Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 29, 2003

Official Report 699KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive's Programme

Resumed debate.

The next item of business is a continuation of the debate on the First Minister's statement on the Scottish Executive's programme. Given that all the screens have been down since this morning, I require members who wish to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I will of course speak in support of the Executive's programme for government and I will talk about two issues that arose time and again on the doorstep during the recent election campaign.

First, I will say a word about the police statistics, which have been much in the news recently. There was a 2 per cent increase in crime in the Northern constabulary area, but the statistics for the first quarter of this year show a more than 17 per cent decrease in crime and a large increase in detection rates in that area. We should congratulate Northern constabulary on that. The sharp decrease in theft and housebreaking in the Highlands is due to the incarceration of heroin misusers who steal to feed their habit. There is little doubt that when they leave prison, they will return to that behaviour if their drug habit is not addressed. That is why I welcome the commitment to rolling out drugs courts and drug treatment and testing orders. I make a plea to the Executive for the Inverness and Easter Ross area to be one of the first areas to be included in that roll-out.

I also welcome the promised introduction of a seamless correction service, which I believe will better support rehabilitation. Although I am unhappy with the name, I approve the principle. I realise that there are concerns in local authorities about the future role of criminal justice social work and I have had assurances previously from the First Minister that there will be full consultation.

The Opposition has made much of the view that we should pay less attention to antisocial behaviour and concentrate on serious crime. The means of combating serious crime are already there; the laws are in place. The problem with antisocial behaviour is that there are not sufficient sanctions or ways of dealing quickly with young perpetrators. That is what frustrates both the police and the communities that suffer.

I welcome the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders for the under-16s and the fast tracking of persistent offenders. Antisocial behaviour is as much a problem in rural areas as it is in urban areas and it is not always caused by youngsters. Throughout Scotland, there is a culture of alcohol-fuelled mayhem. A constituent in Fortrose on the Black Isle—a sort of mini St Andrews—described weekends there as a nightmare. Pensioners in Scorguie in Inverness complain of gangs roaming. Ordinary family men in Merkinch are afraid to pass the louts at the street corner for fear of being challenged. A constituent in Nairn describes persecution by teenagers invading his garden. Local papers report vandalism, destruction, the smashing of gardens, the breaking of windows and running fights, much of which is fuelled by alcohol. Therefore, I welcome the commitment to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse, which is paramount if we are to address antisocial behaviour and violence in society.

The police work extremely hard to build good relationships with communities. That hard work is paying off in towns such as Alness, where local people are working in partnership with local officers on issues such as vandalism and drug misuse. There is no doubt that the police are challenged by the distances between communities and by the court system in the Highlands. We need to rationalise the number of small courthouses—some of which are woefully inadequate—and to build two new courthouses, one in Easter Ross and the other in Inverness. Much has been spent on refurbishment but some courthouses are not capable of being modernised structurally and others are now far from centres of population.

Community wardens could be of enormous help in combating antisocial behaviour. Everyone in a community knows which garage or corner shop sells to underage drinkers, but it is not easy for the police to get evidence, any more than it is easy for them to witness drug dealing. Community wardens can be the witnesses where others are too afraid to speak out. Make no mistake: complaining to the police about a child's behaviour can result in a whole family of parents and relatives battering at the door. That, by the way, is why we need parental orders. Parental orders are a child protection issue. Parents who allow their children to rampage, to smash, to steal and to get drunk need to face their responsibilities. All of us with children knew when we had to confine them to barracks and knew when they were too cheeky by half. It is not easy for a parent with a recalcitrant teenager, so help must be available in a way that does not make that parent seem a failure. There is a difference between a parent who eggs on his child and does not care what his child is up to, and a parent who is trying his best but is losing the battle.

Young people deserve our support and investment. I welcome the commitment to increase access to sport and leisure services, giving youngsters an alternative to the streets. I urge the Executive to ensure that those services are affordable and accessible to youngsters in rural areas.

Rob Gibson raised the issue of rural housing and I endorse most of what he said. There is a distinct need for affordable housing if we are to sustain rural development properly. There should be a particular commitment to the needs of remote and rural communities. We need to consider the shortage of land and the difficulty of getting infrastructure in place. If the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will not have another septic tank in an area and Scottish Water refuses to put in sewerage, how can we grow communities? I ask the Executive, in its support for rural areas, to consider particularly how we can access more land and get more infrastructure. I ask the Executive to speak to organisations such as the Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust to find the best way to make progress.

The partnership document is relevant to rural areas and to urban areas. I commend it and look forward to its implementation.

For some time, I have been identifying the impact that low economic growth has on real people in terms of lower incomes, poor health, lower life expectancy, family separation and population decline. Although I welcome the fact that the coalition, in its partnership agreement, has bowed to SNP pressure to focus on economic growth, that in itself is not enough. Scotland's Government must concentrate on achieving levels of growth that are at least equivalent to that achieved in London, the south-east and the rest of Europe. That is the standard by which we will measure the Government—nowhere more so than in the Highlands and Islands.

That is why I welcome the appointment of the new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. The social and economic issues that disproportionately beset the Highlands and Islands should now be communicated to the heart of Government. However, I am not confident of major improvements, as the minister is sticking to what does not work any more. By that I mean policies and strategies that do many good things in terms of developing people, new technologies and new businesses, but that in themselves are not enough to keep talent and wealth in Scotland. His economic bucket is the same one that his three predecessors tried to build and maintain—one with holes in it, where the wealth and talent leaks into other economies.

The solution that we have advocated for some time—financial independence for the Scottish Parliament—is the missing piece in the Scottish jigsaw that would make all our other wonderful attributes and advantages come alive and enrich us all. It is the one measure that would take us from being a budget-focused branch economy to being a normal economy with the right and ability to maximise our income and be all we can be.

Instead, we remain the one deviant economy on the planet that has opened a bank account with our neighbour and simply hopes that it will be successful and fair to us. Such an impotent option can never pay, yet sadly that is exactly the strategy that the Executive has adopted. It is a strategy that denies a record of repeated failure and the fact that Scotland's share of the UK population, which was 9.3 per cent in 1974, is now 8.6 per cent, and is forecast to drop to 7.5 per cent by 2036.

The bad news for the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is that we and the Scottish electorate will be counting the costs, and the costs will mount, because Mr Wallace remains boxed in by a refusal to accept a proposition that will be the future consensus in Scottish politics. He is like an old-time Viking standing on his longship off Kirkwall, about to sail to the battle of Largs, yet refusing to show any interest in a gatling gun. He is in effect saying, "Okay, it is powerful, but it would mean constructional change in the longship, and I've got a war to fight."

Well, our gatling gun—financial independence—is needed even more crucially as an economic weapon that will defend and protect the interests of Scottish people and future generations. That is the tragedy for Scotland. Quite simply, the combination of being a branch economy with a falling and aging population and continuing low levels of productivity makes the prospect of achieving respectable levels of economic growth quite impossible. In the next four years, the number of people who are aware of that and its pernicious effects will grow and grow, building support for our argument.

In conclusion, I echo the comment in The Scotsman in April that "A Smart, Successful Scotland" on its own was

"a dangerous delusion, for which we would all pay a heavy price."

