined Government and a vibrant Parliament to deliver the change and improvements that people deserve. Our vision is for Scotland to be a place where enterprise can and will flourish, where opportunity exists for all and where our people and our country have the confidence to face the challenges of a global society.

We will use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to help to create conditions for higher growth and to support businesses to grasp the opportunities of the new economy. We value enterprise and shall promote an entrepreneurial culture. We recognise the need to support risk taking as a means of growing the economy for the benefit of all.

We already have in place a clear and effective enterprise strategy, which is contained in the document "A Smart, Successful Scotland". Indeed, in The Herald on 15 May, Alf Young, commenting on the Porter report, "UK Competitiveness: Moving to the Next Stage", which was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said:

"Here in Scotland, you cannot read this Porter study without reflecting that much of his diagnosis is in line with our own executive's Smart, Successful Scotland strategy … he has delivered to the DTI an analysis whose essentials it could have downloaded for free from the Scottish Executive's website."

I have listened with great care to what the Deputy First Minister has said about the economy and I am sure that he knows that the Scottish National Party also thinks that the economy should be the top priority. However, will he set out the Executive's ambitions for economic growth over the next four years? Does the Executive intend to ensure that Scottish economic growth equals the economic growth in the rest of the United Kingdom, if that is higher? Does he accept that our ambition should be to ensure that economic growth in Scotland starts to reach the levels that are commanded by small European countries with which we do not compete at all just now?

Given our exposure to a number of global conditions over which we have no more control than Mr Swinney would have in an independent Scotland, I think that setting such targets on a short-term basis is pointless. I have indicated that we have long-term ambitions in relation to the growth of our economy. That is why we emphasise the importance of productivity.

In that regard, today I was encouraged to read in The Scotsman—not a newspaper that is usually terribly friendly to some of the objectives of the Executive—a story with the headline, "Scotland's economy on brink of recovery". The story reads:

"Experian Business Strategies said Scottish GVA, a measure of output similar to GDP, is set to rise by 1.5 per cent this year. Its forecast is considerably higher than the nil growth of 2002 … By the end of 2004, Experian estimates that Scotland will be beating its long-run average growth rate of 2 per cent. It expects Scots GVA to rise 2.4 per cent next year and 2.8 per cent in 2005."

I accept that a variety of studies by such organisations exists, but I believe that that study shows that there is cause for optimism. Those who usually run down the Scottish economy ought to consider the number of positive things that are taking place.

Will the minister give way?

I have already allowed Mr Swinney to intervene.

We recognise that we will achieve improvement in our growth rates in the medium and long term only by putting in place the kinds of measures that are included in "A Smart, Successful Scotland", not by implementing a quick-fix strategy.

Will the Deputy First Minister judge his success in his job by whether he has improved on the figures that he quotes from The Scotsman or whether he has merely held on to the figures that he believes are to be expected?

Many economies across the world have been in recession recently. Everyone in the chamber wants the Scottish economy to grow, but I believe that that will be done not by taking a quick-fix approach, but by implementing the medium to long-term strategy that is set out in "A Smart, Successful Scotland", which provides a robust framework for addressing—

Our growth has been low for 40 years.

I will give way to Mr Swinney.

I am grateful to Mr Wallace for giving way, as that saves me from shouting from the sidelines. For 40 years, Scotland has had a low trend rate of economic growth. What are the Executive's targets for the improvement of that rate, not over six months or a year, but over the four-year term of this supposed Administration?

I note that Mr Swinney sees his place as being on the sidelines, but I will not comment further on that.

The point that I was making is that we want Scottish growth to improve on its historical rate. None of us can take satisfaction from the fact that it has trailed during the past 40 years. That is why we have put in place the framework that is detailed in "A Smart, Successful Scotland". As Alf Young pointed out, many of the measures that we have been implementing are ones that the report commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry identified as key ways in which to stimulate economic growth.

We want to work with business and the education sector to enhance our skills base. For example, we shall increase the apprenticeship programme to 30,000 places and the budget for higher and further education by 16 per cent by 2006.

We also intend to take advantage of the potential in Scotland for job creation in the green economy. For the past two years, the Executive has been putting in place the foundations on which we believe Scotland can develop a thriving renewables industry. Such an industry has the potential to augment Scotland's manufacturing capacity, to develop new indigenous industries, particularly in rural areas, and to offer significant export opportunities.

Will the Deputy First Minister give way?

I have given way quite a lot already.

We have already seen some 130 new jobs at the Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology Ltd plant at Campbeltown and plans for the development of the Arnish yard hold the prospect of bringing new jobs to the island of Lewis. If Denmark has been able to create more than 16,000 jobs through the development of wind generation, surely a similar potential beckons for us through the development of new marine energy technologies. We have already committed £2 million towards the construction of the marine energy test centre in Orkney and have ambitions for the centre to become the facility for the testing, certification and accreditation of marine energy devices. Marine energy holds a potential from which, with vision and determination—which we in the Scottish Executive have—we can reap environmental benefits and create economic opportunities.

I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for telling us about the Executive's green credentials, which I welcome. The Liberal Democrat manifesto for the 2003 election said that the Liberal Democrats would

"Oppose plans for any new nuclear power stations in Scotland."

However, by the time we come to the partnership agreement, that becomes:

"We will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."

Labour party weasel words have been introduced. That is another sell-out by the Liberal Democrats, who accept that nuclear power is on its way.

Mr Crawford tries to distort words to make a point that does not exist. The words are the very ones that Ross Finnie used in our response to the consultation on the United Kingdom Government's energy white paper. Our position on the development of nuclear power is clear.

It is widely recognised that an effective transport system is central to meeting the needs of business and the travelling public alike. To that end, we are committed to investing in and delivering a modern, efficient and integrated transport system. By the end of 2006, our annual budget for transport will reach £1 billion, 70 per cent of which will be targeted on public transport.

Our partnership agreement identifies a series of specific transport links that the Executive is determined to support, including airport links for Edinburgh and Glasgow, which have been much and long talked of and are now to be delivered; the Borders rail line and other rail developments; the extension of direct air routes; the completion of the Aberdeen western peripheral road; and work to reduce the cost of lifeline air links within, to and from the Highlands and Islands through the suitable use of public service obligations.

To focus on improving delivery in the transport infrastructure and to secure proper co-ordination of national concessionary fares schemes for the elderly, the young and disabled people, we shall consult over the summer on proposals for a new strategic transport authority and publish a white paper before the end of the year.

Our commitment to the environment is a green thread that runs through every aspect of the partnership agreement and will be reflected in the programme throughout the next four years. The partnership agreement made a simple but bold statement:

"We want a Scotland that delivers sustainable development; that puts environmental concerns at the heart of public policy".

I will say more about the detail of that in a moment, but let us remind ourselves why we chose to take that route. Our environment—Scotland's environment—is vulnerable. The consequences of a poor environment are with us now. Global warming—the result of greenhouse gas emissions—is causing climate change. There is also persuasive evidence that environmental problems are a key factor in a range of illnesses, including asthma and cancer. We can see pollution in towns and cities day in, day out.

We have therefore put the environment at the heart of government to improve our health and quality of life and those of our children and our children's children. That is why we will legislate in the first year of the session to introduce strategic environmental assessment, which will ensure that public sector strategies, programmes and plans are properly assessed for their environmental impact as they are developed. That means that Government, local government and public bodies will all have to put sustainability at the heart of what they do.

A green thread runs through other areas of policy, such as our policy for delivering improved public transport. In education and planning, we will ensure that new school buildings—as part of the largest-ever school buildings programme—will meet the highest environmental standards. We will extend home insulation and central heating programmes to improve another 4,000 homes by 2006 and introduce a decent-homes standard that will include an energy-banding system for houses.

The Executive is clear that, to be smart and successful, Scotland must be sustainable. During the first year of the new session, we will introduce legislation on nature conservation that will build on proposals that we published in March. That substantial piece of legislation will introduce a new general duty for public authorities to further the conservation of biodiversity, thoroughly overhaul the sites of special scientific interest system and introduce further reforms of the law on wildlife crime. The water services bill, which is to be introduced later in the year, will safeguard environmental protection and public health. That proposed legislation, together with necessary investment in public water, can only underline our commitment to keep Scottish Water in public ownership.

The partnership programme addresses the challenges that rural, remote and island Scotland faces. We will focus on Scotland's needs in reforming agriculture and fishing policies. This Government is determined to build on the reforms that we have already achieved in the common fisheries policy and to protect Scotland's farmers and crofters, particularly those in our more fragile communities.

As I have said, a sustainable and growing economy is essential if we are to achieve better public services and, in turn, the delivery of high-quality public services—not least in health and education. Improving Scotland's health is central to the welfare of our society. For too many people, opportunities are diminished or lost through ill health. Yesterday, the First Minister outlined a package of reform measures that is designed to make our health service less bureaucratic and more focused on front-line services and on addressing patient needs. Our strategy will also promote good health by introducing a range of measures to encourage safer, healthier lifestyles, by securing improvements in the treatment services for alcohol and drug-related problems, by improving mental health services across Scotland and by systematically introducing free eye and dental checks for all before 2007.

The criminal justice approach to drug abuse has failed miserably, so will the Executive give a commitment to take more money from that budget and spend it on drug treatment and rehabilitation, which is more beneficial not only economically, but socially?

The choice is not an either/or one. We are investing in rehabilitation and in bodies such as the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. However, through using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, we will take money from the criminals and reinvest it in the communities that are most blighted by drug abuse.

In education, we want to ensure that we regain our position as world leaders. We will therefore learn from other countries. We will improve pupils' confidence and attainment by changing the ethos of primary 1, freeing up the curriculum, introducing less formal teaching methods and enabling early professional intervention. With significantly increased teacher numbers, we shall reduce the maximum primary 1 class size to 25.

In a similar vein, to bridge the divide between secondary and primary schools and to increase continuity for pupils, we will increase the number and range of teachers in secondary 1 and enable them to move between secondary and primary. We will reduce to 20 class sizes for English and maths in S1 and S2.

We intend to provide more time for teaching and learning in the classroom by ending the current system of national tests for five to 14-year-olds. Indeed, because we recognise the importance of meeting pupils' needs and realise that the current school curriculum no longer engages the interest of a number of 14-year-olds and older children, we will enable 14 to 16-year-olds to develop vocational skills and to improve their employment prospects by allowing them to undertake courses in further education colleges as part of a school-based curriculum

We attach a high priority to working for a safer Scotland, as the First Minister made abundantly clear. That is why, in the partnership agreement, we talk about reducing crime, reducing reoffending and tackling the causes of crime to make our communities safer places for people to live, work and enjoy their leisure time. That means tackling the blight of crime on communities, individuals and businesses.

In the first session, we delivered record police numbers and we provided new powers for the police and the courts and new protection for the victims of crime. We developed and began to implement a comprehensive new youth crime action plan. However, we acknowledge that there is much more still to do. Therefore, we intend to move quickly to crack down hard on antisocial behaviour, to speed up the courts, to give more power to police officers and to put the interests of the victim at centre stage. We want to build stronger, safer communities in which antisocial behaviour is not tolerated and its perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

A draft Local Governance (Scotland) Bill was published for consultation in February and will be introduced before the end of this year. As promised in the partnership agreement, it will renew local democracy by introducing a single transferable vote system for the next local government elections. It will also reform and modernise voting arrangements by, for example, removing unnecessary political restrictions on standing for election, lowering the age limit for candidates to 18, establishing an independent remuneration committee for councillors and introducing severance and pension arrangements. Those measures will allow more people to stand for election and give communities more choice in their representation.

We have announced a substantial and ambitious programme of legislation for the next year. It includes action on health, education, the economy, the environment, transport and tackling crime and disorder. Including the annual budget bill, this year we are planning to introduce 14 bills that will give effect to key commitments that are set out in our partnership agreement. That legislative programme directly reflects the policies and priorities that we have set ourselves and it will continue to do so throughout the next four years.

I hope that the shared objective of members from all parts of the Parliament is to work constructively for the benefit of the people of Scotland. What we do in the Parliament can make a difference to the lives of ordinary people, to our schools and hospitals and to the other services on which we rely daily. Our challenge is to make that difference. The priorities that are set out in the partnership agreement are robust and radical, but they are realistic. They are the right policies for Scotland and I commend them to the Parliament.

John Swinney has already promised the coalition partners a fair wind to pursue their agenda. The Scottish National Party intends to be positive and constructive about the ideas of others, but I hope that we will meet with some reciprocal acknowledgement that good ideas are not strictly the Executive's prerogative.

On looking through the partnership agreement, I noticed that there was much "supporting" and "encouraging" going on and I can only assume that Cabinet ministers are all to be trained as counsellors. When the "supporting" and "encouraging" are taken out of the partnership agreement, there is a lot less in it than there appeared to be at first.

On good ideas, the Liberal Democrats appear to have been more successful at getting bits of their manifesto into the partnership agreement than they were in getting bits of their policies into their manifesto. It is a pity that the agreement and the programme for government do not include a moratorium on genetically modified crop field trials or anything on the abolition of the private finance initiative, both of which the Liberal Democrat rank and file would have welcomed as much as would the SNP.

The Parliament has limitations and one of those is in dealing with the European Union. The fishing debacle has shown our powerlessness when it comes to exerting any direct influence on European decision making, dependent as we are on an unsympathetic Westminster minister to make the necessary representations. Nowhere in the partnership agreement or yesterday's statement is there any acknowledgement that the EU is now central to our ability to make our own decisions.

Yesterday, when I asked the First Minister about that, I listened carefully to his answer—or non-answer. I was particularly struck by his woeful response to my colleague Richard Lochhead, who directly quoted the very minister who was supposed to be acting on behalf of Scottish fishermen in the recent negotiations. Notwithstanding the First Minister's reluctance to acknowledge Labour's shortcomings while he was on his feet in the chamber, I hope that he will take that matter up with Elliot Morley at his earliest convenience, so that when the issue is next raised in the Scottish Parliament—and it will be—the First Minister will have a rather better answer than he did yesterday.

Yesterday's responses to questions on Europe were indicative of a problem. The EU has a huge impact on what we can do. Sometimes the EU is cynically used as an opt-out on difficult questions. For example, Meacher's recent comments about not having any options on GM products conveniently ignored the fact that Belgium managed to deal with that issue on its own. The First Minister and his Government let Scotland down on that issue for four years and look set to do the same over the next four years.

