 The next side of business is a debate on the Scottish Government's programme of government 2014-15. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press a request, but now. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party and congratulate the new First Minister on bringing forward her first programme for government. This is, of course, the first post referendum legislative agenda presented by the Government. It has been presented in the Scotland that is, as others have said, changed and changed utterly. The passion and energy of the referendum, a passion that came from the ground up on both sides, rather than being directed by politicians, means that business, as usual, is no longer good enough. When 85 per cent of the electorate takes part in a vote in Scotland, the old way of doing things just won't work anymore. We must all change, including the Scottish Government. Voters will rightly judge the First Minister and her Government on results, not rhetoric. Indeed, they might even hold your feet to the fire on promises of greater social justice. However, Scottish Labour wants to see a programme for government that puts cutting inequality at the heart of absolutely everything that we do. We believe that social justice should not just be an empty slogan, but the central strategy that makes our country and our communities healthier, wealthier and happier. Simply talking about social justice does not pay the bills or lift a single person out of poverty. I see lots of summits, commissions and conventions in the First Minister's statement. Perhaps those are the new vehicles for the new consensus, and I welcome that, but it is not a substitute for actually taking action. It is welcome that the SNP has decided to prioritise social justice. It is something that they have had the power to deliver from the beginning. For me, there is no greater ambition for government. If the Government brings forward legislation or takes action to tackle inequality, the Scottish Labour Party will support it. Although it remains to be seen whether the new First Minister will turn out to be different from a predecessor on social justice, in one crucial aspect there can be no debating a major change. The First Minister is a woman and that, indeed, is cause for celebration. It sends a signal, as she said herself, to every young woman and every girl in Scotland that they can reach the top of their chosen profession without gender acting as a barrier. We, on these benches, have long advocated equality for women in politics. We were the first to have a 50-50 gender balance in our parliamentary party, the first to introduce all women shortlists. The new 50-50 Scottish Cabinet is to be welcomed. It is a great start, but as the First Minister already knows herself, it isn't enough. I welcome her commitment to 50-50 by 2020, but you can do that for public bodies right now. You don't need quotas in order to do that. Ministers make all of the appointments. We know that the boards of our public bodies are dominated by men. I won't run through the list, but just look at Scottish Enterprise. In mere three women to nine men, what signal are we sending about women in the economy? If the First Minister is serious about breaking down the barriers for women in public life and not just in politics, we agree that 50-50 representation is essential, but we believe that we can make progress right now. I hope that the First Minister will also recognise the difficulty many women experience in the workplace. If the SNP really wants to act on social justice, they could start by shining a light on the discrimination faced by working women. How about challenging every large private firm to audit and publish their pay gap? Let's do it for the public sector, too. Let me turn to the living wage. We all know that the living wage will make a huge difference to women. We believe that the Scottish Government should promote better pay with a living wage strategy and a living wage unit. A convention is welcome, but we can do more. We want to see the passion and energy that the SNP showed for independence put into delivering better wages for workers across the country. Just a few months ago, we asked the First Minister in her previous role to support the living wage in all public sector contracts. She has the power to do so. It would guarantee a rise to workers in low-paid jobs, such as cleaning, catering and caring, the majority of whom are women. If Renfrewshire Council can agree this with its private care providers, surely the Government can do something, too. The SNP, indeed. I wonder if the member then would agree that the control of the statutory minimum wage should be devolved. No, what I think is that the living wage is considerably higher. Actually, the debate in Scotland has moved on to the living wage, and I think that that is critically important. However, I welcome the SNP's new-found interest in this, because you voted against this in the past. In this year alone, you voted against the living wage no fewer than five times. The people of Scotland deserve better than that. They should not have to put up with a Scottish Government, no thank you, that talks left but walks right. The reality for too many Scots is that work does not pay. It is a moral scandal that, after seven years of an SNP Government and four years of the Tories, some working families in Scotland rely on food banks and payday lenders to make ends meet. If the boiler breaks down or the electricity bill is higher than expected, they are in trouble, because the cost of