I encourage the minister to learn the lessons of history, and to join the clamour for the financial powers that are needed genuinely to create meaningful economic growth in Scotland.

I congratulate Jim Mather on an excellent maiden speech. I have always thought that Mr Mather makes some good points, but I am sure that his colleagues on the SNP benches will soon beat that out of him. He may wish to reflect on the unfortunate experience of his predecessor, Mr Andrew Wilson, who of course talked very much the same language as Mr Mather, and was rewarded by the SNP activists by being kicked out of this Parliament.

The first sentence in the partnership agreement that we are debating this afternoon is:

"Growing the economy is our top priority."

Those are fine words from the coalition parties. Let us just hope that this time the delivery matches the promises.

If we examine the coalition's record of the past four years, we see that it is not one of which to be proud. The Scottish economy grew by only 0.1 per cent last year. In 2002, we saw Scotland in recession for the first time in 20 years. Manufacturing has been particularly badly hit, with more than 7,000 job losses in 2002 and, since 1997, more than 57,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector. Business start-ups were down in 2002, despite extensive funding for the enterprise networks. Perhaps most significantly of all, there has been a marked increase in company insolvencies in Scotland, with 2002 showing a 23.6 per cent increase over 2001.

What are the coalition parties proposing to do to turn around this sorry situation? There are plenty of woolly words in the partnership agreement: woolly words on working with Scottish business and supporting manufacturing industries; woolly words about working in partnership with business and trade unions; woolly words about reducing unemployment; and woolly words about pursuing the creation of centres of excellence in industries. However, there is no detail on how those things are to be achieved. There are woolly words on encouraging local authorities to give school pupils hands-on opportunities in enterprise initiatives but, again, no detail. There are woolly words on working in partnership with trade unions on learning initiatives but, again, no detail, and so on.

There is a specific commitment to review the law of personal bankruptcy. That is welcome, but it says a lot about the expectations of the Executive when the emphasis is on businesses that fail, rather than on businesses that succeed. The Executive is to consult on a review of planning laws. That will be welcomed by many in the business community who see the current system as slow, expensive and cumbersome—indeed, as a real barrier to economic growth. Fortunately, the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment to grant third-party rights of appeal—a proposal viewed with horror by the business community—does not appear in the partnership agreement, although I was concerned that the First Minister did not rule that out when I questioned him on it yesterday.

My major criticism of the programme is that, when it comes to business, it misses the point completely. The key priorities for Scottish businesses are the twin burdens of business taxation and over-regulation. During the first term of the present Administration, the level playing field between Scotland and England on business rates, which the previous Conservative Government achieved, was lost.

I asked this question during the past four years and did not receive an answer, but I will persevere. Murdo Fraser says that a level playing field was achieved under the previous Conservative Government, but why was it achieved only in 1995, which was 16 years into Tory rule?

As Mr Ewing is aware, historically, Scottish councils had the right to fix the level of business rates, which meant that it took some time to move from that situation to the unified business rate. Mr Ewing should congratulate the previous Conservative Administration on achieving the UBR. Scottish businesses were delighted at that achievement and want to return to what they had between 1995 and 1997. However, the Executive does not propose action to restore the level playing field, which demonstrates how out of touch it is with the business community.

Business rates are not the only problem. Scottish Water's charges have increased substantially in the current year. I have been contacted by businesses whose charges have increased by 200 per cent, 300 per cent and, in some cases, 500 per cent. As Scottish Water is a monopoly supplier, businesses must pay the charges or they are cut off. We need an urgent inquiry into the activities of that unaccountable quango, but there is nothing in the programme for government that offers any hope in that regard.

There is little in the programme about the widely discredited quango, Scottish Enterprise. Indeed, it did not even feature in the Labour party's manifesto—perhaps the party was too embarrassed to mention it. The Scottish economy needs a shift away from the bloated quango culture. Scottish Enterprise absorbs millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, but does little to grow the economy and helps only a favoured few businesses. We should cut Scottish Enterprise's budget and return the money directly to businesses in the form of rate reductions.

We have had four years of poor growth, manufacturing recession, poor business start-up figures and increasing levels of business failure. The programme for government offers more of the same and fails to address the business community's real concerns. I hope that, during the next four years, the economy in Scotland will grow, but I fear that this timid programme is a recipe for another four years of economic failure.

I, too, congratulate Mr Mather on his maiden speech. I do so straightforwardly—it was combative and interesting and I hope to hear more such speeches from the SNP members, rather than the sort of stuff that we heard this morning.

I welcome yesterday's statement by the First Minister on the Labour-led Executive's programme for the second session of the Parliament. I believe that, essentially, the programme is a coherent plan of action to tackle many of the challenges that face Scotland. It is a practical programme that recognises the people of Scotland's legitimate demands on the issues of jobs and the wider economy, health care, education, transport and the creation of safer communities.

I offer my welcome genuinely, despite one particular aspect of the agreed programme. It will come as no surprise to members that I refer to the fact that the programme does not include my proposal for directly elected health boards. That proposal was contained in Scottish Labour's manifesto, but did not make it into the agreed text of the programme for government. I am sure that there is a good reason for that and I have written to the Minister for Health and Community Care to ask for it. I am still hopeful that the Executive will look favourably on my resubmitted member's bill on the subject, which has attracted cross-party support and which is a sensible, if modest, extension of the democratic principle.

Notwithstanding that omission, I am content to support the essentials of the Executive's programme in the policy areas that are important to the people of Scotland. I will focus on two of the reforms that the First Minister announced yesterday. I believe sincerely that the proposed national health service reform bill is a sensible and necessary measure. When enacted, it will ensure that NHS Scotland improves patient care and the quality of service.

I believe that the abolition of national health service trusts will at last clear away the final remnants of the Conservatives' failed experiment to transmogrify a public service into a private business. NHS trusts led to the development of a bureaucratic and inefficient health system that was burdened by unnecessary duplication. The move towards unified local health systems, built around NHS boards, will end the lack of clarity, the confused accountability and the unnecessary fragmentation of health service provision, which are the consequences of a dinosaur-like belief in the efficacy of the free market at all times.

What is Bill Butler's estimate for the reduction in bureaucracy to be brought about through the transition to unified health boards?

It is almost immeasurable. The reduction in bureaucracy will follow the change to the new system as night follows day. The solutions offered by the Tories in the 1980s were no solutions at all; they formed part of the problem. They do not meet the complex challenges that we face as we attempt to create a responsive health service that is able to carry out up-to-date procedures in modern facilities.

Real, progressive reform, such as the abolition of the cumbersome trusts and the creation of community health partnerships, must and will go hand in hand with record levels of investment, such as the £700 million that is to be spent on adult acute hospital services in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area over the next 10 years, which I welcome.

The second reform that I wish to mention is the additional support for learning bill. Its aim will be to provide for all pupils, giving them a positive, inclusive educational experience and the necessary support for them to fulfil their potential. The measures in that proposed bill have been developed as a result of extensive consultation with parents and educationists. That consultation showed a need to rectify the deficiencies in the current record of needs system, which is viewed—correctly, I believe—as overly bureaucratic, inflexible and difficult for local authorities to implement fully.