Arguably, the proposed changes to the European constitution will have a bigger impact than anything that we have seen so far. However, nowhere in the Executive's programme or the partnership agreement is there any recognition that that is the case. I see no difficulty with holding a referendum on the EU constitution although, given Labour's reluctance to hold referenda, I will not hold my breath waiting for the Executive to endorse the idea. However, we in the Parliament should lead the debate in Scotland.

Not everything that emanates from Europe is bad, but all of it is important. I strongly believe that the Executive and the Parliament must bring European issues into the foreground and must be candid about what freedom of movement there is in many important policy areas. Members of the Executive must be far more candid about what they will be permitted to do by their Westminster colleagues. They must be proactive rather than just reactive.

Twice in two days, Roseanna Cunningham has made a point about the possible difficulties that will come up with the European constitution. Does that suggest that the SNP line on Europe is now moving away from the views that its members held previously?

We have been making those points all along, particularly for the past six to 12 months on the fishing industry. We have always said that there are matters about which Scotland should engage directly in Europe. The key issue is that we are not engaging directly in the European debate.

There is also nothing in the programme that addresses the failures of some our key institutions such as Scottish Enterprise, the social inclusion partnerships and Scottish Water. Although I note that there is to be a consultation paper and a water services bill—I hope that that will have some impact on those services—there is little about Scottish Enterprise or the SIPs, despite recent concerns about their effectiveness. Those issues should be addressed.

I will talk about the economy and enterprise. The first sentence of the new partnership agreement says:

"Growing the economy is our top priority."

That is a welcome commitment, which we applaud. However, the people who are making that commitment lack the power to deliver on it. Let us consider the number of economic levers that are controlled by Westminster: income tax; social security; VAT; corporation tax; fuel duties; stamp duty; beer, wine and spirits duties; landfill tax; inheritance tax; aggregates levy; climate change levy; North sea revenues; betting and gaming duties; air passenger duties; and insurance premium tax. What do we in Scotland have? We have the council tax, business rates and the ability to vary the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that Scotland's economy did not grow at all in 2002. I noticed that the Deputy First Minister was keen to cite what seemed to be a slightly favourable independent report. Of course, he ignores all the other less favourable reports. The truth is that Government statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that Scotland's economy did not grow at all in 2002.

Does the member agree with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says that, at some point in the past two years, 60 per cent of world economies have gone into recession? Does she also agree that the underpinning values of the United Kingdom that are set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer act in favour of the Scottish economy?

That statement would have been much more impressive if we had not had four years—and now we are to have another four years—of this Administration promising us heaven on earth with respect to the economy and failing to deliver.

Manufacturing and production figures are down. Almost every other indicator of growth is down. How exactly does the Executive intend to turn that round? The partnership agreement says that the Executive intends to

"use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to create the conditions for higher growth".

I am interested to hear exactly which powers can be used to achieve that and how. What does "support businesses" and "value enterprise" mean in practice? What mechanisms does the Executive intend to use to

"work with the UK Government to maximise the conditions for economic growth"?

Does the Executive intend to bother reporting back to the Parliament on the so-called joint working, or will that joint working just be Westminster letting the Executive know the score?

What does the Executive intend to do to address the low-wage economy that exists in large parts of Scotland? This might come as a surprise to many members, but Perth and Kinross has the lowest average wage of any region in the UK. I see nothing in the Executive's programme that will change that for my constituents or for Scots in general.

In legislative terms, the Executive's commitments boil down to a bill on bankruptcy. As important as that might be, I am underwhelmed at its inclusion in a section dealing with the economy. It looks as if the Executive has laboured mightily to bring forth a mouse.

Ms Cunningham started her speech positively by saying that she would pay tribute to the positive aspects of the Labour-Liberal Democrat agreement. I have put my word checker on and note that so far she has made reference to failures, inadequacies and woeful shortcomings. When will she get round to paying tribute to the skills agenda in which we have invested and which will make a difference to the future of our young people and our economy?

Perhaps the member should have waited until the end of my speech before he made his comments.

The SNP's 1999 manifesto contained several ideas on justice that were not in either the Labour or the Liberal Democrat manifestos but were nevertheless enacted subsequently. Examples of those ideas are drugs courts and the lifetime supervision of sex offenders.

Of course, the Executive was never going to acknowledge that those were SNP ideas, because the acknowledgement of constructive ideas in the chamber goes only one way. It is supposed to go only towards the Executive and never the other way. In the spirit of consensual politics promised by John Swinney, the SNP manifesto offers a few more ideas. How about weekend courts, guys? Let us get moving on that. I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to try not to wait so long before implementing the SNP manifesto this time, because we wasted a lot of time in the past four years while they havered and pretended that they objected to our ideas, when in truth they knew that they were good ones.

I want to mention yesterday's crime statistics, particularly the shocking increase in drugs crime, which we can compare with the bland commitment to expand the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. I am unclear about how that commitment will make the impact required. It is nothing but a pledge recycled from 1999, which at least then included a commitment to double to 200 the number of police officers involved, although that is notably missing this session. We have so far got no further, and it is difficult to imagine how that commitment will make the slightest difference to drug crime.

The partnership agreement states:

"We will put in place an integrated transport system".

Most of the rail proposals appear to be based in the central belt. Quite rightly, the areas that already have the widest choice of public transport links are to get more. However, those areas of Scotland with the poorest public transport provision can look forward to—well, precisely nothing. What is there for them? There is a review of existing bridge tolls and negotiations with a view to ending the discredited toll regime for the Skye bridge. I hope that John Farquhar Munro is not holding his breath on that one.

Improved air links are important, and all very well, but people have to be able to get to the airports in the first place. The real changes in rural areas will come about when there are extensive bus and rail links that make using public transport a realistic option for people in rural areas, which at present it is not.

The document also says:

"We will continue to ensure that bus timetable information is easily available and that bus services offer convenient links between communities and other types of public transport."

That makes it sound as if that happens already, when it does not. It makes it sound as if the Executive will be able to do something about it—I am not sure that it can. If the Executive is serious about that commitment, I invite it to use Perth and Kinross as a pilot.

The Executive will have its work cut out for it. I have letters here on the very issue that might make the Executive think about the reality of what that commitment means. A letter from ScotRail says:

"It would not be practicable for us to vary for the sake of bus connections our train timetables".

National Express says that it takes

"no account of train times when designing the National Express timetables",

and Stagecoach UK Bus says in its letter that

"bus operators are not usually consulted by train operators when timetables change".

There is the question whether bus operators should retime their services as a result of train timetable changes.

The challenge for the Executive is how precisely that attitude will be changed. It hampers integrated transport throughout Scotland. While we are on the subject of public transport, will the Executive now take the opportunity to buy out the ScotRail franchise? That is another idea that it is welcome to take from the SNP.

The opening words of the section on rural issues in the partnership agreement lay bare the failure of the Executive to recognise the serious difficulties facing our rural communities. The Executive is committed to maintaining strong, prosperous and growing communities in rural Scotland, but the reality is that 350,000 people in rural Scotland are believed to be living in poverty. The take-home pay of many low-paid workers in rural Scotland is little more than the amount of money that they would receive if they were on benefits. Eighty-four per cent of Scottish agricultural land qualifies as less favoured. Those are the realities of rural poverty in Scotland, which seems to be ignored by the Executive. The approach to our rural areas should not be one of maintaining the status quo but one of working towards economic growth and regeneration in our rural communities.

There are other areas that can be addressed. Much of what is contained in the section on health is laudable, but the real question is whether the Executive has the ability to deliver. The past four years suggest that the answer is that it does not. In the sphere of education, there are things that we can agree with—and indeed welcome and support—such as the scrapping of league tables and assessment for five to 14-year-olds, the expansion of breakfast and after-school clubs, and free music tuition for young people. However, as I made clear at the outset, the fair wind that we have promised to the aspects of Executive policy that we believe will be good for Scotland does not mean that we will not vigorously oppose those policies that we believe to be harmful.

In education, one of those key areas is the private finance initiative. There is no doubt about the need to invest in rebuilding our schools—I know that from my constituency and from what people tell me elsewhere. However, the building programme that is proposed by the Executive is carried out under a system for which Audit Scotland found that

"The higher cost of capital adds costs of between £0.2 million and £0.3 million a year for each £10 million invested in a project".

How on earth does that constitute good financial management?

It is impossible to address adequately all the areas covered in the partnership agreement and the statement in one short speech. My colleagues will no doubt deal with many other matters. The hallmark of the programme is what is not in it, because what is there is indicative of ambitions stunted by the constraints of devolution. It is an opportunity missed, and what there is suggests that the Executive knows that the limitations of devolution mean that it can have no impact on the really big problems facing Scotland. We should aspire to something far greater than this.

The last thing most people in Scotland expected to hear in the wake of 1 May was, "Carry on as before," or, "Let's have more of the same." Any objective analysis of the election results would have concluded that it was time to think again, to work out what had gone wrong in the first four years of the Parliament and to try to do something about it. Sadly, there is no sign that such an analysis has taken place or that the Scottish Executive has any idea about how to put things right. It is quite the opposite, as Mr McConnell has chosen to pat the team on the back and, in true Mr Grace style, tell them that they are all doing terribly well. Such a failure to recognise the public mood shows how out of touch the Executive is.

Anyone who has spent time talking to voters in the recent election must surely understand that the one thing that voters knew about the Parliament, and which did more than anything else to undermine their faith in it, was the amount of their money—taxpayers' money—that was being wasted, particularly on the parliament building at Holyrood. Mr Stone may shake his head, but he has a heavy responsibility for that. As we urged during the campaign, the sensible response from the new Executive to those concerns would have been a concerted drive to reassure voters that the Executive understood those concerns and was determined to tackle waste and reduce dramatically the cost of government in Scotland.

The one thing that the Conservatives did not tell us during the election was exactly what they would do about the Holyrood project. They talked about the waste, but they did not say that they would do anything about it.

We proposed a programme to reduce the cost by more than £100 million a year.

What about the building?

We would never have built it in the first place and thrown away the hundreds of millions of pounds that the Executive has poured down the drain in the past four years.

We have heard the usual warm words from Mr McConnell that he understands the problem, followed by a failure to do anything meaningful about it, which only makes matters worse, because voters see that the concern is a sham and that they are being fobbed off. All that that does is increase cynicism about politicians and the political process.

The First Minister may be prepared to launch an inquiry into the Holyrood building project, but that is the bare minimum that is required. He still refuses to accept his own and his party's responsibility and culpability for the spiralling cost of the project and the disastrous series of decisions and deceits dating back to 1997 that has brought us to the sorry point we are at today. Until he does so, his crocodile tears about wasted public money will be viewed with understandable cynicism by people in Scotland.

Does Mr McLetchie agree with the Scottish Socialist Party that, given that the root cause of those mistakes emanated from Westminster, Westminster should be picking up the tab for the fiasco of Holyrood?

I rarely agree with the Scottish Socialist Party. In a sense Westminster is picking up the tab, because Westminster levies the bulk of the taxes that finance the Scottish block, from which the money came that has been wasted on the Scottish parliament building.

Why has there been no attempt to make a bold statement that the Executive recognises the mistakes that it has made in the past and intends to correct them? Where, for example, is the commitment in the programme for government to reducing the cost and scale of government in Scotland? Already the First Minister has missed a fantastic opportunity to show that he has learned those lessons and intends to cut government in Scotland down to size. As we know, however, leopards do not change their spots, and the result is that the new Cabinet is even bigger than the old one.

Regaining the confidence of the Scottish people also requires a recognition that, in the previous session, far too much time, effort and money were wasted on discussing things that are irrelevant to the vast majority of people in this country, such as section 28, land reform, fox hunting, fur farming and banning the smacking of children. No one in their right mind could claim that those issues were priorities of the public, yet the public perception was that they were the issues of concern to politicians and so were at the top of the agenda. Against that background, is it any wonder that many people concluded that politicians were out of touch and half the electorate did not bother to turn out to vote?

To be fair, the First Minister occasionally recognises that mood and pays lip service to it. Rarely a speech goes by without mention of his determination to focus on crime, jobs, hospitals and schools. However, when examining the programme for government, I think that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that far too much time in this session will be taken up by discussion of the introduction of proportional representation in local government. Certain Liberal Democrats speak of little else; for them, the single transferable vote is an OCD—an obsessive compulsive disorder. Fortunately, however, those Liberal Democrats are not typical of the population as a whole. To most people, PR is an entirely esoteric question that is of concern to political anoraks but has no impact on their quality of life.

The great claims that have been made on behalf of PR are also starting to look a bit thin, to say the least. Remember all those Liberal Democrats who assured us that it would boost turnout? Now those same people tell us that it will lead to better government at local level. The idea that a voting system determines the quality of administration is simplistic nonsense. I doubt that too many people in Scotland think that government here has improved since devolution, despite what many within these four walls might think.

PR is no panacea and we do ourselves a disservice if we claim that it is. If we fall into the trap of treating it as the most important issue that faces Parliament, we will merely reinforce the damaging impression that we are divorced from reality.

The same is true of the proposed family law bill. I am not opposed to everything in the proposed bill by any means, but we should remember the lesson of section 28 and not get bogged down in potentially controversial reform where there is no pressing need or demand for it. As I have said on numerous occasions, we need to discipline ourselves in Parliament and concentrate on examining fewer bills, but we must give them far greater scrutiny to ensure that they are of a higher quality and are a credit to us.

The waste and irrelevance of the Executive's agenda were contributory factors to the disappointment that so many felt with the fruits of devolution. That disappointment stemmed from a failure to make a difference to everyday lives through a reduction in crime and an improvement in our public services. The overwhelming concern of the Executive should be to take a hard look at the situation, work out why it was so and institute the necessary change. Until we do that, the new devolved settlement will not regain public confidence. There is little evidence that that analysis has been undertaken.

Let us consider crime, on which the record of Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the past few years has been truly pathetic. Crime—particularly violent crime—has risen and far too many of our neighbourhoods and communities are blighted by crime, disorder and the menace of drugs. However, the initial response in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill failed to introduce effective measures to tackle those problems and originally proposed to send 16 and 17-year-old offenders to the children's panel. Is it any wonder that people despair?