living crisis is increasing. Nearly one in five children in Scotland are living in relative poverty. That is an increase of 15 per cent from the previous year. That is 30,000 more children living in poverty in Scotland today. That is something that this Parliament and the First Minister can change. It was Scottish Labour that more than half child poverty in just 10 years. We lifted 200,000 Scottish children out of poverty, and we can do that again. The reality is that this chamber has always had significant powers to fight poverty. One of the achievements of Labour and Government in the UK was the tax credit system, including the child tax credit system. That has been altered to make things worse for working families. We support the devolution of those powers to this Parliament, so we can address it here, Ms Bailey. The Smith commission reports tomorrow. You have people who are represented in that commission actually taking forward your agenda. Why do not you talk to John Swinney and we will see what the consensus delivers tomorrow? Let me talk about the powers that you do have, because that would be interesting. For example, on housing, this Government has a shameful record. Scotland faces a social housing crisis. They do not like the facts, do they? They like to shout them down, because Scotland faces... Scotland faces... Scotland faces... Well, answer this question, then. Why is it that social housing in Scotland has been at a level now that has not been seen since the Second World War? This Government is well on track to meet its target in social housing, but the question I wanted to ask Jackie Baillie is, can she remind the chamber exactly how many council houses the last Labour administration built? Jackie Baillie? I know the First Minister is fixated on council houses. Perhaps she would like to tell us how many built were built by housing associations in the socially rented sector, because we built more than you are currently doing. At this point, 180,000 Scots sit on waiting lists. 23,000 homes lie empty. The Scottish Government's own statistics from yesterday showed a 22 per cent drop in social housing completions in the last year. That is not a record to be proud of. If this Government is serious about tackling poverty, that has to change. We also need to reform the private rented sector for those who are unable to access social housing or get a foot on the property ladder. We called for a ban for rip-off rent rises. The SNP said no. They voted with the Tories to protect rogue landlords rather than offer some support and protection to the one-in-four Scots who live in poverty in the private rented sector. Where is the bill? It is not here. We are encouraged by the First Minister's recent comments about the importance of childcare. We regard that as an economic issue, not a gender issue. Although it will come as a surprise to many Scots that a transformative childcare agenda does not require Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. As Scottish Labourers said all along, we need the political will to make a difference to families across this country. If we want a thriving economy, we need to fix the barrier for parents. It can also be a huge game changer in the fight against poverty. However, our current childcare system is not working. It needs to be more affordable, it needs to be more flexible, and the costs are among the highest in Europe. Although the First Minister's ambition to make childcare free for 27 per cent of two-year-olds is welcome, it would actually see Scotland lag behind England where the figure is 40 per cent. We cannot make all childcare free, but we can make it affordable and flexible. We are committed to capping childcare costs and we are working through those details with experts. We would ensure a childcare place for every mother and father who wants to go to college to gain the skills needed for a job. The Scottish Government realised during the referendum that childcare was an important issue. It should remain one. However, the programme for government does not have a bill to match that ambition. We are planning, we are in consultation, potentially we could be waiting six years to see a difference. That is a pity because you would have had our full support for taking radical action. The First Minister also has to accept that her Government has presided over budgets that have disproportionately hurt the poorest people in Scotland. The Government's cuts to local authorities have scarred our communities. Those cuts are felt on the front line, on the public services most relied upon by our poor and our vulnerable. If he can explain to me why there are 70,000 fewer local government workers and why the bulk of them are women. I simply want to ask Jackie Baillie how many occasions has the Labour Party at any stage asked me to give local government more money in the formal budget negotiations? The answer, because she won't give it, is on no occasions whatsoever. As a former local government worker, I am always happy to see more money given to local government because they will do something about it. However, can I say there are, as a consequence of John Swinney's decisions, his Government's decisions, 70,000 fewer local government workers in Scotland today? We welcome the Government's intention to finally do something about the council tax freeze. I am not opposed to a freeze. After all, no, no, no. After all, it was Glasgow City Council that led the way. It is simply that the Government have underfunded that promise, but a consultation is what we