I welcome the proposed bill and the measures that it contains: changing the terminology; increasing the level of support; and replacing the record of needs document with a co-ordinated support plan for pupils with multiple or complex needs, who require services from several agencies to support their learning. All those component parts will strengthen rights for parents and pupils. It is a good, practical, progressive piece of proposed legislation.

The two proposed bills to which I have referred contain reforms that are part of a programme that will, I believe, lead to a more equal, more caring and more democratic Scottish society. They form part of a programme that, I contend, mirrors and responds to the day-to-day priorities of the overwhelming majority of Scotland's people. On that basis, and as a democratic socialist, I commend the programme to the Parliament.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to support the Executive in its programme for the next four years. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the extremely hard work that my predecessor, Angus MacKay, put in on behalf of the constituents of Edinburgh South. I say this for myself, and I think that I say it for him too: neither of us saw the election result coming. I wish Angus well in whatever his new endeavours happen to be. I hope, of course, that they are so successful that he is not tempted to return to the Parliament in four years' time.

I first became involved in politics in the early 1980s. One of the many attractions of getting involved in politics then was the commitment of the Liberals and the Social Democratic Party to implementing proportional representation in local government. Since then, I have been determined to see that goal achieved. As a result of the agreement before us and of the work of the Liberal Democrats, I know that it will be brought to a conclusion in 2007. I realise that not everyone shares my joy at that achievement, and I understand that the MP for Edinburgh South is just a little vexed by the decision. Unlike Mr McLetchie, I believe that it will bring better accountability to local government.

There are many other commitments in the partnership agreement that will benefit Edinburgh, and Edinburgh South in particular. We will deliver the rail link to Edinburgh airport, and the tram network will, I hope, ease congestion, particularly in the central part of Edinburgh. The greatest benefit to Edinburgh South will come from the construction of the Borders rail link. The failure to provide park-and-ride sites in the south of Edinburgh has meant that the northern part of Edinburgh South has become an unofficial park-and-ride site, which has caused severe congestion. I hope that commuter use of the rail link will ease the conflict between residents and commuters.

Edinburgh South has one of the largest concentrations of elderly people in Europe, so the extension of concessionary fare schemes on public transport across Scotland is welcome. I know that the extension of the home insulation and central heating programmes to the elderly—initially to the over-80s and then to other pensioner groups beyond 2006—will also be appreciated by many of my elderly constituents.

I think that all teachers will welcome the agreement. There are a number of reasons for that, but I will give just three: first, the scrapping of national league tables; secondly, the ending of the current system of national tests for five to 14-year-olds; and, thirdly, the introduction of a more flexible scheme for the part of the curriculum for three to six-year-olds. I believe that that flexibility will be welcomed most, as it will change the ethos of primary 1. By freeing up the curriculum and having less formal teaching methods, there will be less pressure in the first year, and that will encourage a better start for all of our futures—the children of Scotland.

I am extremely pleased to note the measures in the partnership agreement to tackle antisocial behaviour, which many members have referred to. In the Inch, which is in one part of my constituency, we have a real problem.

I have found my first 28 days in the Parliament rewarding and probably very exciting. There is no doubt that it is a friendly place and I thank all those who have helped me begin to settle in. The most rewarding part is being able to help my constituents, so I will take every opportunity in the next four years to lend as many of them such assistance as I can.

What is more important to any of my constituents than having a job, particularly when they have given loyal support to their employer? My majority was only 158 and, although I would say that I do not want to go through that experience again, it could be argued that, as more than that number work for Scottish Natural Heritage in Edinburgh South—well, I am sure members can draw their own conclusions.

I believe that we must be careful about how the Executive's policies affect not only the future well-being of those employees but the very existence of the organisation. Few members may be aware that a recent survey of SNH employees in Edinburgh found that 90 per cent were very unhappy with the present proposal and were very unlikely to move. I was, and am, a strong supporter of devolution. It is right that devolution of power to Edinburgh will lead to devolution from Edinburgh. However, I suggest that, while we pursue such a policy, we must be sympathetic towards those whose lives are affected by the decisions.

My commitment to the electors of Edinburgh South is that I will support them in any way that I can over the next four years.

In recent weeks, there has been much talk about how the political map of Scotland has been redrawn after the election. That may be the case, but the Green group in the Parliament is more concerned with how the physical map of Scotland will change as a result of the partnership agreement.

The first issue is the Cairngorms national park boundary, which bears little relationship with what is physically on the ground and has everything to do with political boundaries and political shenanigans. That is the first and easiest bit of the map that needs to be redrawn so as to include highland Perthshire.

We also urgently need new lines to be marked on the map to extend the national grid infrastructure to those remote areas that could supply renewable electricity. If the Executive is to have any chance of meeting the renewable electricity target, that issue must be progressed as a priority.

Of course, some things need to be scrubbed off the Executive's map. The completion of the motorway box around Glasgow will cram us even further into congestion claustrophobia. We would rather see just a fraction of the £500 million that is to be spent on 5 miles of the M74 being put towards placing towns such as Leven and St Andrews back on the rail network where they belong. That would deliver economic growth for those communities and would deliver some social justice for people without cars.

Given the Executive's commitment to plant 150 million trees to offset the pollution from all the new roads, the land in between the roads should certainly look green enough. I hope that the Executive will uphold its commitment to introduce competitive payment rates for organic farmers and will respect the wishes of consumers who do not want genetically modified crops in their local fields or on their plates.

The true test of any addition to the new map of Scotland is whether it will contribute positively to the lives of future generations. We welcome the introduction of strategic environmental assessment in Scotland, which could provide the crystal ball for looking at how our decisions today will affect the future, but we need reassurance that the Executive will ensure that sustainability is mainstreamed in the thinking not just of the Cabinet but of civil service departmental heads and their middle managers and staff.

We need to know that the approach of assessing the sustainability of our actions today will apply to all the Executive's strategies and programmes and to the whole of the public sector. Unless we adopt such an approach across the public sector, we will not be able to act strategically or to assess much and we will leave many gaps for the environment to be degraded.

I hope that the new map of Scotland that will emerge from the Parliament's work will be fit for future generations. We intend to play a full part in guiding the Executive towards that goal.

I begin by congratulating Ross Finnie on holding on to his ministerial portfolio. Over the past few years, he has had to endure some pretty torrid media headlines. On occasion, he has been compared to Captain Mainwaring from "Dad's Army". Although it is true that there is a physical likeness, by holding on to his portfolio, he has proved that he has more staying power and durability than the wavering Captain Mainwaring had. I wish him all the best for the next few years because, from what I have seen of the partnership agreement and the programme for government, he may need it.

There is some good stuff in the programme for government and the partnership agreement—in particular, as other members have mentioned, the proposals for legislation on strategic environmental assessments and the commitments on green energy and waste. However, there are also areas in which the new Government's commitments require to be tested and there are significant voids that need to be explained.

I sincerely hope that the strategic environmental assessments will describe how the Executive will set greenhouse gas reduction targets for the transport, agriculture and forestry sectors in Scotland, as well as for the energy sector. I guess that I should not hold my breath for long, because the partnership agreement contains very little about the impact of climate change and the need to reduce Scotland's footprints on the world.