It is not just I who thought that the Executive was too soft on crime. Mr McConnell spent most of the election campaign going round the country saying that we had to be much tougher on crime and, particularly, on persistent young offenders. Who had been in power for the previous four years? It is all very well for Mr McConnell to try to pin the blame on Mr Wallace, but I do not recall too much support for our sensible amendments to improve the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, including measures such as the tagging of young offenders which miraculously, and barely three months later, are now to feature in the proposed antisocial behaviour bill. The First Minister's tough talk, therefore, is just a mea culpa for four years of Labour failure to tackle crime and his bluster about locking up parents is simply a smokescreen to obscure the truth. The omens are not good that effective action will at last be taken. The First Minister has so little faith in his new Minister for Justice that he has given responsibility for his proposed flagship antisocial behaviour bill to the Minister for Communities. If the First Minister does not trust Cathy Jamieson to tackle crime effectively, why should we?

We will continue to argue for a far greater police presence on our streets to deter and detect crime, while backing that up with tougher sentences, particularly for drug dealers, and a determination to take persistent young offenders off our streets. Where the Executive introduces sensible measures in line with our proposals, we will support it. However, it has to back up its tough talk with some effective action.

The same is true of policies designed to create the right conditions for economic growth. The record of the past four years in that area has been dismal, with our growth rate consistently lower than that of the United Kingdom. There was a belated recognition of the importance of investment in roads and public transport, but that did not make up for the years of neglect that preceded it.

Years of neglect by the Tories.

Neglect by Labour from 1997 onwards—the record speaks for itself on that point. The record shows that investment in roads in Scotland was far higher in our years of office than it has ever been under Labour.

The Executive's recognition of the fundamental importance of economic growth to raising living standards and improving the quality of our public services is welcome. However, closer inspection of the approach to the economy shows that the lessons of the past four years have not been learned. Sadly, we still have the same old management-speak jargon about the Executive growing the Scottish economy, which is simply a justification for much of the unnecessary intervention that is stifling our economic potential when what we need is exactly the opposite. We need to remove the obstacles in the form of higher taxes and excessive regulations that Governments place in the way of our businessmen and women and which constrain economic growth and development. Until the Executive recognises that and begins to cut the taxes and red tape that hold back our businesses, our economy will continue to underperform. If it admits that the decision to raise the business rate poundage in Scotland was a mistake and takes steps to remedy it while investing more in transport, that would be a welcome sign of a fresh approach, but I will not hold my breath.

I will, however, hold my breath for Mr Morgan.

Mr McLetchie mentioned cutting taxes on business. Will he say which taxes our Parliament has control of that affect businesses in Scotland?

The Parliament has control over water rates, which have soared to a disastrous level. It has control over business rates and it has a tartan tax power, which the SNP wanted to use at one time and which would have penalised many small businessmen for whom income and business tax are the same. The Parliament has powers that it intends to apply in many council areas to levy tolls on people using our roads and entering our cities—all of which will add to the burdens on businesses in Scotland. Are those enough taxes for Mr Morgan?

Sadly, the Executive's policies on health and education have proved to be equally ineffectual and the performance in both those areas has been a severe disappointment.

Our nationalised system of health care is failing all of us. Choice is the preserve of the few when it should be the right of us all. Most of us have to settle for what is on offer rather than what we would choose for ourselves. Despite all the extra spending, which I acknowledge, our health service is failing patients. Fewer patients are being treated and they have to wait longer on longer waiting lists.

Our schools face similar problems. In our one-size-fits-all comprehensive system, which was supposed to be about equality, there is an enormous gulf between the best and the worst-performing schools. Far too many of our children are trapped in poor schools and, overwhelmingly, they are in the most deprived communities, which denies them the educational opportunities that might allow them to improve their quality and standard of life. Standards of discipline in our schools are falling and one in four children leaves school unable to read and write adequately. Mr McConnell and the Executive might promise excellence for all, but the reality is mediocrity or worse for far too many.

The truth is that our monopoly health care system and the local monopolies that operate in education are not working. We need to shake off the complacency and face facts while learning the lesson from countries such as France, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands about how they run their public services. Our health and education services need liberalising reform so that we can continue to guarantee access for all, but free up those systems and decentralise power to allow them to grow and develop without the constant need for direction from ministers for interference. That means putting patients and parents first, by giving them genuine choice and empowering the people who work in those services to respond to them.

The timidity of the programme for government does not inspire much hope. It talks about decentralising reforms—giving those at the front line more say in our health service and devolving more control over its budgets to schools. However, the programme for government does not even go as far as the limited reforms that were contemplated by the Labour Government down south. There is still no mention of foundation hospitals and no determination to extend opportunity and choice to pupils and parents through a major expansion in the number of specialist secondary schools.

Instead, the new Minister for Education and Young People had the brass neck to say that he wants to tackle a discipline problem that has been exacerbated by his own Executive's targets to reduce exclusions. If the minister is serious about tackling that problem, he should scrap those targets and return full control over discipline in our schools to our head teachers. If he were to do that, he would have the whole-hearted support of the Conservatives.

Sadly, Labour will not be given much help in adopting a liberal agenda—or a liberalising agenda—by the Liberal Democrats, who have long ceased to be liberal, having swallowed the social democratic mantra whole. Now that it would appear that Labour has accepted proportional representation, there is nothing to prevent this marriage of true minds from going ahead. That said, no doubt, true to politically correct form, the coalition partners will probably want to call it a civil partnership.

The Scottish National Party is, of course, no better. If it stops talking about independence, it will only make it even more obvious that nothing distinguishes it from Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as they are all cut from the same political cloth.

The programme for government is a rehash; it is more of the same. It will be no more successful the second time round than it was the first time.

I call Duncan McNeil.

No. Scott Barrie is next. I am still writing my speech.

In that case, I call Scott Barrie.

Yesterday the chamber heard the First Minister make his statement outlining the Executive's programme for the coming year. Today we heard the Deputy First Minister echo those comments. Both addresses to the Parliament build on the document "A Partnership for a Better Scotland", which spells out the vision and policies that are required to achieve a better, fairer Scotland over the next four years.

Yesterday, during questions on his statement, the First Minister was asked by several Opposition members why the agreement document did not contain this or that. He was asked why the partnership agreement had only 79 specific words on older people or why it did not address the issue of poverty. Taking the last point first, in his statement yesterday, the First Minister's first commitment, which was made in the opening minute of his speech, was to say that the Executive wished

"to build a Scotland that delivers social justice".—[Official Report, 28 May 2003; c 81.]

The first paragraph of the first section of the partnership agreement sets out:

"A successful economy is key to our future prosperity and a pre-requisite for building first class public services, social justice and a Scotland of opportunity."

To my mind, social justice is all about addressing poverty, as well as inequality and lack of opportunity, which are the issues that underlie poverty whether in relation to health, education or employment. In direct contrast to what some members claimed yesterday, I believe that when Labour talks about social justice, implicit in that—at the heart of it—is the issue of addressing poverty.

Does Mr Barrie agree that it is regrettable that the document to which he referred—14,400 words of it—mentions poverty only three times and inequality once? His own First Minister failed to mention either word in a 40-minute speech. Does that not show the Executive's lack of urgency and lack of desire to tackle the obscene inequality that scars this country?

On the contrary, at the beginning of my speech, I addressed the point that Mr Sheridan made yesterday. If we talk about social justice, that means an attack on the inequalities that we face in contemporary Scotland. A commitment to doing something about them is at the heart of the partnership agreement. Implicit in social justice is an attack on poverty.

The Labour party's manifesto for the election campaign, which was backed by more of the electorate than any of the other parties' manifestos, was a coherent, costed, integrated set of commitments designed so that Scotland would be a stronger, better, fairer place to live in 2007 than it is in 2003. The Labour party manifesto forms the bulk of the partnership agreement. Once the agreement is implemented fully, it will achieve that goal.

The Executive's programme for the next year reflects clearly the people's priorities of health, education and justice. It readily chimes with what I was told on the doorstep and in the high street by my electors in Dunfermline West. I also know that it chimes with what my Labour colleagues were told during the election campaign. It should also chime with what members of other parties, and of none, were told if they chose to listen to their voters.

I am particularly pleased that the Executive is going to progress the themes that were outlined in "Partnership for Care", the white paper that was published earlier this year. The Executive will devolve power to local communities, strengthen public involvement and promote health improvement—all of which will benefit the people of Scotland.

As a general rule, decisions that affect local health provision should be taken by local people within local structures. The national health service must learn to listen better to local issues and concerns that are raised and to involve local people more effectively in the planning decisions that will ultimately shape health provision in their local areas. I acknowledge that that is beginning to happen, not least in my own health board area in Fife, which like others in Scotland has in the past come in for heavy criticism for not effectively involving the general population in the planning process. However, from next month, a series of workshops will be held in every part of Fife. The workshops, which are open to everyone in the kingdom, will examine the next stage of "Right for Fife", the health board's service planning document.

What makes the process different from previous exercises is that the planning of those events has been undertaken not by the health professionals, as occurred in the past, but by ordinary Fifers, some of whom have been some of the sternest critics of the health board to date. I appreciate that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but this new approach shows that Fife NHS Board has begun to learn from past mistakes. I hope that other health boards will also learn in that way.

Since the election, what approaches has Mr Barrie made to the new Minister for Health and Community Care to persuade him that the decision to downgrade the Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline was wrong? What real action has he taken?

Mr Crawford is wrong to talk about the downgrading of the hospital. As I outlined, Fifers are to be involved in the planning of the services that are to be made available at both district general hospitals in Fife. I welcome that.

I am pleased that the quality and consistency of health care will be improved by two specific measures in the proposed health reform bill. The first is the placing of a new duty on national health service boards to co-operate with each other to enable more effective regional planning. That measure is particularly important for constituencies such as mine, where hospital-based services for people in Kincardine, for example, are more likely to be provided by Stirling royal infirmary or Falkirk royal infirmary than by the Queen Margaret hospital in Dunfermline. The second measure is the extension of ministerial powers to intervene as a last resort in the event of service failure, which is a measure that will secure the quality of health care provision. It should never be forgotten that, although services are provided locally, the health service is first and foremost a national health service—one that should deliver for all of the people of Scotland.

I am pleased that before the summer recess a bill is to be introduced for the protection of vulnerable witnesses. For too long, some of the most vulnerable victims have faced the toughest time in the witness boxes of our courts. Although provision exists for young people to be shielded from the accused in court or to give their evidence via a video link, such provision is not always available in every court. In my previous occupation, I experienced the promise of such provision, but found that it was not available on the day that it was needed.

I hope that the proposed legislation will reflect the principles that were contained in the members' bill that Mr John McAllion proposed in the last session of Parliament. I hope that there is agreement that such measures need to be extended to other vulnerable groups, particularly adults with learning difficulties, who at present see their cases not getting to court because it is feared that they will not make credible witnesses once they are subjected to some of the excesses of our adversarial court system.

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 provides greater protection and support for victims, but many people, including me, believe that the act does not extend that support far enough. I am glad that the Labour-led Executive is to return early to the subject and I wish the Minister for Justice well in addressing that matter.

For far too many of our communities, the antisocial behaviour of a small minority is a constant problem. Members have commented on the issue in the past and some—not least my good friend and comrade Johann Lamont—have taken it up vigorously. Antisocial behaviour orders have begun to make small inroads into curtailing the unacceptable behaviour of some people in our communities, and it is right that their effectiveness should be monitored and reviewed and that their scope should be extended, including—where appropriate—to under-16s.

As members pointed out in debates during the last session, Fife has had more ASBOs granted than any other local authority area. I know how grateful communities in my constituency are when sources of so much misery to law-abiding citizens are removed. When the Parliament met in Aberdeen, I mentioned that the number of ASBOs that have been granted does not mean that the propensity towards antisocial behaviour is greater in Fife than it is in other areas; instead, it is a testament to our local authority's determination to tackle the problem.

Few members in this chamber have a greater commitment to the children's hearings system than I have. Indeed, I was proud to be asked to be the main speaker at a civic reception that Fife Council hosted last Friday evening to acknowledge the invaluable work carried out by children's panel members. I still believe and will still argue that, although our system was introduced 30 years ago, its innovative combination of youth justice and child welfare provides a good means of addressing the needs of the majority of young people who are referred to the children's reporter, whether they have committed offences or need care or protection.

However, any child and family social worker will point out that one of the greatest frustrations in working with a family within the hearings system is its current lack of any sanctions that can be placed upon a parent. Section 1 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 might mention parental rights and responsibilities, but it provides no legal locus for attempts to make a parent exercise such rights and responsibilities over a child. The only option that is open to a children's hearing is to place a young person on a supervision requirement; the panel can take no action against a parent, even if they are deliberately acting against the interests of their child.

Of course, parents who find it hard to cope or are faced with a youngster beyond their control must receive appropriate help and assistance from the statutory agencies. However, I am pleased that, for parents who refuse to assist their child appropriately despite any help that might be offered, it is planned that parent orders will be introduced as a last resort through the civil courts and will require parents to act in their child's best interests. Such orders would be based on a parent's actions or inaction, and would not depend on the actions of their child. Such an initiative will place responsibility exactly where it belongs, and I commend the Executive for taking it.

What measures will the Executive take against parents who just will not comply and who turn their back on any representations that are made to them?

I assume that, because we are talking about a civil action, the civil courts will determine the matter appropriately, and will deal with people as they would deal with anyone who disregarded any other civil action.

As for the proposed local governance bill, it should be remembered that there is more to modernising local government than merely changing the electoral system. For far too long, local councillors have not been adequately remunerated or rewarded for their years and even decades of public service. As a result, I am glad to hear that there will be a new and comprehensive package for our elected councillors, many of whom have sacrificed careers or opportunities for promotion in order to serve their local communities. I wonder whether, in advance of the establishment of a specifically legislated remuneration committee for councillors, the Executive will consider setting up a small, short-life working party to carry out appropriate background work and ensure that there is real progress on this long-overdue reform.

I was also pleased that the First Minister's statement contained a commitment to remove unnecessary restrictions on people who want to become involved in local government. I hope that such a step will also mean the removal of the political restrictions that were introduced by the Tories at Westminster on many people who work in local government. Those restrictions were no more than a spiteful measure and, like the misconceived section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, should be consigned to the legislative dustbin.