promise, not legislation, so it's off into the long grass again. However, as the First Minister knows, Scottish Labour led the way on land reform, with a series of radical measures, including the introduction of the right to room and the ending of feudalism. Whatever the Government now wants to do on land reform, we will support as long as it meets the test of being radical. My colleague Claire Baker will say more about that later. However, a few things unite us across the chamber more than the horror of domestic abuse. More needs to be done to end violence against women. As a minister, I was proud of Scottish Labour's work, which began to tackle the issue on which the current Government has built on. However, one in five women will experience domestic abuse at some point in their lives, so it's not an issue of party politics, it is an issue of human decency. I therefore very much welcome the Government's intention to legislate in this area and indeed on revenge porn as well. They will have our full support for these measures. However, can I ask the First Minister to clarify when we are likely to see that legislation, because we would support it being brought forward as quickly as possible. I'm also delighted to welcome the First Minister's commitment to taking forward a bill on human trafficking, initially introduced by my colleague Jenny Marra, and I do agree with her. I hope that it can serve as an example of what can be achieved when we work together. Nobody will be in any doubt that winter is approaching. However, for 900,000 Scots living in fuel poverty, this winter is something to dread. It means hardships, tough challenges, larger bills. The 2001 housing act, which we all supported in this chamber, pledged to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016. I think that that target is unlikely to be met, although I would happily take an intervention to be told that I'm wrong. Well, there you go. It is shameful that this Government has underspent the fuel poverty budget at a time when the need is self-evident, as families across Scotland choose between heating and eating the Scottish Government are doing nothing about it. However, it doesn't have to be like that. The First Minister, in the spirit of the new consensus, should join with Scottish Labour and support of freeze-on energy prices. We know that the SNP wanted to give energy companies a double windfall in the shape of a corporation tax cut and by removing the green levy. However, I hope that their newfound commitment to social justice will see them support our plans, which would save every Scottish household an average of £120 while we overhaul the energy market and take on vested interests. We already have a fuel poverty strategy produced by Scottish Labour, which I commend to the First Minister. A new area means a new Cabinet, but it's not without its challenges. Our NHS is in crisis whilst education budgets have been slashed. Change at the top means nothing if the new faces don't have a new approach. It is disappointing that this agenda contains little action to repair our broken NHS, because it is clear that urgent action is what is needed. Delayed discharge is up by 106 per cent since last year. As more patients take up beds, they no longer need due to the lack of care packages. NHS complaints are up by 23 per cent. A and E waiting times are not being met. Cancer waiting times are being missed. Just this week, we find that promises made by the Scottish Government on access to cancer medicines have been broken. When in opposition, the First Minister promised to increase the number of available hospital beds. Yet Scotland's hospital beds are disappearing faster than almost anywhere else in the western world. More than 6,000 beds have been withdrawn from Scottish hospitals over the past 10 years—a drop of 21 per cent. I care passionately about all those who work in it. I know that the First Minister does, too, but they face challenges. As our NHS teachers on the brink, this Government's response is inadequate. Our NHS deserves much better than that. That is why we believe that it is a time for a fundamental review of the NHS to make sure that our resources are being put in the right place to strengthen the NHS for decades to come. It is time for a beverage report for the 21st century. When the previous First Minister left office, he called free tuition his greatest achievement. There is even a large rock sculpture to prove it, but the reality is different. For thousands of Scots, education at any level means being caught between a rock and a hard place, and the numbers speak for themselves. The budget for further education is £67 million. The number of college students in Scotland is cut by more than 140,000. The number of Scottish students attending university is down by 12,000 and for those from the poorest backgrounds is over 3,500. Students' bursaries are cut by 35 per cent, while student debt has shot up to 69 per cent in the last year alone. In numeracy and literacy, the Government has failed to close the inequality gap. The real silver bullet in battling poverty is education, yet we have lost 4,000 teachers since 2007. The SNP promised to halve classroom sizes in our primary schools. Life is just winding up. At every level of education, the SNP is failing Scotland. Presiding Officer, may I take a final moment to pay tribute to the incredible campaigning of Gordon Aitman? I have known and worked alongside Gordon for years and it would be wonderful if his diagnosis could leave a lasting positive legacy for vulnerable