It was good to see in the agreement a commitment to exploiting Scotland's renewable energy potential and recognition that the strengthening of the grid is a major impediment to achieving the Executive's goals. Make no mistake—as Mark Ruskell said, the upgrading of the grid will be a litmus test of whether, given the powers that are available to the Parliament, the Executive will be able to achieve all that it aspires to.

What will the Executive do if the UK Government continues to ignore the strategic economic importance to Scotland of grid upgrade, which is what the UK Government has done to date? Will the Executive simply shrug its shoulders and say that it has done all that it can within the powers that are available to the Parliament, or will it accept the inevitable conclusion that, to resolve serious energy matters such as grid upgrade, energy policy must become the Scottish Parliament's responsibility?

It will also be interesting to see the Executive's consultation paper on its proposed water services bill. Will it herald the introduction of competition and the beginning of the front-door privatisation of Scotland's water services?

Hear, hear.

The Conservatives did not argue for that in their manifesto—they argued for mutualisation, which is not privatisation. It is obvious that Alex Johnstone does not agree with some Tory policies.

How will the proposed bill deal with the impact of water charges on the small business sector? The First Minister was right to put the economy at the centre of the Executive's programme and to make it a top priority. The small business sector is vital to the Scottish economy's success. If the Executive shares that view, the discrimination against small businesses because of Scotland's high water charges in comparison with those for our nearest competitors in England and Wales cannot be allowed to continue.

I will give members examples of what I mean by that from figures that the water industry commissioner provided. The average water bill for a newsagent in England and Wales is £141, but in Scotland it is £526. The average water bill for a restaurant in England and Wales is £975, but in Scotland it is £4,658. The average bill for commercial premises in England and Wales is £1,772, but in Scotland it is £28,494. The average bill in retail in England and Wales is £12,024, but in Scotland it is £83,700. If the Executive is serious about the Scottish economy, it must tackle that discrimination and introduce proposals in the water services bill to help Scotland's small businesses. Otherwise, Executive members and their rhetoric will be proved to be like empty vessels, rattling about with no ideas.

I will describe experiences of my constituents that show why I welcome the partnership proposals to make our communities safer.

Last summer, I was contacted by a group of residents in my constituency. They were neighbours who were frustrated beyond endurance by a gang of young people in their early teens. The group complained of abusive behaviour and language, harassment and vandalism to the local school and their properties. Everybody knew who was doing the deeds—they were local kids whose parents did not seem to bother—but it seemed that nothing could be done about them.

I met the community police officer, who was frustrated, too. He had a record of reported incidents and had pressed charges against those involved, but the system was slow and it seemed that he could not do much to improve the situation. He had spoken to the parents of the young people, but one father had said that the kids were out of control and that he could do nothing about it.

I met the reporters to the children's panel, who knew the family well and were anxious to make progress. They told me about a list of problems that prevented them from making progress, such as a lack of sufficient places in secure accommodation, especially in our locality, which meant that the panel often had to rely on foster carers. There is a lack of alternative disposals for people who are under 16 and there is a serious problem with the number of social workers who are trained and available to implement the disposals.

Eventually, the ringleader returned to secure accommodation, the dark nights came in and the situation seemed to quieten down. However, last week, two upset and angry ladies called at my constituency office. They were the mother and grandmother of a very young girl who had been seriously assaulted, possibly by someone with a sexual intent. It was fortunate that a passer-by pulled the teenage boy off the girl and called the police, which allowed charges to be brought. Of course, the girl was terrified. Her terror increased as the boy and his friend took to harassing her family, to hanging around outside her school as she left and outside her house and her grandmother's house, and to following her to the shops.

The police and lawyers said that nothing could be done to prevent the teenage boy and his friend from doing that. That was when the women approached me in frustration. During our discussion, it soon became clear that the boy was one of the gang that had harassed the neighbourhood a year before. Unfortunately, he had graduated from petty street crime to violent crime that could place him on the sex offenders register. Those women wanted to know why the law could not protect that little girl from harassment by her attacker. They felt that the assailant was given greater consideration than the victim. I promised them that we would try to change the law and redress the balance in favour of the victim.

Sadly, such incidents are replicated in every constituency. That is why I welcome the commitments in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland" to legislate to tackle antisocial behaviour. Perpetrators who are under 16 should no longer believe that they are exempt from the law because of their age. I welcome the commitment to make parents accept their responsibility for controlling their children's behaviour.

During my time as a councillor in Ayrshire and as an MSP, several police officers have reported to me that, late at night, they have quite often picked up children as young as 12 or 13 who were drunk and getting up to mischief. The police officers have taken them home to their parents, but their parents' attitude has been, "What do you expect me to do about it?" That is not good enough. Such parents are letting their children and their communities down.

However, it would be wrong to give the impression that all young people are involved in crime. The vast majority of young people have responsible parents and behave compassionately and respectfully towards one another, despite the many pressures on young people nowadays. Alongside taking tough action to deal with antisocial behaviour and the lack of parental responsibility, we must help to support young people and enable them to make positive choices not to get involved in crime or drugs.

At the beginning of this week, I was fortunate to witness such a scheme when I attended a performance that was given by young people from S1 to S4 at the Moffat Youth Theatre. With the assistance of drama instructors, they had put together a moving series of plays about bullying, social inclusion and lack of self-esteem and they explored ways in which they could reject becoming involved in criminal and antisocial activity. I am delighted that Moffat Youth Theatre has just been successful in obtaining a grant of £185,000 from the Community Fund to expand such excellent work. I am also pleased that the partnership agreement directs an extra £10 million to provide additional support for localised action and initiatives to divert young people away from crime.

Making Scotland a better place to live means taking tough action where individuals act against the collective interest and giving people the opportunity to make positive choices. The proposals in the new partnership agreement do both. I congratulate colleagues in the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party for their hard work in putting together a programme that will make a real difference to the real problems that are faced by people in our constituencies.

I promise the Presiding Officer that there will be no singing today.

The statement that the First Minister made to the Parliament yesterday has been criticised today and yesterday as being complacent and representing much more of the same, when promises of profound improvement are what Scotland needs most. However, critics of such political laziness have so far been unable to spot the underlying title of the partnership document. The Executive has presented us with "Carry on Maggie Volume 2"—the film version is to be known as "The Matron Reloaded". As an SSP MSP for the Lothians, I much prefer the Jack McConnell whom I met 20 years ago as a young socialist to the Jack McConnell yesterday whom I saw banging the law-and-order drum. For all the world, I thought that I was listening to Mrs Thatcher when he was pandering to the fear of crime that blights our communities. Like Mrs Thatcher, he was flimsy in detailing what moneys are to be invested in providing what the partnership document promises to be exciting opportunities

"that will excite and stretch our young people".

At the same time, the document is saturated with tough new punishments for those young people and their guardians.

Providing facilities and support for our youngsters and investing in their needs have surely long been proven to be a much more effective long-term solution to combating youth crime. The bag-load of sticks that the First Minister announced yesterday belongs in the dustbin of history alongside Mrs Thatcher.