This partnership agreement is designed to deliver a better, stronger and fairer Scotland by 2007. The legislative programme for the next year builds on work that has already been done and begins that process towards 2007. It will make a difference and will be delivered.

Just as I read the partnership agreement with interest, so I listened with interest to the First Minister's statement yesterday. However, it was interesting not so much because of the detail that it contained—although that was obviously of interest and I will refer specifically to some of it—but because of its overall philosophy. After all, the statement indicates the Executive's idea of the sort of Scotland that we are trying to create.

I took careful note of when the First Minister began his statement: it was 14:07 by the clock. It took him until 14:20 precisely—that is, 13 minutes—before he mentioned the word "environment". When we add that to the news that his ministerial team does not include a dedicated minister for the environment and that the Transport and the Environment Committee has been disbanded and its responsibilities divided between two other committees, I wonder just how visible his green thread will be in the grey fabric.

The First Minister began by talking at length about the need to grow the Scottish economy. Growth is fine if the right things are growing. However, if the Executive has its way, what exactly will grow will be a very mixed bag from a Scottish Green Party perspective. It is fine that public transport is set to grow; however, the number of motorways will also grow, which makes a nonsense of the claim that there is a green transport policy. I should also point out that, although there have been some eloquent speeches about greenhouse gases, climate change and the Executive's commitment to renewable energy, all those commitments centre on generating electricity from renewable sources, and electricity takes up only 20 per cent of our energy use. Transport takes up—

Will the member give way?

Be my guest.

The member has just referred to the effect of motorways on the environment. Does she think that the M77 extension between the M8 and the A77 has improved environmental conditions for the many people in Glasgow who were subjected to slow-moving traffic and the fumes that were emitted?

No, I do not think that. Furthermore, I do not think that the proposed M74 extension will improve conditions either. Indeed, it will cost more and will be a considerably greater waste of money than the new Parliament building. I thank Mr Gallie for his point.

As I was about to say, transport accounts for a large proportion of the 80 per cent of energy use that is not electricity related.

According to the partnership agreement, recycling is set to grow by a pathetic amount—25 per cent by 2006 and 55 per cent by 2020—which will still leave us at the bottom of the European recycling league tables. Those amounts are woefully modest by European standards. Waste production will also grow; certainly, there is no target for waste reduction. I looked through the agreement carefully and could not find one. The First Minister stated that the Executive valued enterprise above all and I fear that sustainability will be sacrificed for short-term growth.

I have already mentioned targets. Although there should be waste reduction targets, none has been set. Likewise, the Executive continues to fight shy of targets for organic food production, despite their benefits to the environment, rural jobs and consumer choice. Furthermore, although I looked hard, I could not find a target for traffic reduction. The First Minister's eloquent words have not been backed up by any proposals for action.

Targets have been set for what might be termed the softer areas. For example, I want to examine the health content of the First Minister's statement, as it is an area where we might find it salutary to stand back and consider the overall philosophy behind and direction of Government policy.

The NHS has suffered for years from not knowing where it is heading. I do not blame the Executive for that situation; it started with the reorganisations of the Thatcher era. The trouble with those changes in the NHS was not just the nature of the so-called reforms—which were awful—but the fact that staff had no idea where they were heading. We should never underestimate the value of the vision thing. People do not feel secure if they are proceeding blindly, at speed and completely unaware of their ultimate destination. Successive Governments have never succeeded in restoring staff morale in the NHS; frankly, their approach seems to have been designed to do the reverse.

It is easy to set targets in the NHS, and I would not quarrel with the principle that patients should expect and receive an acceptable standard of service. However, it is not enough for the Executive simply to decide on a target and then tell the public services that they have to meet it. The services must be resourced to ensure that they do so. The trouble comes when a target is set and health boards are simply exhorted to meet it; the boards in turn exhort the senior management of their trusts, who exhort their departmental heads and so on. It is all exhortation and no support. Staff at all levels simply feel put upon and pressured.

Similarly, measures intended to improve standards, such as appraisal and revalidation, should be supportive and helpful to staff, but in the present climate they are simply seen as threatening. I have worked in the NHS for 30 years. I will not say that there were not problems when I started—of course there were. Pay was low and hours were long, but people felt valued. Now they do not, and I am afraid that, until that changes, recruitment and retention of staff in the NHS will remain a major problem.

The situation is the same in education. I have serious concerns about the prospect of ministerial interventions in failing schools, because I worry that failure will be measured by some league-table, bean-counting measure rather than by taking into account genuine staff endeavours. I am concerned about the philosophy that education should be all about enterprise. What happened to learning, knowledge and possibly even the acquisition of wisdom?

I am also concerned, as is my colleague Patrick Harvie, about the underlying attitude to young people that is evident in the partnership agreement. We should see our young people as an asset, not a threat; they will be providing our community care one day. The First Minister said that he wanted to put respect for others back into communities. Perhaps I could respectfully suggest that children and young people might best learn respect by being shown it. A smart, successful Scotland must become a smart, successful, sustainable Scotland, but it must also be a caring, compassionate Scotland.

If Edmund Hillary and his expedition had shown a similar lack of ambition and vision 50 years ago today to that displayed by the Executive's programme, they could hardly have conquered a molehill, never mind climbed Mount Everest. The truth of the matter is that the Executive's strategy document lacks ambition, lacks vision and simply represents a regurgitation of the failed Thatcherite Reaganomics and the trickle-down economic theory that has failed not only the developed world but also the underdeveloped world for the past two and a half decades.

Will Mr Sheridan accept an intervention?

If Brian Monteith could give me a chance to get into the first minute of my speech, I would then gladly take an intervention.

The theory that runs through the document is encapsulated by the First Minister's statement yesterday, repeated by the Deputy First Minister this morning, about entrepreneurship, the importance of enterprise and how we must forget about education in schools and just turn out as many businessmen and businesswomen as possible. In his statement yesterday, the First Minister said:

"there is nothing more important to us than growing the Scottish economy. Scotland must generate more wealth to fund and resource excellence in our public services."—[Official Report, 28 May 2003; c 82.]

What that fails to address is the fact that we already have masses of wealth that deserves to be redistributed.

What the Executive document fails to do is to address the need for redistribution of our existing wealth.

I was interested to hear Mr Sheridan say, in what was no doubt a Marxist analysis, that the Executive is essentially being Thatcherite. Would not he agree that both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were tax-cutters, and that Gordon Brown and Jack McConnell are in fact tax-raisers, given that 72 taxes have risen since 1997 under the Labour Government and the Executive?

I would have expected Brian Monteith to be a wee bit better informed. He may remember that for nine years under Mrs Thatcher's Government the top rate of taxation in the UK was 63 per cent. Unfortunately, new Labour is less willing to tax the rich and wealthy than even Mr Monteith's glorified Mrs Thatcher was. The truth of the matter is that Thatcher and Major delivered in this country a great deal of darkness and inequality, which has unfortunately now been surpassed according to the Office for National Statistics, which reported only last week that inequality under new Labour is greater than the inequality generated under Thatcher. That is why I referred to the Executive's strategy as Thatcherite Reaganomics. It is a trickle-down theory and a philosophy that will not deliver anything like the social justice that some members on the Labour benches pretend to be concerned about.

Tommy Sheridan said in the past that he did not believe in companies making profits. That statement was then changed to say that small businesses should be allowed to make profits. Could he tell members just how successful a business has to be before it is nationalised?

The point that was made before—I am sure that Rhona Brankin heard it, although she may want to ignore it—was that 99 per cent of Scottish business is small business. The problem is that 1 per cent of big business runs and controls our economy and drives that economy on the basis of profit first and last. We are saying that the big business interests in the economy, the manufacturing concerns and the utilities of Scotland should not be owned and controlled on the basis of profit, but owned and democratically controlled on the basis of the provision of service first and foremost. Let us give the biggest boost possible to the small business community here in Scotland.

The rub of the matter is that members on the Executive and Tory benches—even those who are concerned about poverty—would have us believe that the only way in which we can tackle poverty is by creating more wealth. Those with genuine social concern believe that if we redistribute our existing wealth, putting money in the pockets of ordinary men and women in Scotland, they will spend it. When they spend it, that generates more growth in our economy and more wealth. If members examine the economic facts across our world today, they will see that the most successful economies are those with lower levels of inequality. That is why we have to tackle inequality in order to arrive at greater economic growth, and the strategy document illustrates the failure of the Executive to use even its limited powers to do that.

We in the Scottish Socialist Party believe that, in order genuinely to transform Scotland, we must have an adult country and a proper, mature country with control over all of its economic affairs. We desire and will campaign for an independent socialist Scotland, but in the meantime, let us use our limited powers to the maximum. Let us change the unfair council tax system for a start. Let us introduce a personal income tax system that taxes people according to their ability to pay, so that the wealthy and well-paid in this chamber pay more and the pensioners and ordinary workers in Scotland pay less. When they pay less, they will have more money in their pockets to spend on goods and services in order to grow our economy and create more wealth by redistribution of existing wealth.

That is the failure of the Executive's strategy. It does not address the need to redistribute wealth, and it does not address the fact that 40 per cent of the adult poor are now in employment. It is no good talking about the lowest unemployment for decades. If someone takes a low-paid job, they go from being the unemployed poor to being the employed poor. That is why we must tackle the low-wage culture, and that is why we in the public sector need to use our limited powers to introduce a decent minimum living wage with a shorter working week. That will make the public sector more attractive for those who work in our hospitals and schools. The nursery nurses have gone on strike today and yesterday because they are woefully underpaid, and there is absolutely nothing in the Executive document that will address or tackle low and inadequate pay in the public sector.

The problem with the Executive strategy is its lack of ambition and its lack of desire to tackle inequality. We will continue to fill in those gaps over the coming four years by proposing policies that do tackle poverty and inequality.

I am pleased to support the programme for government and to take this opportunity to congratulate our Liberal colleagues on signing up to a partnership document that so faithfully reflects the Labour manifesto.

I am sure that the constituents of Greenock and Inverclyde will be encouraged by the pledge that they will benefit from the economic growth in which all Scotland will share.

I look forward to delivering, through the agreement, the planned regeneration of

"communities where there are persistently high levels of unemployment."

I hope that we take advantage of the opportunities that lie along the A8 in my constituency.

It goes without saying that the measures to crack down on crime and to build safer, stronger communities cannot come soon enough for the decent, hard-working families that it is my privilege to represent.

I look forward to the publication of the proposed legislation to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. I ask the critics and doubters to understand the fear of the elderly who are frightened in their homes and are frightened to go outside.

Mr McNeil mentioned attempts to tackle antisocial behaviour. Can he tell my why, since the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders, Labour-controlled Inverclyde Council has refused to use them to try to bring about some decency and calmness in the areas that he talks about? His own colleagues refuse to use the legislation that the Parliament passed.

Many councils throughout Scotland have found it difficult to use antisocial behaviour orders. That is why we will make it easier for them to use the orders and we will extend the orders to cover under-16s who cause problems in our communities.

I ask the critics and doubters to understand the anger of hard-working people who have had their property vandalised. Finally, I ask the doubters to give proper consideration to the real victims of youth crime: young people who have their education disrupted, who are bullied, assaulted and robbed in our streets.

I will focus the remainder of my remarks on the health service. I welcome much of what the programme has to say. It is good news that—as the coalition document states—the Executive wants to

"devolve power to the lowest level."

It is good news that national health service reform and the establishment of community health partnerships are on the agenda. It is also good news that community-based centres and hospitals are to be supported and that artificial health board boundaries will be able to be examined where necessary. Taken together, I hope that those measures signal a commitment from the Scottish Executive to halt the march towards centralisation of services in the NHS. That is not an easy task.

We must address several factors, which I have been trying to address over the past four years. The impact of the European working time directive, the agreement on junior doctors' hours and the move towards sub-specialisation are making it difficult, if not impossible, to deliver services in hospitals in my constituency and throughout Scotland. That limits local access and forces people to travel further for treatment. Although I am in no way against improving working conditions for staff in the hospitals, I ask myself what other business or public service would cease to provide a service based on rules, guidance or agreements with the work force. I can think of no service that would do that.

Will Duncan McNeil give way?

I am sorry; I have almost finished.

In my constituency, the Rankin maternity unit is under continued threat because of junior doctor cover. Although sterling efforts are made to plug gaps, such problems are being used to centralise services. If we do not tackle the issue, with the royal colleges and others, I fear that our ambitions for the health service in Scotland will not be realised.

There is a great deal to welcome in the programme for government and in the partnership agreement. The objectives of growing our economy, improving public services and strengthening communities will attract widespread support, but unity around policy objectives does not absolve the Opposition from its responsibilities. We have a responsibility to ask hard questions. How do we grow our economy without the important powers to compete? How will better growth—even if it can be achieved—result in greater resources for our public services when our Parliament's funding depends not on our national wealth but on a block grant decided in Westminster?

We also have a responsibility to scrutinise the detail of all the proposals and to monitor whether the policy initiatives have the desired effect. For example, we must monitor whether the policies that were outlined yesterday on health result in shorter waiting times for patients; the latest statistics that were released this morning show that all previous initiatives have failed abysmally to do so. The SNP will not shirk from those responsibilities.

We will work to ensure that our Parliament also looks outwards. I will expand on Roseanna Cunningham's remarks about the future of Europe. I make it clear—for Phil Gallie's benefit—that the SNP is pro-Europe, but we are also pro-Scotland within Europe. Developments that are taking place right now on the European stage will have lasting implications for the governance of our country and a profound impact on our lives. The fundamental decisions that are taken on the EU constitution about areas where states are willing to pool sovereignty and those in which they want to retain national control will redefine what it means to be independent for existing member states and, in future, for Scotland. In the here and now, those decisions will determine in no small measure the ability that we have to conduct our devolved responsibilities in Scotland. For all those reasons—and others—we cannot afford to be bystanders in the process. We must exert influence now as the constitution takes shape.

The United Kingdom's agenda is pretty clear: it wants to resist the development of a common foreign affairs and defence policy while it is happy to allow control of national resources, such as fisheries, to rest with Europe. We must ask ourselves whether we are happy with that, or whether it would better suit Scotland's interests and priorities to have those priorities reversed and turned on their head. We must have that debate.