people across Scotland. I welcome the First Minister's pledge today. I support her action to ensure that local authorities do not charge for those who require care that have a terminal illness, and I also support the measures on the carers bills. Charging in social care is, of course, something that is wider. For under-65s in non-residential care, they are increasingly having to contribute higher proportions of their benefit towards the cost of care. Some have cancelled services as a result. The care tax is a tax on the most vulnerable members of our community. It is a tax working together that we can abolish. It would cost about £50 million to do so. I would urge her in the interests of fairness and equality if this Government is to protect the most vulnerable and deliver social justice, then do it. The First Minister has made a point at the start of her period of office of saying that she will be a listening First Minister, one who works with people from any and all political stripes where there is agreement. She will be open to ideas and suggestions for improvement, and I welcome that approach. Last week, I laid out a conservative vision that I believe would make our country better, using the taxation powers coming to this Parliament to reduce the financial burden on Scotland's families, on introducing school choice in order to drive up standards, and on recognising the importance of our colleges in stopping the political vandalism that has seen 140,000 places cut under this Government and creating a Scotland where we value our vocational education as highly as our academic one. Stopping the removal of £60 million each and every year from our nation's health budget by giving free prescriptions to the better off in our society those who had previously been happy to pay a contribution, and rather use that money—that £60 million—to fund 1,000 extra nurses and midwives across our land. The First Minister said that there was little here upon which we could agree. Let me appeal to the angel of her better nature in areas where we might. If we look at the new bills unveiled today and firstly those already in train, the First Minister is a lawyer by trade. She understands the concept of due process. She has also been a politician for five times as long as she ever practised law. She understands legislation. It was simply wrong to attempt the scrapping of the century's alternative corroboration without telling MSPs in this chamber, never mind the public at large what would replace it. Loyal to her colleagues as she is, she has a great opportunity as a new First Minister with a new justice secretary to revisit the fudge that came out of that aborted parliamentary fix. As the criminal justice Scotland bill makes its passage through this Parliament, let's get back to first principles. How do we better secure justice for our victims and fairness for the accused? We need the wholesale review of the law of evidence that the Conservatives have been calling for here and we will help in any way that we can to clean up the mess that has been created. On Thursday, I asked our new First Minister about ending automatic early release. The Parliament's own independent information service showed that fewer than 1 per cent of criminals jailed would be subject to the sentence handed down under the SNP's current plans. She said that there would be opportunities to amend the prisoner control of release Scotland bill in this legislative diet. I am asking for assurances that improvements put forward in good faith to stop those who break their contract with society having their prison doors flung open early are considered in that same good faith in which they are offered. That should be an area on which there is agreement. It was in the SNP manifesto of both 2007 and 2011 that a pledge to end automatic early release was given. That pledge is not honoured if it does not apply to over 99 per cent of our prison population. The Government has been in power for more than seven years and for each of those seven years it has said it believes in this and it has promised to deliver it. Let's make that happen in the final 18 months of this Parliament. It is not just areas of justice where we want to help the new First Minister, but areas of social justice too. Nicola Sturgeon having said that such improvements to childcare could only happen under independence has now found a way with this bill unveiled today to address this under the powers of devolution. The Scottish Conservatives have always placed great import on early years education. We applaud moves to increase provision to two year olds. Indeed, I am long on record decrying the fact that Scotland lags behind south of the border in this very area. However, we see nothing socially just at all in the idea that the amount of provision that you receive depends upon a fluke of nature or a lottery of birth. It is not just socially or otherwise that families with children born in one half of the year benefit more than families with children born in another. Not just that only half of families in Scotland benefit from two full years of free provision at all. The First Minister is a smart lady. It cannot be beyond the wit of man or woman to address this inequity, and with this bill we will support any attempts to do so. We can also support should Smith deliver the powers for it, votes for 16-year-olds in future Scottish elections. We support increasing apprenticeships. We support the roll-out of Claire's law, which we called for, and we can support future human trafficking legislation. We