In the light of figures that were released yesterday showing that youth crime levels in Scotland are no higher than they were 10 years ago, a person could be forgiven for thinking that the Executive is pandering to a fear of crime rather than allaying such fears. It would be better if such fears were put in context or if the root causes of crime in our schemes and communities were addressed in Edinburgh—for example, in the Inch, where I live and which Mike Pringle mentioned—and throughout the Lothians and Scotland. The Executive and the Parliament know full well that the level of youth crime and indeed all crime is disproportionately higher in the poorer areas of our society. To go on, as the First Minister did yesterday, about yob culture simply offers failure upon failure. The suggestion is that some youngsters are beyond the pale and that society has given up on 14 and 15-year-olds.

That approach has little to offer as a serious solution to the problem of antisocial behaviour. There were few less edifying sights in the recent election than that of Scotland's political leaders—all middle-aged men—queueing up in some kind of Dutch auction to attack and punish some of Scotland's most deprived youngsters.

The way forward on this issue is to include those youngsters in society. We need to encourage them to feel part of and involved in their society, give them goals that reward them for playing a part in our society and make them part of social progress in Scotland. The way forward is not to ban them or manacle them and it is certainly not to punish and jail their parents.

I have a constructive suggestion as to how the Executive could further develop its excellent policies to develop better communities: the Executive should make greater use of the contribution of the voluntary sector. That is a sphere in which collectively we did not do as well as we should have over the past four years.

The voluntary sector covers the whole range of Scottish life: youth work, health, arts, sport, environment, caring and welfare. It also supports families, the elderly, the community, and people with drug and alcohol problems. All voluntary sector organisations suffer from the same problem, which is short-term funding for new projects—whether from the Executive, local councils, the lottery, charities or sponsorship.

There is a current idea that new is good and that new is newsworthy—the minister, councillor or whoever gets his photo taken with something new. However, the idea that new is good is bad because we fail to support organisations adequately. Core funding is not provided, which means that many organisations struggle to exist at all. If they have a good project, they cannot keep it going because the money goes to another new project rather than to keeping going an existing project that is working well. That leads to a waste of resources. If a project is funded for three years, the project staff wander about for a year finding out what they are meant to do. They follow that with one year of good work before the final year in which everyone is busy looking for their next job. It is ridiculous that one year's work results from three years' money.

Such funding is based on competitive bidding. As far as I can see, the overall figures show that one bid for funding in six is successful. That means that five out of six organisations have wasted all the energy and skill that went into the unsuccessful bid. The scheme-based funding approach means that organisations have to invent a specious new scheme, which is usually an old scheme dressed up. Organisations lose staff and they have no coherent strategy. We need to redirect budgets from departments to make better use of the voluntary sector, which makes a great contribution to our society.

I will take youth work as an example. All members visit schools and the main thing that young people say to us is that they have nothing to do in the evening. If we invested more in good things for young people to do, we would not need to invest so much in dealing with the problems that they raise. If we could mobilise the voluntary sector, we would make a huge difference to our communities and get much better value for money.

I call Alex Johnstone, who has three minutes.

I will go very quickly.

I am interested by some of the bills that are proposed in the partnership agreement. I will deal first with the proposed nature conservation bill. It will make a nice change for the Parliament to spend time doing something in favour of nature and wild animals rather than on the politically motivated protection of foxes, which characterised the Parliament four years ago.

I will be taking the opportunity to further the aim, which I set out in the last session, of protecting the red squirrel—a measure that has hit the news again today. Although the subject can raise a laugh in the Parliament, the protection of the red squirrel in Scotland is a key objective of any wildlife policy. I look forward to proposing such a measure during the passage of the nature conservation bill.

I will move on to what might be considered rather more serious matters. The proposed water services bill gives the Parliament the opportunity to consider once again the problems that we have with our water industry. Bruce Crawford rightly said that the Conservatives did not propose wholesale privatisation during the election campaign; we once again proposed mutualisation as an alternative structure. We need that alternative structure. Although Scotland has so much clean water—indeed, it is hard to imagine where it all goes—it has among the highest water charges in Europe. Bruce Crawford chose to compare those with charges south of the border. Admittedly, the charges here are much higher, but the charges south of the border were achieved under what was perceived in Scotland to be an unpopular and politically incorrect system. We need to examine our system once again and find out whether we can deliver reasonable water charges.

I remain to be convinced that strategic environmental assessments will be as effective as some people believe they can be. I am concerned that, when we talk about sustainability, we too often mean policies that are uncosted or uncostable. Indeed, the problems highlighted today with integrating children with learning difficulties into our schools show what can happen to the public purse when the charges under an uncosted policy begin to mount up. That should teach us all that, if we are to have sustainability, any such measures must be costed. If they are not costed, they are unsustainable.

The First Minister's statement did not cover concerns about genetically modified organisms. I am perhaps one of the members who is closest to being convinced of the need for GMOs in our environment. However, we need a robust assessment of all the evidence. Moreover, we must complete the testing programme, which—given the problems that it has faced—might mean extending it over more years than was originally planned. After that, we need to make a properly informed decision during this session.

You must wind up now.

I got through most of my speech. Thank you very much.

On the whole, this afternoon's speeches have been very good and are a considerable improvement on the set pieces with which the debate opened this morning. I congratulate colleagues from all parts of the chamber who made maiden speeches this afternoon—most recently, Colin Fox made a good speech based on his perspective on youth crime.

The change of mood from the conflict of the election campaign to the serious business of Parliament and government is sometimes a difficult one. The desire to continue a half-finished debate or to score a goal after the referee, in the form of the electorate, has blown the whistle is understandably strong. Each session of Parliament will have its own mood music. In this session, the Parliament has serious work to do. It needs to build on the foundations that have been laid over the past four years, to deliver real and sustainable improvements in our health service and opportunities for our economy and young people and to rebuild our public infrastructure, whether it be transport or school buildings, private homes or the fabric of our towns and cities. Such serious work requires the whole chamber's input, which will mean a constructive approach from the various Opposition groups and a generous inclusiveness from the Government parties.

Unfortunately, judging by their opening speeches in today's debate, I think that the leaders of the Opposition parties—like the Bourbons returning after Napoleon's defeat—have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. The old records are still playing. We need neither the sterile—and usually indirect and insidious—attacks on the Scottish Parliament as an institution and the Parliament building that sometimes motivate the Tories, nor the endless constitutional debates that distort the SNP's input.

Simply in the interests of having a bit of variety, I thought that I would correct the member's history. I thought that the Bourbons were in power after Napoleon's defeat, not in opposition.

Good point. I accept that input to the debate.

Given the electorate's verdict in the recent elections, the constitutional debate is dead for a generation. Despite the impressive contributions of new members such as Jim Mather to today's debate, it would be far better if the SNP concentrated on its role of criticising and holding to account the Government parties instead of endlessly treating us to tirades about independence.

Although I had some hopes when Roseanna Cunningham opened her speech with an offer of a constructive approach, the only positive suggestions that I took from her speech were her advocacy of weekend courts and better bus timetables. She dismissed health and education in two sentences, in which she indicated her broad support for the Executive programme but doubted our competence to carry it out.