We also have a duty to debate what we want Scotland's relationship with Europe to be. As is the case now, notwithstanding any arrangements that are made for consulting regional Parliaments, member states will be the component units of the EU and the collective decision makers on all matters of policy, post-constitutional change. That leaves devolved Scotland in the position of being represented on vital issues—many of which are devolved to this Parliament—by the UK Government, whose interests may or may not coincide with ours. Is that the best arrangement for Scotland in the new Europe?

It is worth noting that, post-enlargement, 70 per cent of member states will have populations of fewer than 10 million. If Cyprus, Malta and Slovakia can have seats at the top table, why cannot Scotland? That question is worth asking.

My plea, at the start of the second session of Parliament, is this: let us move away from the conflict between the SNP and Labour, which sometimes masquerades as a debate about the future of our country, and engage genuinely and honestly in a discussion about the place in the world that we want our Parliament and our country to have. I believe that if we start from there and work backwards we might at long last start to get it right.

At the start of the second session of the Scottish Parliament, it is important that we reflect on some of the lessons of the recent election. In particular, all parties should reflect on the low turnout, which should be a concern to everyone in the chamber who believes in democracy. The lesson appears to be that after the first session of the Parliament, the people of Scotland are not yet convinced that we have made the difference in their lives that they wish us to make. However, I still believe that we have the opportunity to do that over the next four years.

When we established the Parliament after the referendum in 1997, there was an enormous feeling of hope and optimism about what the Parliament could achieve. I believe that over the next four years it is our duty to try to reconnect with that feeling of hope and optimism. If we do so, we can start to reconnect with the people and ensure that they participate in democracy more in the future.

I speak in support of the Executive's programme, as outlined by the First Minister yesterday and the Deputy First Minister today. I do so on the basis mentioned by my colleague Duncan McNeil that the Labour manifesto, on which I fought the election, concentrated on the key issues that the Parliament should deal with: growing the Scottish economy, improving public services and tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. I also do so on the basis that that manifesto is extensively replicated, and has been enhanced by some of the issues that our Liberal Democrat colleagues have brought to the table, in the programme for government that has been agreed.

I also believe that the legislative programme and the spending priorities that have been outlined can make the difference for the better that is essential if we are to reconnect the Scottish people with the Parliament. I will touch on a couple of those priorities. The emphasis on growing the economy has to be the correct emphasis. We will work in partnership with the Westminster Parliament and colleagues throughout Europe, but we can also improve Scotland's economic outlook through improving skills in the further and higher education sector by increasing the budget for that sector by 16 per cent. By promoting and supporting the excellent research that already takes place in our universities, we can develop the skills of the Scottish people far more and ensure that we are able to compete internationally.

One of the most effective ways in which the Parliament can contribute to economic growth is through the way in which we develop our infrastructure, particularly our transport infrastructure. I welcome the commitment to delivering the programme that was outlined by Iain Gray prior to the election, which involved delivering rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports; reopening rail lines such as the Airdrie to Bathgate line; redeveloping Waverley station; and completing the central Scotland motorway network. However, I offer a piece of advice to our new Minister for Transport. One of the key drivers of the railway aspect of the programme will be his taking a grip of the railway industry early on. Due to the problems that that industry has experienced, it has not been effective in recent years in delivering major rail infrastructure programmes. If we are to have any chance of delivering on the transport programme, he will need to take a grip of the rail industry quickly. I wish him well in that task, and I will support him in the Parliament in any way that I can.

I turn to one of the public services in which reform through the programme for government is essential: the national health service, to which my colleague Duncan McNeil referred. It is important that far greater emphasis is put on improving lifestyles and diets. Far too many of us add to the risk of disease later in life through our lifestyle choices. Through the series of measures that are proposed in the partnership agreement, we can start to make a difference in the years ahead.

I particularly welcome the proposed NHS reform bill and the Executive's commitment to removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy from the NHS. That will make the NHS more effective in delivering health improvements.

Extra resources are going into the NHS, but people on the ground are not yet experiencing the improvements that we wish them to experience in their day-to-day contact with the health service. In particular, I emphasise—in reference to the question that I asked the First Minister yesterday—that it is essential that we get front-line practitioners and the public more closely involved with decision making in the health service. Far too often, decisions affecting the delivery of health services have been made at a senior level in the NHS without any genuine engagement with the public. I would like the Minister for Health and Community Care and the First Minister to drive forward that issue even before the proposed NHS reform bill is published.

The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament face major challenges in the years ahead to prove that we can make a difference to the lives of the people whom we were elected to represent and to ensure that the Parliament is seen as relevant. However, I am confident that, if we deliver on the aims that are outlined in the partnership agreement and the Executive's programme, we can reconnect with the public and start to rebuild the hope that Scottish people felt back in 1997.

The delivery of the Executive's programme depends, in the longer term, on the powers that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Those responsibilities are defined well in the Scotland Act 1998 and have been relatively uncontested, except by the nationalists who—quite rightly—see their objectives taking precedence over them and, as we have heard today, by Tommy Sheridan. The First Minister yesterday confirmed his belief that no further constitutional change is desirable. I agree with that, especially given the dissatisfaction that we all came across in the recent general election campaign over the performance of the Parliament in its first session. That dissatisfaction was well recognised by the First Minister during the campaign, and he frequently referred to the fact that the Parliament and the Executive had to do better.

Yesterday, Mr McConnell accused David McLetchie of regurgitating old complaints. Undoubtedly, there is an element of truth in that. Such regurgitation is inevitable when the Executive has failed to address shortcomings that David McLetchie has highlighted previously. It could also easily be shown that that was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as Mr McConnell's comments ran rich in aspiration that was founded on promises made by the previous First Ministers, Dewar and McLeish, which ultimately failed to bear fruit.

Phil Gallie talks about promises failing to bear fruit. He earlier asked a question relating to the M77. On the basis of information from the greater Pollok social inclusion partnership, I can confirm that no new businesses have been generated as a result of the construction of the M77 in the greater Pollok area. Can he tell me how many new jobs and businesses have been created in Ayrshire through the construction of the M77?

Jobs have come under great pressure under this Administration. We have seen a loss of manufacturing and production jobs; however, I do not link that to the M77. The point that I was making was that there has been a massive environmental improvement for people who live on the south side of Glasgow thanks to the provision of the M77.

There seems to be a change of emphasis in the programme that has been published by the Executive—a change that has perhaps come about through Labour's recognition, at last, of the misery that is caused to many people by the antisocial and criminal activities of the few in our society. During the previous session, Conservative members repeatedly asked for those issues to be addressed, and we welcome the intent that is now stressed.

We are not surprised that the First Minister has removed a Liberal influence from the justice portfolio. It is a pity that that took so long, especially considering the crime statistics—which were held back until after the election and released only yesterday. The statistics show that the number of reports of rape has increased by 20 per cent; that the incidence of drug offences has increased by 12 per cent; that the number of robberies has increased by 17 per cent; and that the number of violent attacks has increased by 20 per cent. That is a shameful situation after four years of the previous Executive's administration of Scotland's affairs.

We are, however, surprised that the First Minister has replaced Jim Wallace with Cathy Jamieson, who is not known for having anything other than hard left views. I would argue that her view is compassionate towards the perpetrators of crime rather than towards the victims of crime.

I will give way in a moment.

Nevertheless, when a poacher turns gamekeeper the results can sometimes be very good. Perhaps that is why Jack McConnell saw Cathy Jamieson as the best option that was open to him.

I was not expecting what I think was a compliment from Mr Gallie. I was going to point out that the voters of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley have clearly chosen me as a better option than him. However, that would have been a cheap point to score, following the example that was set by my colleague Ms Curran yesterday.

Does Mr Gallie accept that it was made perfectly clear last year that the crime statistics would be published in May this year, following the Scottish Parliament elections, and that people would have known that for a considerable time if they had been paying attention?

That might have been the stated intention, but it would have been interesting if we had had the statistics at the time of the election for use as a debating point. With respect to Cathy Jamieson's other point, I am delighted that 28 per cent of the voters in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley voted for the Conservative candidate, many of them for the first time. She should look to her laurels in the future because the Tories are in there and battling. However, it would have taken a major swing for us to have won Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. If I had won that seat, I doubt that there would have been many of Cathy Jamieson's colleagues on the Labour benches.

The main point that I want to make relates to my concern over the effect of the European convention on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I believe that it would have an immense effect by reducing the number of issues with which the Scottish Parliament could deal.

For more than 30 years, many who are now members in the chamber attempted to bring about the establishment of a Scottish Parliament to give Scots some rule over their affairs. I must concede that I was not one of those people, but many who are now members had the ambition to establish a Scottish Parliament. The European convention threatens all that. Signing up to the convention could threaten the Scottish Parliament's powers in almost every area in which we are involved. In a constructive vein, I ask the Executive to address the issue by giving every minister the task of considering those aspects of the European convention's proposals that would affect their brief. Ministers should consider the proposals constructively and try to determine precisely how they would affect us. Let us not go on fears and promises but on facts. I believe that the Executive should include my suggestion in its programme for government.

The issue is one for the Parliament as well as for the Executive. The Parliament's subject committees should consider the convention to assess how the Parliament's powers might be diminished if it were signed up to. Now is our opportunity to do that. Ultimately, only Westminster will have the power to address the matter, but it is important that the First Minister and the Executive are able to give informed comment on the issues as they affect Scotland and the Scottish Parliament.

It is an honour to make my maiden speech in the Parliament and to do so on behalf of the people of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. My constituency is as diverse as it is beautiful, stretching from the proud Midlothian town of Penicuik to beyond St Mary's loch, and its cultural heritage is renowned across the globe. As I look forward to a summer of local festivals, which starts tonight with the Penicuik hunter and lass festival, I am privileged to be a standard bearer for my area in the Parliament.

I also pay a brief tribute to my predecessor, Ian Jenkins. Few MSPs made as human a mark on the Parliament as he did. I know that many new colleagues are honoured, like me, to count Ian as a friend. I will not match his pithy contributions in the chamber, nor his command of Shakespeare, but I will seek to honour his name by being a local representative who is based in, and committed to, the constituency.

Will the member take an intervention?

I would appreciate it if the member would be so kind as to not intervene in my maiden speech.

Our debate today is on the Scottish Executive's programme, which addresses the many difficulties that my area faces and to which it has had to respond over recent years. Its economy has been stricken by the decline in manufacturing and electronics and in the great Borders industries that the River Tweed has sustained for centuries: farming and textiles. Our wages are among the lowest in Scotland, our growth is lower than the Scottish average and our infrastructure is poor. Too many of the young people who benefit from the high standard of education that they receive in the area leave and do not return. Creating opportunities for our young people through training and job creation are, rightly, priorities in the programme for Government, as is improving infrastructure, along with a commitment to broadband and the construction of the Borders railway. Training, skills, vocational education and apprenticeships will all give our youngsters opportunities, so I am pleased that those areas are prominent in the programme.

Although I am aware of the difficulties that my area faces, I am proud of its achievements. I celebrate our cultural heritage, our entrepreneurialism and our creativity. Within 5 miles of my home in Galashiels is Lochcarron of Scotland, the world's largest supplier of tartan, which is seen on the most prestigious catwalks. There is also Peri-dent, which supplies 60 per cent of the United Kingdom's dental floss, and Lindean Mill Glass, which makes some of the most stunning glassware that is retailed in Tiffany's in New York. Those companies have nothing in common other than that each is committed to the highest quality, which is a word that I wish to be synonymous with the Borders and Scotland.

I want the partnership agreement to ensure that the Borders and Penicuik have the most qualified students in Scotland because the area has the highest quality primary and secondary education and the highest quality vocational opportunities for teenagers; that it has the highest quality of life because our health service focuses on health improvement and on cutting waiting times; and that it has an economy that is of the highest quality because we have the infrastructure that we were denied for too long, better roads and a railway that will serve the Borders and, eventually, beyond.

I am proud that the predominantly Liberal Democrat partnership agreement includes all of that and I am proud to support it today.

I believe that the programme for government that is being debated sets out many principles that, when subjected to robust scrutiny by our committees and back benchers, can only be improved on and which will undoubtedly lead to many policies that will deserve the Parliament's support. However, I am disappointed that the partnership agreement does not make tackling poverty, inequality and deprivation its top priority, although I acknowledge that much of the action that is proposed in it will work towards that aim. As I said yesterday, I hope that all policies will be proofed for their impact on poverty, deprivation and inequality as thoroughly as they will be for their environmental impact.

Coalition government is never ideal and my own views on the subject have been well recorded over the past few weeks, but I think that it is now time to look forward to the job of governing Scotland. I am pleased that we have a comprehensive and strategic programme in front of us today that we can build on. Obviously, the debate makes it possible to focus on any part of the programme, although it is difficult to limit that within a short speech. I want to concentrate on higher and further education because the measures to be introduced will have a particular significance within my constituency. Student finance is a major issue, of course—I welcome the commitment to having no top-up fees—but it is not the only issue and I want to consider others.

The partnership agreement focuses on various courses of action but primarily on increasing the higher and further education budget by 16 per cent by 2006. I unequivocally welcome that measure, but I must say that in my constituency the local college has found itself in a situation whereby the revenue that is currently provided by the Scottish Further Education Funding Council does not stretch to cover staffing costs, which make up 75 per cent of the total costs. I ask the Executive to make it clear where the additional money is to be directed and to scrutinise carefully the levels of funding that individual institutions will receive.

I welcome the Executive's proposals to merge the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council, and to encourage acknowledgement by business and education providers of the Scottish credit and qualification framework.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

A recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to follow complicated paths within higher education and often find that the transition between further and higher education is problematic. That can lead to their foregoing the opportunity to progress to more advanced courses. A relevant point is whether higher national certificate and higher national diploma courses should count towards university degrees. If we are to improve accessibility and effectiveness in further and higher education, we must identify the best practice that exists between some further and higher education institutions and make a concerted effort to foster a more holistic and cohesive solution to the problem of transition.