also support—not at this time—a belated commitment to increasing health spending. The rise in NHS spend each year down south means that each year the Scottish Government's health consequentials have also risen. Those millions have not always been delivered by the Government to Scotland's health service, and external bodies agree. It is a long past time that it did so. If the First Minister honours today's commitment, we welcome that too. However, it is the areas of the wider economy to which I wish to turn. There has been much fanfare today—indeed, it was brief to journalists overnight—that today's programme would contain significant new measures to boost Scotland's economy. I fear that they are at best underwhelming. While I back the rates relief and small business bonus conditions announced today, this Government has a far greater number of levers at its disposal, which it is not using or is hindering not helping business. This Government has talked many times in many ways of creating the most business-friendly environment, the most competitive tax regime, the most attractive business solutions, but let's look at the record set against the promises. What happened to promises in the 2011 SNP manifesto to help to create new retail banks or to support social banking? Nothing. On the overall tax burden to business, this Government this year received £30 million in Barnett consequentials from a UK scheme that gives small, high-street shops and cafes an £1,000 rebate. The money was trousersered, but the £1,000 rebate was never passed on. Our larger retailers hit with a mercurial £95 million smash and grab levy. Coming from nowhere, they hokey-cokeyed in and out over three years to plug a funding gap. On behalf of businesses across Scotland, I'm happy to cede the floor now to an intervention from any of the front bench team so that I can get an assurance and a guarantee that this unfair smash and grab retail levy is not going to raise its head again in this or any other form. I'm sorry, Mr McDonnell, but you don't quite qualify for that. I will give way to John Swinney. I'm happy to confirm to Ruth Davidson that the Scottish Government, as I've confirmed in the budget, is not bringing forward a public health supplement, but having brought one forward, having had the gumption to do it, why is Ruth Davidson criticising us for investing that necessary resource in delivering preventative interventions in our public services to tackle exactly the social injustices that she's talking about in the debate? Ruth Davidson, my friend, you must begin to conclude. The finance secretary cannot have it both ways. Either introducing a levy is an important and necessary ideal to help public health, or he doesn't need the money, which is why he scrapped it. Which way round is it? I don't think that we've seen it. We have seen Tory building land and buildings transaction tax, which not only delivers an eye-watering 10 per cent on residential but also has an inference on business premises. When you're talking about factory floor space and depots, warehousing and industrial units, why should it be, why does this Government think that it should be a good ideal to make it financially more attractive to set up in Carlyle instead of Dumfries? I'm afraid there is no time in hand in the debate. I must ask you to come to a conclusion. I will come to a conclusion right now. Where we find a common cause, like an early release, like an extending childcare, we will work with this Government to improve the situation. Where we see signs of life in trying to help business, we will encourage and control to deliver on promises made that are yet unfulfilled. Where we differ, sometimes categorically so, we will continue to state our case and challenge this Government. This Government has just 18 months left of a five-year term, with a majority where it could have done so much more. It needs to get a move on. By the time this debate concludes tomorrow afternoon, it is my hope and a belief in in fact expectation that Scotland will have an agreement on more powers that will match the spirit and the unique experience of the referendum. An agreement that will deliver for the Scottish Parliament the power to be flexible and agile so that we can do things differently if we choose. That is why we advocated the transfer of financial power, constitutional power and now welfare power. Crucially, it is also why we argued that this agreement on Scotland's future must not just be crafted by the referendum victors. All parties are in the room for the first time ever, including the SNP. It is because we have set the right foundations that I am confident that we can secure a sustainable set of powers for this Parliament. Apart from the obvious winners during the referendum, there were two other significant winners. I think that the first was 16 and 17-year-olds who carried themselves with great dignity, great maturity and contributed in significant ways to the debate about the future of our country. That is why we will pledge our support to accelerate as fast as we possibly can, so at the next election that we can have 16 and 17-year-olds voting in that election. The second victor during the referendum were the islands, the fact that they organised quite a dramatic campaign, an effective campaign that has secured more powers for their communities. Likewise, we will support the Government on those grounds. I will take an intervention, unlike Ruth Davidson to the great Mark MacDonald. I am grateful to Mr Rennie. On the point of 16 and 17-year-olds, I