David McLetchie was next in, for the Conservatives. He has made his name in the Parliament with studied, if superficial, sallies against the size of the ministry and the cost of the Holyrood building. He is good at knocking copy, but he is not so good at positive suggestions. He is against proportional representation, despite the fact that the current system guarantees large and unaccountable majorities for his political opponents in places such as Glasgow and despite the fact that the Conservatives would not even muster a place on the Parliamentary Bureau without proportional representation in elections to the Parliament. That sort of stuff might have done well in the old session of Parliament, but it will not do in this one. In this session, the Parliament will, like all Parliaments, be judged on the success of its work on the key priorities of health, education, enterprise, transport and crime.

The progressive programme for government and the legislative proposals are the result of a successful negotiation between the Liberal Democrats and Labour. From our point of view, the programme is a Liberal Democrat one, which we support with enthusiasm. It is radical and constructive and will make Scotland a significantly better place in four years' time. As John Swinney pointed out yesterday, there is much in it that overlaps with the programmes of other parties and to which those parties can contribute. I sincerely hope that members will use their talents, through the committee system and through debates in the chamber, to that end. Effective democracy needs an effective Opposition just as much as it needs an effective Government.

There are, of course, areas of tension between and within the Government parties, notably on local government reform and on the approach to crime. It would be surprising if that were not the case. However, I would like to say a word or two about children's hearings, which the Executive is pledged to develop, improve and support with adequate resources. Elaine Murray talked in considerable detail, and with some effect, about the experience that she had in her local area with regard to such problems.

A recent report by the reporter to the Glasgow young offenders forum noted that 40 to 50 per cent of the more persistent offenders had previously been referred on care and protection grounds. To put it another way, teachers, social workers and other professionals tell us that a large percentage of potential young offenders can be spotted at the age of six and that their problems are often caused or contributed to by parental neglect. That is the real area of priority and I am strongly of the view that we should not be diverted from tackling it by tough talk about fast-track justice and more police cracking down on antisocial behaviour, relevant and important as those things are. It is far more important to put in place the resources to give young people challenging opportunities, which will divert the at-risk minority from criminal activities and support the work of children's hearings.

Dennis Canavan commented that it was simplistic nonsense to suggest that young people's behaviour would magically improve if we threw their parents in jail. He is entirely right, but I am glad to say that that is not what the partnership agreement proposes. It provides for a procedure for ensuring that parents co-operate with children's hearings. That is the sort of power that any legal system must have and is akin to remedies for breach of interdict in cases where estranged husbands will not leave their wives in peace or where parents allow their children to truant from school. We want to tackle crime, but measuring that simply in terms of the number of offenders caught is a recipe for disaster. We do not want to catch more offenders; we want to prevent people from committing criminal acts or acts of vandalism in the first place.

The programme is bold and imaginative. I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have had such a major influence on it, but I invite the whole chamber to support it in testing it, moulding it and making it a major instrument for improving the life chances of the people of Scotland.

Mr Brown has been the personification of tolerance and patience, but that is about as far as I can go on consensus. There are various forms of torture that one group of human beings may seek to visit on another, but the Scottish Executive subjecting the hapless group of souls called the wind-up speakers to four and a half hours of sitting in sepulchral Gothic surroundings on chairs akin to picnic stools while listening to 36 speeches is among the more excruciating. As a mechanism for debate, that structure has been cumbersome, unfocused and tedious and I hope that it is not repeated. Despite that, I agree with Mr Brown that there have been some excellent maiden speeches and some worthy contributions from all sections of the chamber.

The content of the legislative programme may also be described as unfocused. My colleague Mr McLetchie posed a general question: has the Executive analysed what the electorate told it on 1 May, when less than half the population voted? The population told us that there is disillusion with politicians, disillusion with politics and disillusion with devolution. Is that because of the flagship of Scottish Executive profligacy—the cost of the new Parliament building? Is it because of the money that is spent by politicians on politicians, on the number of ministers and on the size of Government? Is it to do with failure of delivery, whereby there are bigger waiting lists, longer waiting times, escalating crime, failing standards in education and mounting indiscipline in the classroom? The list could continue.

What is the Executive's analysis of the troubling malaise? Its analysis seems to be that Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians know best. Rather than radical, focused and prioritised measures to dispel the malaise, reassure the electorate and address the problems, there is in the legislative programme either silence or atrophy.

This morning, Mr Wallace said that the economy was the top priority. So it should be, as there is growth stagnation, the highest business rate in the UK and a seized-up transport system. What specific proposals does the Executive have? None.

Figures that were released yesterday disclosed an alarming situation in relation to law and order. Most disturbing was the increase in drugs crimes, but what specific proposals does the Executive have for improved drugs rehabilitation? None. Are there proposals for more police to address the rest of the turbulence in the law and order scene? No. Are there proposals for honest sentencing? No.

It is surprising that the Executive's focus turns on youth crime. Members may be equally surprised to learn that I agree with much of what Mr Fox said. The focus on youth crime is surprising for two reasons. First, other forms of crime are showing more marked increases than youth crime. Secondly, when in the previous session the Executive had the chance to support Conservative amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to achieve greater robustness in dealing with youth crime, it voted against the very measures that it now seeks to introduce.

More disturbing health statistics have been disclosed today. The reform that the legislative programme proposes is tinkering at the margins; the programme proposes no radical restoration of control to our health professionals and to patients, but a temporary adjustment of procedures and of some mechanisms.

The legislative programme does not answer the plaintive plea of the people of Scotland, which was so clamantly expressed on 1 May. Where the programme should respond it is silent and when it responds it either misses the mark or does not even reach the target. The programme is timid, because where it should shout it is mute and where it speaks it whimpers.

I will start by making a couple of points that arise from the First Minister's statement yesterday afternoon. The first relates to Mr McConnell's extolling of the benefits of the first four years of the partnership. He stated:

"700,000 tenants in social housing now have greater rights".—[Official Report, 28 May 2003; c 81.]

He also boasted about investment in new schools.

That is a rosy-tinted perspective. I will give two examples of how of the Government's record sounds a bit hollow in Dumfries and Galloway. It sounds a bit hollow to council tenants who sat for many years on the council waiting list and gained some comfort from the fact that, even if they were not going to get a house, they were accumulating some housing points from their time on the list. They now discover, after the total transfer of the council's stock to a housing partnership, that the points system has been changed and that their time on the waiting list is to be ignored. No one told them that in advance of the ballot. The housing partnership and the council are now arguing about who knew and who told whom when. All that the council tenants know is that they were sold a pup and that the greater rights that the First Minister talked about seem very insubstantial.

The Executive's record also sounds a bit hollow to the parents and others who packed a public meeting in Dunragit, Wigtownshire, on Monday night to listen to proposals to close the village school. It is an excellent school of 28 pupils, which has received the most glowing of inspectors' reports. It has a building that even the education authority admits is in excellent condition. However, the powers that be want to close it, because they cannot fund the PFI scheme for the whole region without making small savings here and there at the expense of small communities. The First Minister should not talk to the people of Dunragit about investment in new schools; he should just tell them that they can keep the one that they have.

My second point concerns the First Minister's top priority, of which we have been reminded several times today: growing the Scottish economy. The point has been made that, out of a lengthy statement running to some 10 columns of the Official Report, the references to growing the economy barely manage to fill two paragraphs. I am happy to concede that that does not imply any unwillingness on the part of the Executive to grow the economy; rather, it betrays the fundamental lack of any levers in its control that can make a significant contribution to that objective.