The Rowntree report also found that students from disadvantaged backgrounds were more likely to reduce prematurely their level of participation in education. I ask the Executive to reconsider the current system of funding in Scotland, which supports the recruitment of students but does not give incentives to institutions to support, and increase the retention of, students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

From a local perspective, I welcome the plans for greater transparency within the sector, particularly the application of the Nolan principles in the appointment of principals. I hope that the proposals will prevent situations arising such as that which arose in my constituency last year when, after a critical report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, a college board was able to appoint a new principal without the position being advertised either internally or externally. Surely in any education institution in which public money is being spent it is essential that appointment processes are mindful of the need for proper procedures to ensure openness, accountability and the observance of equal opportunities. That should apply also to the appointment of board members. The right to refer to an ombudsman will have a positive impact on levels of accountability. My dealings with constituents lead me to welcome that measure, as well as the fact that it will improve student rights.

I am encouraged by many of the Executive's proposals. However, although the promise to merge the higher and further education funding councils makes sense in terms of cutting red tape, it will not, unfortunately, result in a bonfire of those particular quangos. Democratising FE by giving management back to councils or joint boards or by establishing a new executive agency would ensure application of the Nolan principles and would allow standardisation of salaries and conditions of service for staff. It would also deliver the more cohesive approach to further and higher education to which I alluded earlier.

Such an approach could allow the Scottish further education service seriously to strive for excellence. Resources that are currently employed in supporting 42 separate infrastructures for 42 separate colleges could instead be invested in the delivery of high-quality education and training for our Scottish students. I ask the Executive seriously to consider that issue as part of the proposals for further and higher education that are included in the partnership document. I do not want to take anything away from those proposals, which are strong and are beginning to move us in the right direction. However, I wish that they moved us that bit further.

I begin by thanking the people of the West of Scotland, who have given me the opportunity to represent them over the next four years. The West of Scotland is a very diverse region. Geographically, it ranges from Eastwood on the border of Glasgow down to the Clyde coast. It covers both sides of the River Clyde, from Strathkelvin up to Argyll. It is also very diverse economically and socially. In the next four years, I hope to represent all the people of the West of Scotland equally.

I welcome many of the Executive's proposals for local government, particularly the proposal to reform the voting system for local government elections from the first-past-the-post system to the single transferable vote system. However, I remain unconvinced that the Executive will fulfil that promise. I believe that my suspicions are well founded, because four years ago the Lib Dems went into office with the promise of electoral reform. After four years, there was absolutely nothing—certainly no reform. We have had reports, inquiries, consultations, a draft bill and plenty of kicking the issue into the long grass, but no reform. We have even had the spectacle of the Liberals voting against the introduction of STVPR, when they voted against Tricia Marwick's Proportional Representation (Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Bill in the previous session.

This time the partnership agreement states that we are to have STV. However, it also states that multimember wards will have either three or four members—there will be complete inflexibility. Where did that come from? It did not come from the McIntosh or Kerley reports—Kerley recommended that there should be up to five councillors per ward. The idea did not come from Tricia Marwick's member's bill, which contained complete flexibility and would have allowed for a maximum of eight councillors per ward. It certainly did not come from any of the submissions to the consultations that have taken place on this issue.

So where did it come from? As Sherlock Holmes famously said:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

In this case, we are left with the truth that the only reason for choosing to have three or four members per ward is to save the jobs of as many Labour councillors as possible.

This week we have had the unedifying sight of Labour MPs and councillors uniting in an attempt to block the introduction of a fair voting system. Scottish Labour MPs have the temerity to state that they will take revenge on the Parliament if we introduce fair voting for councils. All they have proved with their comments is how antidemocratic they are and why it is vital that the Parliament takes control of its affairs.

This is the not the first time that the attempted manipulation of the voting system to favour one party unfairly or to discriminate against other parties has been tried. In the context of what is contained in the partnership document, what De Valera did in Ireland may sound very familiar. De Valera increased the total number of three-member wards by 47 per cent—a move that favoured Fianna Fáil over other parties. As one commentator wrote:

"constituency revision achieved its purpose."

In his biography of De Valera, Coogan states:

"It was a blatant attempt at gerrymander which no Six County Unionist could have bettered."

The attempt by Labour and the Liberals to gerrymander the vote must be stopped. I support STVPR, but not STV without PR. The Liberals have stated that PR is one of their core principles, but they are willing to sacrifice PR by supporting the reduction in the number of members per ward to a point where proportionality barely applies.

For me, proportional representation is not an abstract concept. It is about fairness and is supposed to be about democracy. This is a golden opportunity for us to introduce a fair voting system and to allow a democratic renewal of local government to take place. We must not let that opportunity slip away by succeeding in introducing the single transferable vote system but failing to introduce proportional representation.

Thank you for allowing me to speak in today's debate. I will confine myself to health, which will not come as a surprise.

Although I welcome much that the First Minister said about improving the NHS, I am concerned that he does not understand the problems that beset Glasgow and, in particular, Stobhill—the hospital that I defended at the election. Between 2001 and 2005, Greater Glasgow NHS Board plans to have reduced the number of acute beds by 11 per cent, despite a year-on-year increase in acute admissions such that patients languish on trolleys awaiting admission to wards for three to four hours—and even eight hours or more—after their arrival at hospital. I am aware of one case in which it took 14 hours for a patient finally to be admitted. That is no way to treat people in the 21st century.

The First Minister said that he wished

"to build a Scotland … whose institutions are open and accountable and reflect the people's priorities".—[Official Report, 28 May 2003; c 81.]

I am one of 129 MSPs; the Scottish Executive may ignore me, but the priorities of the thousands of people who voted for me should not be ignored. It is disgraceful that people have to lie around on trolleys. Believe it or not, more trolleys were ordered, but patients need more beds. General practitioners also need more beds so that they can fulfil their obligations to patients. I urge the Scottish Executive to set up a national bed inquiry, as happened in England when Frank Dobson was Secretary of State for Health. The result of the bed inquiry was Alan Milburn's U-turn and decision to stop the closure of smaller hospitals, which are closer and therefore more accessible to patients in their communities.

I draw the Executive's attention to the document entitled "Keeping the NHS Local—A New Direction of Travel", in which Alan Milburn realises that, in respect of hospitals, big is not always beautiful, but small is. Kidderminster provides a good example of services returning to a downgraded district hospital because the plan to send everything to Worcester did not work.

Given that there is no slack in our system and that people currently lie on trolleys bumper to bumper, I ask the Scottish Executive to halt any further loss of beds in Glasgow and to halt the demolition of six wards at Stobhill that is planned to take place before November this year. That project should be cancelled immediately, until we know how many beds we need. Waiting times will not improve if we do not have the right number of beds. Common sense and concern for the well-being of patients who suffer the indignity and discomfort of lying on trolleys in corridors and accident and emergency units dictate that we should build more in-patient wards and provide more beds at Stobhill instead of demolishing wards. Patients deserve proper beds now—they cannot and should not have to wait for a much-needed independent Scottish national bed inquiry, important though that is.

The Stobhill campaign has tried to highlight the disastrous effect of what the loss of Stobhill's general hospital status in favour of a stand-alone ambulatory care and diagnostic unit—a large out-patient department without in-patient beds—will mean to the community that it serves. Although the intention is to perform day surgery at Stobhill, it is not intended that any back-up services will be provided on site. That is extremely risky.

The work that Stobhill hospital does will be split between Glasgow royal infirmary and Gartnavel hospital. That means that—to mention only two departments—1,000 cardiac or coronary care patients per year will be added to the 50,000 or 60,000 casualties per year who must be dealt with at other hospitals. In addition, people from a large part of my constituency will have to travel through the Clyde tunnel to the accident and emergency unit at the southern general hospital because there will be only two A and E units in Glasgow—one north-east, and the other south-west, of the Clyde. Given the traffic congestion that exists today, lives will be put at risk, if not lost.

I hope that the Executive's proposed NHS reform bill will, as has been stated, provide a new structure for public involvement, ensuring that local health services match the needs of individuals and of communities. That is a commendable goal and I urge the Executive, in order to achieve it, to listen to what the electorate said on 1 May. It is sad that I had to become an MSP to be heard in Parliament, but I hope that the Executive is listening because patients need action now.

I intend to spend only a short time on the health proposals, which is probably all that is needed, given the content of what we heard from the First Minister yesterday. Yesterday we heard the good news that there will be reform of the public services, which the First Minister talked about. The bad news was that we did not see evidence of real intent to deal with the changes that are required to improve health care in Scotland. It is very much business as usual—we are still stuck with the central control freakery of the Executive. Nothing seems to have changed and, with the proposed abolition of the hospital and primary care trusts, we see a reinforcement of central control. The line of command is now shorter and the last thing that the Scottish people, particularly patients, need is even more central control.

Part of the agreement is that there will be only 12 priorities in health per year. When did the politicians decide that they know what the priorities should be? They have not got a clue. The truth is that the professionals who work in all aspects of health care and the patients should decide where the urgency lies. A few weeks ago, a clinician said to me, "The most important case is the one that presents next to me in my surgery." That is the sort of control that we need in the health service.

Yesterday, the First Minister talked about empowerment of the front-line staff in the health service. Did he mean that he was going to give health professionals more say in the running of the NHS and take politicians out of its day-to-day running? I suspect not. In a recent interview, the First Minister talked about GPs' acquiring the most appropriate treatment for the patient, regardless of where it comes from. Does he really mean that we are going to see a return to the successful fund holding by GPs? Is he going to buy into the foundation hospital movement that obviously offers such a lot to Scotland?

The Conservatives have always wanted to put the patient at the centre, which comes down to patients having real access to health care, regardless of where they live. We got the guarantee on waiting times, which was supposed to be fantastic, but I have in front of me the latest figures that the health service has published on behalf of the Executive. Since the Conservative Government left office in 1997, the median out-patient waiting time has increased by 22 days, which is just over three weeks. Since the Parliament was established—I say this just in case the Liberal Democrats think that they can slide out and blame the Labour party—those waiting times have increased by nine days. That hardly represents success after four years. There has been an adjustment of the figures for the total number of people on waiting lists; the figure is only 3,000 more than it was in 1997. However, since the Parliament was established and the coalition Government started its first term, the total number of people on waiting lists has increased by 17,500. Is that success after four years?

I wonder whether one of the ministers might tell us later how they will deliver all the extra access by the end of this year and by the end of 2005, given all the figures that have been quoted. There is no evidence that the Executive knows how to go about that.

Jack McConnell said yesterday that postcode prescribing would be abolished. That is fine, but issues other than prescribing relate to postcodes. Whether patients get access to many services depends on where they live. We supported free personal care, but each council seems to have a different interpretation of who qualifies for it—I thought that it was a national scheme. Each council seems to have projected the wrong numbers for those who are likely to get it and the result is that there will be rationing. I have evidence, which I will present to members on another occasion, of four councils that genuinely query the Executive's ability to understand what it needs to do to deliver something for which the Parliament asked.

Comments were made yesterday about capacity in the health service. I say to Dr Turner that that is not just about the number of beds; it is also about the people who deliver health care. What are we doing to make better use of the professionals? What are we doing on the Liberal Democrats' big success in getting a commitment to free dental checks? If we do not have the dentists, how will we get the dental checks done? Are we to assume that, because the Liberals say that they want free dental checks, the Labour Party will have to deliver the dentists to fulfil its little promise? I am beginning to wonder whether there is any joined-up thinking and planning at all from the coalition, which is no different from the last time around.

Many of the problems with staffing levels throughout the country arise out of the trusts' and boards' inability to retain staff. We have to make working in the health service attractive to people and we have to ensure that every health professional has access to continuing professional development. GPs, dentists, nurses and so on have mentioned problems with that.

If we are to have a health service that means something in the next four years, I want to see evidence from the First Minister and his team that mental health will really come to the fore. One person in four in Scotland will suffer from a mental health problem at some time in his or her life. I want to see hard evidence from the Executive that it means business. To date, the Executive has laid out nothing but a series of ambitions that do not even match the ambitions of the people of Scotland.

I will address the transport commitments in the partnership agreement, many of which we welcome. It is clear that the election of seven Greens has already had an effect on the partnership programme, but we will be watching closely to ensure that our public transport network does not continue to degenerate. We are concerned that there is no commitment whatever even to stabilise road-traffic growth, let alone reduce it.

Transport impacts on the environment and on social inclusion, because mobility and exclusion go hand in hand. It impacts on health, because pollution causes illness. Road pollution doubles the risk of childhood asthma, while walking and cycling have benefits. Transport impacts on communities, and all land-use planning decisions have transport implications. We therefore welcome the acknowledgement that transport is a key policy area in its own right.

We welcome the decision to commit two thirds of the transport budget to public transport, which will be to the benefit of everyone. When, however, will the rail improvements happen? Are they costed, and what are their start and completion dates? The Aberdeen peripheral road was costed fully for each year of expenditure before planning permission for it had been granted. Has the public transport investment been similarly costed?

Where is the commitment to reduce road traffic? Wendy Alexander at least promised to stabilise road traffic levels at 2001 levels. Has the Executive quietly abandoned that promise? Why does it not appear in the agreement? For my region—the South of Scotland—the Executive has announced a major upgrade of the A75 and A77 to the port of Cairnryan for the Cairnryan to Belfast link. Some £44 million has been committed to those roads, but not one penny has been committed to provide rail links to the new port. While road building continues apace, Cairnryan—Scotland's most important port and one of the biggest ports in the UK—will be the only major port in the UK to have no capacity for rail freight. There are many fine words in the partnership agreement, but that is the practice. We want a commitment to change over the next four years.

Half of all car journeys in Scotland are for distances of less than 2 miles. Any plan to reduce pollution must address that point, but we see nothing in the partnership agreement that does so directly. Does the minister favour and support congestion charging? It has been an extraordinary success in London and has gained near-universal approval despite the cries of horror in advance. Will the rail franchise go to the most passenger-friendly bidder, or to the cheapest? We want commitments on such issues.

The Sunday Herald has worked out that the commitment to plant trees as a carbon sink for new road building will entail the planting of 1.5 million trees. Has the minister contacted Reforesting Scotland for advice? Has he ordered the saplings of his green credentials?

I am pleased to speak in today's debate, because the programme for government sets out a bold, decisive and responsive plan of action for Parliament over the next four years. The policies in the programme respond to the real needs, concerns and aspirations of the people of Scotland. They will help to create jobs; help in the fight to make our communities safer and better places to live; help to improve public services; and help in the delivery of a transport system that is fit for the 21st century. Countless people in Airdrie and Shotts raised those issues with me during the election campaign. The issues are common to communities throughout Scotland and I am pleased that they are the very issues on which the Labour party's manifesto, and now the programme for government, have focused.