welcome the fact that we have cross-party support for them to be given the vote at the 2016 elections. However, there is an election looming next year. Does Rennie agree that it is a missed opportunity if the UK Government does not take similar action to ensure that the voting age is lowered at UK elections as well, given that young people were unable to vote on the most historic vote in this country? Absolutely. I agree completely. We should be using the opportunity of showing in the referendum how maturely that 16 and 17-year-olds can deal with their democratic rights to move forward in Westminster. Rennie will not find any disagreement from me on that. We have advocated that for many, many, many years. That we have a fair, legal and decisive decision to reject independence means for the first time for many years that I can remember that we can assess legislation on its own merits without it being mired in the debate over independence. I am now sure that we can find alliances that were perhaps prevented in previous years, and in that spirit I can welcome much of today's programme for government. I want a Scotland that strives for a fairer society and a stronger economy so that there is opportunity for everyone. That is what Liberal Democrats have always believed. Combined with strong Liberal values, real local power, real local power and protection for our environment, I think that we can build a better country. There is much in this programme that we can agree with, and I am sure that others on other areas will work constructively to make those bills better. However, I want to focus on one important omission. We know that one in four people are likely to suffer from mental health problems at some point in their lives, but, equally, a survey showed that almost one in four people were not comfortable to make friends with someone with depression, to have them work as a work colleague or even for them to move in next door. Our young people are facing long waits to begin treatment for mental health services. Too many wait six months to access treatment. That is an indefensible waiting time for a young person at such an important time in their lives. That is why I am delighted that the UK coalition Government had written into law that, for the first time, mental health and physical health will receive equal recognition. Getting the right combination of public mental health, anti-stigma, timely access to therapy and reliable crisis and emergency care will all be part of that picture. I hope that we can persuade the new health minister, the new health secretary, to support such legislation in the future. Jim Hume has been moving forward with his bill on smoking in cars with children. I think that he has made significant progress and made the weather in that area. I hope that we can persuade the health secretary to adopt his bill, support his bill and make sure that his proposals are as lands forward. The dangerous second-hand smoke in a confined space of a car is something that we need to tackle. I hope that the Government will look on that sympathetically as well. I hope that the new justice secretary indicates a new direction of travel on the justice portfolio. The chamber knows that we have great reservations about the centralisation of the police, the lack of democracy in that system, the massive increase of stop and search, which is now seven times higher than in England and police carrying guns. We have set down proposals that we believe that the chief constable's powers should be defined much more clearly so that we can have much more control over how our police works. I think that the way that it is working just now is inadequate and needs to change, and that is why we will be hopefully talking to the new justice secretary about how practically that can be achieved. On one final point, is our nursery education. We welcome the development of the expansion in the next Parliament, but we think that expansion should be starting now. We are still lagging behind England on two-year-olds. Only 27 per cent here and 40 per cent in England. I think that Scotland needs to catch up and catch up fast. If the new education secretary embraces that proposal, she will find willing participants on those benches. Thank you very much. In our speech, the First Minister said that in relation to carers, the Government was spending £114 million per year, but according to SPICE, the figure is £114 million for the period 2007-2015. I wonder if it is possible to get the Government to clarify that. Secondly, 18 months ago, the Government said that it would legislate to my lobbying transparency Scotland bill, but there is no bill within the legislative programme. I wonder what you can do to protect the rights of members who are going forward with legislation, but to see the Government playing games to prevent it coming forward. Thank you, Mr Finlay. I appreciate that these are debating points, and not points of order. However, as members well know, if they have inadvertently made a mistake with figures at all, there are opportunities to change that in the official report, but those are debating points. Alison Johnstone, please. Thank you. There are many legislative proposals to scrutinise and much for the Government to achieve. We have a new First Minister, a new Deputy First Minister and a refreshed and gender-balanced ministerial team. I would like to take this opportunity to wish them well in their work. The First Minister set out her themes of social justice, the important work to deliver new powers to Scotland