When the First Minister responded to that criticism yesterday, he had to resort to talking about the infrastructure investment that the Government is planning to make. Although I gladly acknowledge the fact that any such investment is a necessary condition for sustained economic growth, the Government's argument totally misses the point. While the economy continues to stagnate—I apologise for using that term; stability is the Government's preferred term and zero growth is the ultimate in stability—the amount of tax revenue that is available for such investment will allow us to improve our infrastructure at a rate that goes nowhere near addressing the neglect that it has suffered during 18 years of Conservative Governments and six years of a Labour Government.

Bizarrely, the First Minister said yesterday that we have to deliver growth to allow us to fund our services. He said that we

"must generate more wealth to fund and resource excellence in our public services."—[Official Report, 28 May 2003; c 82.]

Let us set aside the fact that there is nothing in the Government's plans that will make the Scottish economy different. Let us assume that the Scottish economy grows. Let us assume that increasing corporation tax revenues begin to fill the Government's coffers because the economy is expanding. How much of that will

"fund … excellence in our public services"?

The answer is less than 10 per cent of that increased revenue from growth, as that is the Barnett share that will come to the Scottish Executive.

Is the member at all aware of international economic events? Is he aware that economic growth in the euro zone this year is forecast to be only around 1 per cent for the third successive year? Does he understand anything about international economics? The economies of our major competitors, such as Germany, Japan and America, have all been in recession. What we provide through our partnership with the UK Government are the lowest-ever inflation rate, the lowest-ever interest rate, the highest-ever employment rate and the lowest unemployment rate for a very long time.

That was a fairly long speech to concede that the Scottish economy is going down the tubes. Andy Kerr does not explain how it has been going that way over the past 40 years or how he is going to fund increases in services through increased growth in the Scottish economy when we do not get the revenue from the tax growth. Even the 10 per cent Barnett share of our tax revenues depends on decisions of the United Kingdom Treasury concerning how it spends the money. If Messrs Blair and Brown were to mess up their approach to the euro—which they might well do—and lose an election as a result, allowing the Tories to get into power at Westminster, we could see public expenditure fall at Westminster and we would get no benefit from increased growth in the Scottish economy because our share of that increased growth would fall. The current system has not worked for the past 40 years, as Jim Mather powerfully pointed out, and there is no likelihood of its working in the next 40 years.

We have had a good debate today, and I echo the comments that have been made by other members about the quality of the speeches. Mike Pringle was modest almost to the point of rubbishing his own campaign. At least he admitted that he did so from the standpoint of having a majority of 158, which compares well against my majority of minus 99. Generally, the speeches were of a high standard and I hope that the comments in tomorrow's press refer to that.

In his excellent first speech, Mr Stewart Maxwell pointed out flaws in the three-member ward system for the single transferable vote. He made what I thought was a reasonable point, which is that STV is not proportional representation, despite the lyrical praise with which Mike Rumbles lauded it and his description of it as proportional. I inform Mr Rumbles that STV is not PR.

How can Alasdair Morgan say that the single transferable vote is not proportional, when it is clear that it is? I grant that the more wards there are, the more proportional STV is. However, wards of three or four members are still proportional. I suggest to Alasdair Morgan that he is misleading members.

The point is that STV is not proportional; it is more proportional than the first-past-the-post system and it gets more proportional the more members there are in each seat, but limiting the number to three per ward does not result in a very proportional system. The example of De Valera is an instructive one.

I am also interested in what Mr McLetchie said, which was that voting reform is a waste of time. It would be interesting to know whether he wants to retain the proportional system of voting for the Scottish Parliament or whether he wants to dispense with it and return to first-past-the-post elections for the Parliament, now that his party has achieved three seats through that method. That would seem a logical step to take and Mr McLetchie is normally a logical man. He is right to criticise the cost of the Holyrood building, but he has a responsibility to say what he would do now, apart from having the inquiry that we all want. He said in response to an intervention on that point that he would not have built the Parliament building in the first place. However, we all know that he did not want a Scottish Parliament anyway. He did not want it at Holyrood or Calton Hill because he did not want a Parliament in Scotland. Therefore, what he said does not take us much further forward.

Chris Ballance, too, made a strong first speech, but I must disagree with a couple of his points. I understood him to say that the Executive is planning major improvements to the A75 and the A77 in south-west Scotland. I concede that they will be welcome improvements and I would hate to disappoint Mr Ballance, but the improvements will be a long way from being major or sufficient. He also referred to the need for a rail connection to Cairnryan. I speak from the standpoint of being both a rail enthusiast and an enthusiast for rail transport, if members can work out the difference. With any budget, we must assess the practical returns for our investment in relation to the economy. I must say that, considering both the nature and the frequency of the traffic at Cairnryan, the case for a rail link is difficult to make when the basic road infrastructure is still so inadequate in south-west Scotland.

Regardless of our enthusiasms, we must remember that railways are not a guarantee of economic prosperity. In my former constituency, there were three towns with rail connections: Stranraer, Kirconnel and Sanquhar. They had one other point in common, which was that they had the highest unemployment figures in the constituency. Rail is no panacea for developing the economy.

In what I thought was another cogent first speech, Mr Rob Gibson referred to rural depopulation in the Highlands and Islands. He rightly identified the need for affordable housing as an aspect of tackling the problem, which is not unique to the Highlands and Islands but affects all areas of rural Scotland. Mr Gibson talked about the availability of land in that respect. However, we need to pay attention to an unsympathetic planning regime and an inadequate utilities infrastructure if we are to address the housing shortage.

I have a final point on rural issues. I notice that the partnership agreement states that the Executive will develop the core path network. One of the achievements of the previous session was to get through the land access reforms in the face of opposition from vested interests represented by the Conservatives. However, if we are to benefit from the huge boost to tourism that walking can bring, we need development in many areas of the core path network. I ask what resources will be given to that, because it is clear that local authorities do not have the resources.

Will Scotland be better after the next four years, when we come to the end of the Government's programme—assuming that the coalition does not fracture before then? After four years and after spending about £90 billion—which is what the figure will be at current prices—it will be astonishing if Scotland is not a little bit better. However, will Scotland be the best that it can be? Will we really release the potential of our land and our people? I very much doubt it.

I congratulate the Deputy Presiding Officer on being in charge at this stage of a very interesting debate.

Like Annabel Goldie, I have sat through more than 36 speeches today in these fine surroundings. It was important for me to sit through those speeches to hear what people had to say—particularly the new members who were making their first speeches in Parliament. It is important that the Parliament reflects the views of the Scottish people and that the Executive takes on board the comments that were made about looking and listening to what people are saying, both outside and inside the Parliament.

I would be very grateful if the minister would indicate which of the 36 speeches to which she listened she considers worthy of being taken into account in the legislative programme. What changes will be made?

It will not be possible for me to respond in detail to every point that was made in the 36 speeches. However, one sign of a mature Parliament and a mature Executive—if I may describe myself as mature—is that we take on board all the points that have been made. As members may have noticed, I have taken copious notes. I will raise directly with other ministers the points that I will not be able to cover in my speech today.