I am pleased that the First Minister has made tackling crime and antisocial behaviour one of the key priorities for the Scottish Executive over the next four years, and I am especially pleased that he is determined that legislation on the issue will be among the first to be passed during this session of Parliament. I can say honestly that no other issue was raised more often during the election campaign than crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. I am sure that many in the chamber will have often been told despairingly by people of the misery that is being caused by a small number of people in their communities. People in too many of our communities feel helpless to respond to the antisocial and criminal behaviour of the few. Rightly or wrongly, those people believe that the police are either unwilling or unable to deal with the problems. That must change: we must enable decent people, who are the vast majority, to regain ownership of their communities. Antisocial behaviour is not only an attack on the lives of individual victims, but on the social capital of our communities. It erodes communities and leads to isolation and powerlessness. That is why I strongly support the Scottish Executive's plans to deal swiftly and effectively with those who commit crime and to secure a criminal justice system that fully supports victims and witnesses.

Those who wish to play an active and positive role in communities must be given the support and the resources to do so. I am confident that Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson will ensure that our communities are given support to deal with antisocial behaviour. I know that our Minister for Justice will work with her ministerial colleagues to deliver positive alternatives to crime and antisocial behaviour for our young people.

I am pleased that the theme of environmental justice runs through the Executive's programme. In particular, I welcome the Executive's commitment to consider properly the environmental impacts of all new strategies, programmes and plans that are developed by the public sector, by legislating to introduce strategic environmental assessments. I also welcome the Executive's commitment to ensure that the voices of communities are listened to more effectively during the planning process. That has been vital to people in my communities—particularly in Greengairs and Morningside, where people's views on opencast mining and landfill have been rejected time and again. If we are to retain confidence in our planning system, individual members of communities must feel that they can engage properly in the planning system.

It will come as no surprise to MSPs who were in the previous Parliament that I welcome in particular the partnership agreement's recommitment to the opening of the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line. I have campaigned since my arrival in Parliament in 1999 for the reopening of that line and I will continue to press the Executive until my constituents are able to board in Airdrie a train that is bound for Edinburgh.

I, too, am delighted by the prospect of the Bathgate to Airdrie line. However, so that not only the people of Lanarkshire, but the people of West Lothian can benefit from that line, will the member join me in campaigning to ensure that there will be an additional stop in Armadale at least, but perhaps elsewhere, too?

I am glad about the member's support for the line, but it would be better if she joined my colleagues Bristow Muldoon and Mary Mulligan, who have campaigned tirelessly for the reopening of the service. It would be better if she did not scaremonger and suggest to people in West Lothian—as she has done—that the line will never open.

On transport more generally, I welcome the Executive's commitment to invest £1 billion a year by 2006, with more than two thirds of that money being spent on public transport. That is a serious commitment on the part of the Executive to improving Scotland's transport infrastructure and to offering alternatives to travel by car. Crucially, the commitment is about offering attractive alternatives and not about punishing motorists. I am pleased that the Scottish Executive has committed the resources that are required to upgrade the M8 after many years of neglect by the Tory Government. The Tories spoke about upgrading for 18 years, but did not do it.

Yesterday's statement by the First Minister represented the beginning of a bold and progressive programme for Parliament—a programme that I believe will have a direct and positive impact on the lives of my constituents and the wider population of Scotland. We must do more than talk; we must now deliver. I am sure that that is exactly what this Executive will do.

The programme that the First Minister outlined yesterday is indeed an ambitious and radical agenda for Parliament. I was taken by Duncan McNeil's speech and pleased that he is delighted by the partnership agreement, as are other Labour MSPs. I can assure him that Liberal Democrat MSPs are equally delighted with it. Is it not satisfying, and a sign of a successful negotiation, that both sides are equally delighted?

The First Minister said yesterday, and the Deputy First Minister has repeated today, that nothing is more important to the Executive than growing the Scottish economy to generate more wealth to fund and resource excellence in our public services. That is why I am particularly pleased that Jim Wallace has been appointed as Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, to take charge of the enterprise agenda.

The second most important development in the Scottish Parliament as far as the economy is concerned is the creation of a minister who has sole responsibility for transport. Nicol Stephen is now in a prime position to deliver the effective and reliable transport system that is needed throughout the country. I look forward to the delivery of the western peripheral route round Aberdeen, to progress on the Borders railway and to a successful outcome to the negotiations to abolish the discredited toll regime on the Skye bridge.

Will the member give way?

In a moment, but I want to make progress first.

In health care, the Scottish Executive's programme will deliver real change. I was astounded when I listened to David Davidson talking about health issues; he has obviously not even read the partnership agreement. The NHS reform bill, which will be introduced before the summer recess, will abolish hospital trusts, end the unnecessary duplication of effort between trusts and health boards and create new community health partnerships to strengthen local involvement in the provision of services—that is the point. A specific range of health measures was published by the Executive in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland". Those measures include: free eye and dental checks; routine issuing of digital hearing aids, when they are the most clinically effective option for patients; the end of postcode prescribing for approved drugs; and a review of prescription charges for people who have chronic health conditions. Those are just some of the many important issues on which I and others members have been campaigning for the past four years. I am delighted that the changes will be implemented by the Executive.

In addition, the fact that we simply do not train enough dentists in Scotland has at last been recognised. The commitment to establish an outreach training centre in Aberdeen and to consult on the creation of a full dental school there is a major step forward. There are so many positive commitments from the Executive in health that it is literally impossible in such a short time to highlight them all.

I want to spend some time focusing on the Executive's commitment to reform and renew local democracy. I refer, of course, to the commitment to introduce—

I had to ask at least one of the Liberal speakers today about the fact that they are so happy with the partnership agreement, because there is in it not one single mention of reform of the council tax. Is their position that they now accept the council tax?

Tommy Sheridan has not read the document, because there is mention of the council tax, which I will come to in a moment.

On reform and renewal of local democracy, I refer—of course—to the commitment to introduce a local governance bill before the year is out. I welcome the fact that the coalition is clear in its commitment to introduce, in time for the next local government elections in 2007, the proportional single transferable vote system of election. As for the Tories, I notice that Mary Scanlon seems now to be in favour of proportional representation. What a conversion!

Voting reform is an enabling measure that will, in my opinion, transform the way in which local services are delivered throughout Scotland. That long-overdue reform will mean that local councillors are at all times really responsive to the needs of their electors. The system will restore power to the voter, it will reinvigorate local democracy and it will ensure that every single person's vote counts equally.

Reform of the voting system—I say this to Tommy Sheridan—coupled with the commitment to review local government finance means that we will indeed have in Scotland a local government system that is fit for the 21st century. Not only will we review the way in which the money is dispersed, we will review the way in which it is collected.

Oh!

Tommy Sheridan would have recognised that if he had read the document.

In conclusion, those reforms alone are enough for me to support the Scottish Executive in the delivery of its programme over the period of this Parliament. Of course, many more initiatives and plans that deserve our full support are packed into the Executive's programme. I have no hesitation whatever in backing the Executive's programme and I am sure that every one of my Liberal Democrat colleagues will be as enthusiastic as I am about it.

The success of this Parliament will, in the minds of the voters who I was elected to represent, be measured by whether we reverse the depopulation that blights much of the Highlands and Islands today. We lose most of our youngest and brightest people, despite the huge sustainable resources that the area contains. The First Minister acknowledged last year that emigration is a blight. Just how much of a blight is revealed in the 2001 census: Caithness lost 4.5 per cent of its people in 10 years; Sutherland lost 0.5 per cent; Lochaber lost nearly 3 per cent; Orkney lost 2 per cent; Shetland lost 2.4 per cent; Argyll lost 3.3 per cent; and the Western Isles lost more than 7 per cent. The true extent is disguised by the arrival of well-off retirees, who are far less economically active.

The loss from my area of major employers—such as the Nigg oil rig fabricators and the tweed maker Hunters of Brora Ltd—has forced economically active people to leave. That situation has to be reversed. Beyond Inverness, the inner Moray firth and Skye, that is the prime challenge, because a growing population will grow our economy. During the election campaign, Jack McConnell promised to focus on our needs, and noted that there is a particular disengagement between the Highlands and Islands and the Scottish Parliament. I disagree with the First Minister: that disengagement is from the Executive, which refuses to see the need for more powers for the Parliament to build our future.

Immigration could help—asylum seekers with skills could fill many jobs, but success will be measured when the children of families who are raised in the Highlands and Islands can find work there. Not unreasonably, people want Government to offer equal opportunities for their children to have a choice to work where they were raised. Compare that picture with the lives of families in rural Norway or Finland, or in the west of Ireland, whose Governments put them at the heart of those small independent European nations. They are culturally confident, ecologically diverse and have buoyant economies and local democratic powers that are far better than we experience here.

Fundamental to rebuilding population is the availability of land for affordable housing. How often do youngsters seek in vain for a house site in the crofting communities or a building plot in some small town? Landlords, planning laws and water authorities are the major problems that they face. Is the only alternative for the enterprising to leave?

The partnership agreement claims that the national planning framework will "support area regeneration", and that enhanced powers of the Scottish land fund will

"assist the purchase of land for community activity."

It also states that rural and remote communities will

"have their distinct needs reflected across the range of government policy and initiatives."

I issue this challenge, and will follow it up in the next four years: the coalition should bite the bullet and free up land for affordable housing. Will the coalition beef up compulsory purchase powers for local authorities and communities to buy land at prices that local residents and housing associations can meet? In the past four years the Executive has, in case it upset a few landowners, failed to give that matter real priority.

What about the people? If the First Minister's programme is to mean anything, it must meet people's needs, but the partnership agreement skates over the urgent need to find housing land and to make it available. Does the coalition really care that the lifeblood that is our young and active citizens is draining from huge areas of Scotland? With boundless green energy potential and acres of underused land, the Government must support repopulation of the most endangered species in the north of Scotland, and let people build the modern homes that they need in order to kick-start the economy there once again.

This is my first speech as an MSP, not my maiden speech. "Maiden speech" implies losing some sort of verbal virginity, but I lost that a long time ago, on the subject that I am going to refer to today.

Yesterday, the First Minister talked about best value and environmental justice, both of which are to be welcomed. I am sure that many of us, in particular on this side of the chamber, were delighted to hear that, but it is difficult to understand how he is going to deliver best value and environmental justice and condone the construction of the M74 northern extension. The fact is that he cannot tell us that we are going to get environmental justice by ploughing 110,000 cars per day through urban Glasgow. He cannot tell us that we are getting best value when he is going to spend possibly £500 million on the construction of that monstrosity.

David McLetchie spoke earlier about the spiralling cost of the Scottish Parliament. We are all worried about spiralling costs. I am sorry that David McLetchie is not here, but I wonder if his colleagues would let him know that the road was initially costed at £250 million, then it was cut back to a bargain-basement price of £174 million, and we hear this year that it is going to be £500 million.

I am not surprised that it will cost £500 million, because there is underground toxic waste where they intend to build the road, and to deal with it will cost a pretty penny. To build a motorway high they must dig deep, which will throw up chromium, arsenic and lime that have been buried for 100 years. Labour might know about that, because Keir Hardie campaigned against the burial of that waste in the first place. Those are the environmental justice issues that concern me.

The road is an amazing exhibit of environmental injustice. Its route goes through Shettleston constituency, which is about the poorest constituency in the United Kingdom. It is known as the sick old man of Britain, and the last thing that it needs is 110,000 cars per day ploughed through it.

Had I stood here in the mid-1990s and made this statement, David McLetchie and the Conservative party would have been the only people who would have shouted me down and perhaps heckled me. The fact of the matter is that everybody in here would have applauded, because all the other parties opposed the construction of the M74, but they have since picked up the mantle and the mantra of big business and now they support it.

My concerns are about the people along the route, the wider community and the planet. People argue that the extension will alleviate local road difficulties in Rutherglen—I think that Janis Hughes said that last week. Although it might do so initially, we should not think that the cars will all have gone home—they will simply have been displaced. We must remember that the motorway will run parallel to the main street in Rutherglen. Although initially the people in that community might not see or feel the pollution, believe you me, it will still be there and will get worse.

The other argument in favour of the M74 northern extension is economic. However, the M77 and M8 pass through Easterhouse and Pollok, which are in social inclusion partnerships because they are skint. Those areas do not have a good economy and the people along those routes are suffering. As Tommy Sheridan said earlier, the motorways did not benefit those people one iota. We cannot use the economic argument in favour of the M74 extension, which does not represent environmental justice.

I am sure that the Conservative party will back up the point that the economic argument is lame. In the mid-1990s, Mrs Thatcher, who opposed the environmental movement, commissioned a report from the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, which found that the construction of motorways gets more people into cars. There are a number of reasons for that. I would need 20 minutes to tell members about them, but I am sure that members can find them out for themselves.

The partnership agreement does not promise anything for the environment or for good value. It does not even have the bottle to mention the M74 extension, although we all know that the proposal is in there, underneath the veils. The people who live along the proposed route deserve better and the Parliament should deliver better. If the Parliament were to hold a public inquiry on the issue, some consultation might take place. The road was conceived in 1965, or perhaps before. I was also conceived around that time and, like all members, I have learned a lot in my life. The least that we can do is to revisit the issue, which is an old one. The extension does not belong in the year 2003 and should not be built along the proposed route.

I think the partnership agreement states that something must be done about light pollution. The extension would be 50ft high and would be lit 24 hours a day in what is a built-up area. In opposition at Westminster, the Labour party opposed motorway construction and wanted a moratorium on it. I ask that party: please go back to the original position; please deliver for the people of Glasgow; please deliver environmental justice; please deliver best value; and please use the money for something else.

I welcome the programme for Government, particularly the emphasis that is to be placed in the next four years on policies for young people. I look forward to the debate on that subject next week. I will direct my remarks to the education priorities and will link them with social justice matters, as those issues cannot be separated.

The agreement talks of excellence in schools, which is a concept that I applaud and one that I tried to encourage throughout my long teaching career. Academic excellence is accepted as the usual aim of schools, but it is far from the only strand of excellence in our education system. We must celebrate achievement in all areas of school life, including attendance, behaviour and many more. To take extreme situations as examples, for an attendance officer, excellence is a perpetual school refuser or truant at long last turning up at school, or, for a behaviour support teacher, excellence is a challenging pupil eventually settling to a small piece of work.

"Excellent," should also be the message that we give to education staff for a difficult job well done. People, whether pupils or staff, respond to praise and the one thing that makes an appreciable difference to education overall is the morale of the staff who are involved. The staff know all about positive discipline and the incontrovertible fact that expectations are self-fulfilling. If we want good results, we must show that we expect good results and are prepared to supply the support that is required to achieve them. People live up—or down—to expectations and education professionals look to the Parliament for a positive lead in that respect.

As I taught in one of the pilot new community schools, I have recent, first-hand experience of how a flagship policy works on the ground. Like others who have recently left the classroom or who will leave soon, I hope that good use can be made of our invaluable experience, but I have one caveat. Bolt-on solutions, whether they are new community school links or interventionist strategies from the centre, do not in themselves make fundamental changes to education establishments, particularly if they prove to be short term or temporary. To make extras effective in the long run, they must be fully integrated and accepted into the running of a school. They need to become part of the establishment and not just a set of hit-and-run innovations that leave the participants reeling from the impact and so shellshocked that they return to past practices without accepting even the best innovations.

Advice about the importance of consistency is always given to teachers and, yesterday, the First Minister, who is a former teacher, mentioned the importance of consistency in sentencing. We also need a consistent general approach to young people. Social inclusion means that teachers in schools must deal with pupils who have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Those pupils are frequently the same young people who are the targets of the new justice initiatives, such as the antisocial behaviour orders for under-16s and electronic tagging.

The First Minister spoke about the need to redress the balance in our neighbourhoods. I suggest that a school should be seen as a neighbourhood in itself, as well as being part of its community. We need to redress the balance in schools and classrooms so that there is no tolerance of antisocial behaviour and so that all our schools become decent local environments. I eagerly await the details of how we might unlock the potential of all our children, thereby securing the highest standards for and from every child.

Whether members are new or re-elected—I was going to say old, but I am probably older than some of the old members, so I will not—surely the least that we can bring to the chamber is the hope that we can contribute to building a better Scotland for the people of Scotland. However, having read the partnership agreement and listened to the speeches from some of the unionist members, there is little that gives me hope that the Parliament will deliver a better life for the people of Scotland.

It is six years since Tony and Cherie swept into Downing Street with the background of all the wee Labour lackeys with their unionist flags. It is six years since Tony Blair promised us that things could "only get better." However, for far too many people in Scotland, things have not got better; they have got worse. We have lived through six years of the Labour reality in Scotland, which for too many people means long-term unemployment. The Labour reality means that, in Scotland, one in three children and one in four pensioners still live in poverty. That is a disgrace, but the partnership agreement document offers little hope that the situation will change.

To use an in-phrase, the document is not a road-map to a better, more prosperous Scotland; it simply says what the Labour party and the Lib Dems think that they have to say to get away with another four years in power.

On the economy, the document states:

"We will use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to create the conditions for higher growth."

Members can use the powers of the Parliament until their wee unionist hearts are content, but if they do not have powers over macroeconomic policy, taxation, social security and benefits and pensions, they will not be able to give Scotland an economic advantage and deliver a better life for the people of Scotland. If the Executive does not have the full normal powers that come with independence, it will continue to fail the people of Scotland. The Executive should be ashamed of that.

The document states:

"We will work with the UK Government to maximise the conditions for economic growth in Scotland."

I say to the unionist members that if they think for a minute that Her Majesty's Government in London will prioritise chilly jocko land over the south-east of England, they are probably gullible enough to believe that the Barnett formula is a good thing and that it is not designed to cut public spending in Scotland.

The document says:

"We will support … our key manufacturing industries, such as aerospace".

Some members might have forgotten and some might never have known a fact that some of us who worked in the aerospace industry well remember: that it was a Labour Government that oversaw the ending of aircraft manufacture in Scotland. It was Labour ministers who stood back and let Jetstream Aircraft in Prestwick go down the pan. That has not been forgotten in Ayrshire and it should not be forgotten in the chamber. Although the partnership agreement pledges to work with key industries such as the aerospace industry, 900 Aerostructures workers in Prestwick face an uncertain future. They might think that, given the record of this Government, that pledge is nothing more than hypocrisy.

I am proud to have grown up in Ardrossan in Ayrshire. However, like many towns across Scotland, Ardrossan does not have its troubles to seek. Some friends with whom I went to school have not worked for 20 years. Their children have grown up not knowing their mum or dad ever to have had a job and they are now moving into the family business of unemployment.

I am proud to have grown up in Ardrossan and am delighted to represent the area as part of the West of Scotland region. I am also glad that I do not have to sell the partnership agreement to the people with whom I grew up, because I could not look them in the eye and tell them that the policies in the document will provide a better life for them—they will not. It is dishonest of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party to say that they will.

As long as we are prepared to tolerate having a limited Parliament with limited powers, we limit what we can do for the people of Scotland. Therefore, unfortunately, we will continue to disappoint them.

There has been a lot of talk of consensus and of political parties working together, so let me say something to the unionist members in the chamber: I am prepared to work with them just as soon as they get off their knees and start fighting for Scotland.

I can testify that I am standing.

A recent press article said:

"governments cannot create jobs, they can only foster the conditions in which businesses generate employment. Unfortunately, it remains an article of faith for many in the party"

—that is, the Labour party—

"that expanding central and local government spending can create real, lasting jobs.

One of the principal tasks over the next few years will be to challenge the assumption that bigger government is better - in reality, the Scottish Executive is an expensive, and growing overhead, which consumes money which could be more productively used elsewhere.

Too often we fiddle with micro-incentives and interventions in an attempt to steer business growth. It's time now to show some humility and try to learn from successful modern Scottish businesses: for instance, instead of preaching about modernising government why don't we learn from the oil and gas industry or the financial services sector, both of whom went through massive restructuring, in the Eighties and Nineties respectively, and are now leaner and more innovative. The alternative would be to accept we must build additional office space at Victoria Quay - what an admission of defeat that would be. And we need to understand that legislation is not free - all too often it inflicts unnecessary additional costs on the productive sectors of the economy.

Let us be more wary about boasting that the parliament has delivered because it has passed 65 bills, and more scrupulous about assessing fully the real costs of regulation."

Those are the words, not of some rabid, right-wing ideologue—such as some people might consider me to be—or a best-selling, free-market economist, but of John McTernan, in this week's Scotland on Sunday. Interestingly, John McTernan was the author of Labour's manifesto in 1999.

John McTernan is not alone in drawing attention to the threat of having too large a public sector. I quote:

"Scotland has the largest state sector in western Europe. It also has the worst health, worst reading and writing standards in S2 classes and the weakest economy. Some day, the electorate will figure out that those facts are related."

Those are the words of former Labour councillor and SNP candidate, George Kerevan, writing in The Scotsman—not a paper that is a friend of the Tories.

The point that those writers make is simple: to have good public services that relieve poverty and widen opportunity—I say to Mr Sheridan that Tories use the word "poverty"—

That is because they create it.

No. Everybody starts poor.

To have such services we must have a smaller state sector. We must reduce the overheads that the wealth-creating sector bears so that it is able to fund better health care, education and policing. Sadly, the Government's programme will increase the burden on Scottish business through rising costs and further costly intervention.

I noticed earlier that the Minister for Finance and Public Services was keen to bandy about the name of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to make a point during an intervention. I recommend to him an OECD report that showed that to increase taxes damages economic growth. The study estimated that, for every increase of 1 per cent in the tax burden, there would be a reduction in gross domestic product of 0.7 per cent. By encouraging growth, lower taxes can also create the revenues to fund the public expenditure that we wish. A further study, by PricewaterhouseCoopers, also found that higher Government borrowing reduces economic growth, which closes that escape hatch for Gordon Brown and the Executive, which welcomes his largesse from higher taxation.

Scotland needs a growing, innovative, dynamic economy. The Government's programme will not deliver that; it will inhibit it. Without real cuts to business rates and the removal of costly regulations, the poor will get poorer under the socialist Government. Toujours la même—always the same.

If the SNP has a new policy of being positive, I hate to think what it will be like if it starts to be negative again, because it has certainly not been positive during the debate.

Unlike the SNP, I welcome "A Partnership for a Better Scotland". It is a good programme. It will deliver for Scotland the improvements to our public services that we all require. I welcome the commitments in the agreement to, for example, more nurses, doctors and other health staff. I welcome the commitment to further measures to prevent ill health. I welcome the commitments to employ more teachers and to more flexibility in the curriculum for ages three to six, more vocational courses for 14 to 16-year-olds and investment in further and higher education to improve Scotland's skills base. I welcome the commitments to our rural communities, including the greater role that will be given to our fishermen in the management of our coastal waters and the measures to protect our rural community pharmacies and local post offices. I also welcome the green thread that runs throughout the agreement, including investment in public transport and action on recycling and renewable energy. Of course, I also welcome the commitment to proportional representation for local government.

Those commitments reflect the Liberal Democrats' manifesto priorities at the Scottish Parliament elections. However, the programme also reflects the pledges that I made in my local campaign in North East Fife. For example, on public safety, I pledged that we should have more police in our communities and 20mph zones outside our schools. The partnership agreement will deliver more police in our communities and 20mph zones outside more schools.

I also pledged free eye and dental checks. The partnership agreement will deliver those. I pledged progress on the proposed new hospital and health centre for St Andrews. The partnership agreement contains an expanded commitment to develop community health services and the role of community hospitals. The north-east Fife local health care co-operative has played a central role in developing the plans for the new community hospital and health centre for St Andrews. The new community health partnerships, which will develop the successful partnerships and LHCCs, will help to build on that success. However, we cannot wait for the reform of the national health service. We must start to build that hospital now, and I am confident that the Executive will support that.

I also pledged a new secondary school for north Fife. The partnership agreement will deliver the largest-ever school building programme in Scotland's history. A new north Fife secondary school and a redeveloped Madras College in St Andrews must be part of that programme.

I am taking the opportunity to invite my colleague Euan Robson, the new Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, to come to North East Fife and St Andrews to see the intolerable conditions under which the staff and pupils of Madras College struggle with the modern curriculum. Madras College is one of Scotland's largest secondary schools. It is on two sites that are some distance apart, which causes logistical problems for the school's management. Both sets of buildings are in urgent need of major renovation and modernisation. More than half of the pupils are based in north Fife and have to be bussed a considerable distance to St Andrews, with the associated problems that that brings.

The case for redeveloping Madras College into a new school in north Fife is overwhelming. To date, Fife Council has failed to face up to its responsibility to provide the children of north Fife and St Andrews with schools that are fit to provide 21st century education. I assure members and my constituents that my Liberal Democrat colleagues on Fife Council will ensure that the new minority administration in Fife faces up to its responsibilities and I, in this Parliament, will do all that I can to ensure that North East Fife benefits from the record investment in new schools by getting that new school for north Fife.

I welcome the Executive's attempt to democratise local government with the introduction of the single transferable voting system. Jack McConnell and his Labour colleagues have already incurred the wrath of some of their own backwoodsmen who want to retain the status quo, including Labour MPs and councillors. Of course, they have a vested interest in retaining the status quo, but the interests of democracy are far more important than the interests of any political party.

Critics of PR claim that it will produce hung councils where no party has an overall majority and there will have to be some form of power sharing. So what? Power sharing can be constructive and is certainly preferable to one party being in sole power indefinitely on a minority vote.

In the Parliament, no party has an overall majority and the Executive is a form of power sharing. I realise that that causes problems for some Labour members, but it can have benefits. For example, if the Labour party had had an overall majority in the previous parliamentary session, I do not think we would have seen the reintroduction of student grants, the abolition of up-front tuition fees and the introduction of free care for the elderly. In the new session, I hope that the composition of the Parliament will also help to deliver better policies and stop some of the extreme proposals emanating from the new Labour zealots.

Does the member not accept that the evidence of proportional representation from many countries shows that parties are in power indefinitely? They are the minority parties that decide with which of the larger majorities they will form coalitions.

At the end of the day it is up to the people to decide on the respective proportions of support for the various political parties. I do not believe that any system is perfect in every respect, but the worst of all systems is the first-past-the-post system.

For example, youth crime is a problem, especially in some of our most deprived areas, but it is simplistic nonsense to suggest that young people's behaviour will magically improve if we throw their parents into jail. That is the kind of inane suggestion that used to earn standing ovations from the hang-'em-and-flog-'em brigade at Tory party conferences. I hope that the Parliament will not stoop to such reactionary nonsense, but will instead take effective action to improve the children's hearings system and encourage more parental responsibility, in order to help stamp out the kind of criminal behaviour that is making life a misery for so many law-abiding citizens.

I also hope that we will take effective action to improve standards in our schools. Ministers already have powers to send in inspectors and to intervene in certain cases, so I am concerned to read reports about sending in so-called hit squads to take over failing schools. Where did that idea come from? Shortly before the recent election the Minister for Education and Young People was reported to have granted an audience to the Westminster MP for Falkirk West to discuss alleged failings in local schools. Following that meeting, The Scotsman reported that the Scottish Executive was going to send troubleshooters into Falkirk, and Eric Joyce MP publicly called for the resignations of the chief executive and the director of education for Falkirk Council. That kind of ill-informed and irresponsible headline grabbing is bound to have an adverse effect on the morale of education officials and teachers. I suggest to the Executive that if meetings with parliamentarians on devolved matters are to be arranged, it should be members of this Parliament who are invited, rather than any Westminster MP, especially one with a track record of making cowardly attacks on education employees.

We all know that there are some schools that are not performing as well as they should, but the Scottish Executive should consider a whole range of measures, including more in-service training opportunities for teachers, and the employment of more teachers in order to reduce class sizes so that educational opportunities for children in our schools are improved.

There is no easy, instant answer to some of the problems facing us over the next four years. Legislation may help, but legislation alone cannot solve all of those problems, and I hope that the Parliament's legislative programme will be backed up by Executive action to ensure the provision of adequate resources to meet the challenges ahead.

I appreciate that some members have been sitting there all morning and have not been called, but the debate will continue this afternoon after First Minister's question time.