It is important to recognise that the programme that the First Minister announced yesterday is for the first year of a four-year term that will deliver the policies set out in the partnership agreement. Our programme is very substantial. We have four years in which we need to combine investment with reform and modernisation with delivery. It is very important that we secure improvements that make differences to the lives of ordinary people in Scotland—the people who wanted a better Scotland. We recognise that, as Annabel Goldie said, many people are disillusioned with politics and politicians. There is a responsibility on every member of the Parliament to work to remedy that situation and to ensure that we are seen to listen to the people of Scotland.

I do not agree with those members who have suggested that we are focusing on the wrong priorities. We have heard a number of powerful speeches that show exactly why the Executive has the right priorities. Those include making improvements in education and health, and tackling the problems of disorder and crime in local communities—an issue to which I will return later in my speech. We have put at the top of our agenda working to encourage economic growth, to tackle poverty and disadvantage, to improve and sustain our environment, and to help all our communities to live in peace and safety.

Today members have spoken about the economy. Of course we want to do more to stimulate business growth and want businesses to be sustainable. I recognise the value of small businesses, which are often the life-blood of local communities, particularly in rural areas. However, we should recognise that we have the lowest unemployment levels for a generation—for as long as I can remember. Young people are now seriously talking about a choice of career and what they want to do with their lives, rather than wondering whether they will have a career at all. Let us celebrate that fact and the work that the UK Government has done.

Will the minister give way?

No—I want to move on to some different points.

Over the next four years, we will continue to use the powers that the Scottish Parliament has. Instead of tinkering or seeking further constitutional change, we will use those powers productively. We will promote Scotland as a good place in which to live and work, with a high quality of life that will be attractive to fresh talent from around the world.

A number of members commented on transport. Some good, pertinent speeches were made on that. An effective transport system is central not only to a thriving economy, but to strong communities. We must put in place an integrated transport system that gets goods to market quickly and efficiently, and gets people to work safely and on time. In our programme for government, we are setting out a clear agenda and giving transport a degree of priority. We will ensure that we deliver on our aim of making Scotland accessible. Scotland will have a modern, safe, efficient and sustainable transport system. We will minimise the impact of transport on the environment, especially by encouraging greater use of public transport. However, we must recognise that in some instances, in order to connect communities and to tackle disadvantage, upgrading of the road infrastructure is required.

People deserve and expect public services of the highest possible quality, which give them the greatest possible choice. That is why, in our programme, we will continue to use the record level of investment in our public services to secure new and better facilities, particularly for schools and hospitals. It was disappointing to hear some members commenting today that we should perhaps abandon those programmes. People in our communities expect us to deliver on our promises. The people who want better schools, who want their children to be educated in modern classrooms and who want new health provision expect us to deliver on that. We intend to deliver in our public services with the interests of the pupils, patients, passengers and victims of crime always coming first.

We also need to ensure that services match the needs of individuals. Duncan McNeil and others talked about the need to regenerate local communities. I do not share the disappointment that some people express about social inclusion partnerships and how we will move on to community planning. Social inclusion partnerships in many areas have delivered regeneration and community building in a way that we want to develop in the future and they have built confidence both for the individuals living in the communities and for community groups.

Donald Gorrie mentioned voluntary sector funding. We do not want to make life more difficult for the organisations; rather, we want to ensure that the voluntary sector is a genuine partner in delivery with the public and private sectors. We will continue to invest in and reform public services to cut through bureaucracy, simplify the funding processes and ensure that the services are flexible.

Health was mentioned in a number of powerful speeches. Jean Turner brought the benefit of her experience. Nicola Sturgeon and David Davidson welcomed the range of measures that we are going to implement, although of course they also identified measures that they want us to consider in future.

On education, Marlyn Glen, who has a long history of working with difficult and disadvantaged young people, made an excellent first speech in the Parliament. Elaine Murray made a powerful contribution on the needs of Scotland's children and young people, how we need to work positively with them, and the role that drama, the arts, culture and other positive activities can play in that.

I will spend a couple of minutes talking about safer communities. In the articulate contributions made by Scott Barrie, Karen Whitefield, Maureen Macmillan and Elaine Murray we heard clearly why the public expects us to do something about the misery of youth disorder. I make no apology for being clear about this. We will continue to work towards a safer Scotland, reducing in particular violent and drug-related crime and reoffending. We need to implement strong measures and take tough action. We need to change a culture that is all too prevalent in some communities, whereby young people think that it is appropriate to carry knives, to use weapons and to be involved in gang warfare and whereby the numbers of sexual offences and violent crimes are rising. That is unacceptable and we must send a clear message to our communities that we will not shirk taking effective action, whether in legislation, policy development or determining how we shape our services to tackle those problems.

I agree entirely with the minister that urgent action is necessary. However, when the Executive was faced with the difficulties that have arisen—not just last week, last month or last year, but over some time—why did it not accept the appropriate amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that I proposed, which are identical in many respects to what the minister has proposed today?

The First Minister made it clear in his contribution yesterday, when the same point was raised, that the amendments were not made to the appropriate part of the bill and that there had already been problems around the scope of the bill. We are putting together a coherent package that will combat antisocial behaviour and reform the courts and the legal processes to deal with cases more efficiently.

Let us be honest, Bill—there is no quick fix, and people in communities that are blighted by crime and disorder know that there is no quick fix. Politicians who promise quick fixes are one reason why people distrust politicians. We promise a sustained programme of action over the next four years to tackle the problems in communities where people cannot enjoy a decent quality of life and where there is poor housing, a blighted environment and, yes, poverty. We want everyone to have a decent home. We want to ensure that neighbourhoods are kept safe and clean and that, yes, our planning laws work to improve the environment for all. We want to tackle the social, educational and economic barriers that create inequality, and we will work to end child poverty by tackling deprivation and social need. We will support those who make a valuable contribution to people in communities through their work in the voluntary sector and through volunteering, in order to ensure that communities are empowered to shape their own lives and agenda.

I have little time left to deal with a number of issues that have been raised, but I want to pick up on one point that may not have had a great deal of coverage. Sport, culture and the arts will have a key role in today's diverse Scotland. Our vision is of a Scotland where cultural life is inclusive and accessible. We acknowledge our proud and distinctive heritage and we want to embrace that diversity of language and culture. We will develop a plan to support traditional and other languages, promoting the widest possible participation in a vigorous and diverse cultural life in Scotland. That will bring real benefits to local communities and to individuals, as part of an overall process of building a better Scotland. The creative industries will have an increasingly important role in Scotland's economy. We can already demonstrate that there has been considerable impact in industries in that sector, and we will improve the conditions that will allow them to flourish.

We have put together a coherent programme of legislation, containing a vision and a policy agenda that will see us through the next four years. Over the past few weeks, people may have become used to me and Tavish Scott being the public face of the partnership, giving the latest updates on how the coalition negotiations were progressing. However, if anything sums up the partnership and how we will operate over the next four years, it is the partnership approach of Duncan McNeil and Mike Rumbles. I am sure that colleagues will agree that that bodes well for the future. I look forward to working with everyone in this chamber to ensure that we make progress with our agenda. We have made it clear that when good ideas come from people in other political parties, or from people of no party, we will listen and we will work constructively with them. However, those other political parties, and those people of no party, will have a responsibility to work with the Executive in delivering for the people of Scotland.