and the need to put people at the heart of decision making. The Smith commission on new powers will report tomorrow. This programme is about the powers that we already have, the powers that we must use as ambitiously as possible. There is much to welcome. I welcome the commitment to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, the focus on tackling in-work poverty, to end collection of debts from non-payment of the poll tax, the Scottish Business Pledge action against domestic abuse human trafficking legislation, but there are things missing from this legislation, too, from this programme. We are missing a way to deliver a step change in the energy efficiency of our existing homes and workplaces, as well as tackling fuel poverty. WWF pointed out that an energy efficiency industry could provide 3,500 jobs in the short term, some 9,000 by 2027, an opportunity for modern apprenticeships and becoming expert at treating hard-to-treat houses. John Swinney responded very positively to my suggestion during the economy committee's budget work that energy efficiency should become a national infrastructure priority and clearly understands the link between the need to retrofit our homes and the opportunities that this provides. Much needed new jobs, important new skills. We need affordable rents and we need affordable heat, but to deliver that, we need ambition and a tight timescale on the regulation of energy efficiency in private sector homes. Alex Neil from his time as infrastructure secretary also understands the energy efficiency challenge in existing homes. That is back in his portfolio and I hope he will meet the challenge head-on. Roseanna Cunningham as the new fair work and skills secretary has an important role to play in creating a workforce with skills in sustainable construction and retrofitting. Also missing is a private renting bill. The Government announced that it would bring forward legislation during this session of Parliament on the private rented sector to make private renting more secure, but that seems to have disappeared and I would welcome some clarity. The consultation is open now but if legislation is not introduced in good time the issue may end up being kicked into the long grass. I would like to welcome Angela Constance to her cabinet role. The First Minister has been clear today that there is more to do on attainment and I welcome the two new bills. I fully support the Wood commission's call for parity of esteem and encouraging a culture that does not see colleges playing second fiddle to universities. They provide the flexible learning that people need to have opportunities in life, linking into the First Minister's theme today. Child care is a key component of allowing people to study and work flexibly. I welcome the increase in hours but it is important that we do this with the child's best interests at heart, not just the economies. To give children the best start in life means parental involvement as well as high quality play, care and education. There may well be merit in starting formal education later in life but that does not mean that childcare professionals are not playing a vital part in a child's life. More hours must be linked with flexibility and delivered by qualified, well-paid staff. I would like to highlight to citizenship education the need for this. It is not a legislative proposal but the referendum has shown how young people are and want to be active citizens and we should make sure that our schools have the resources and the confidence to support and promote that citizenship. I am pleased to see proposals on land reform, in particular the removal of business rate exemptions for shooting and deer stocking estates and the measures on transparency of land ownership, which I hope include beneficial ownership. Land reform is a broad topic. It is an urban issue as well as a rural one. Delivering social justice and a fairer economy at a time of austerity is hugely challenging but land reform is an opportunity within the Parliament's powers. High land prices push up house prices. The Cabinet Secretary's budget expects house prices to rise at 5 per cent over the next two years. At the same time, wages are stagnant and struggling to catch up with inflation. I hope that the First Minister sees that land reform is linked intrinsically with tax reform. The council tax, in our view, is unfair but so is a freeze. It disempower local authorities, it centralises and it results in cuts to public services and forces councils into charging regressive fees. I welcome the announcement of a commission or on fairer alternatives to the council tax. Local taxation has a massive impact on people's lives. It is a powerful tool. The commission needs to look more broadly at the whole of local taxation, including non-domestic rates, and seriously consider a land value tax and the recommendations from COSLA's important report on empowering local democracy. The First Minister is focused today on creating a society where everyone has the same chance in life as welcome, but transport is an area of government where there are stark inequalities. We have created a transport system where the car is king. If you walk or cycle through our towns and cities, it is clear who rules the road. Another dimension to transport inequality is the straight-up fact that a large proportion of people don't or can't use or afford to run a car. Derek Mackay will understand the challenges to changing our cities from his time as planning minister, and Keith Brown, as Cabinet Secretary, knows the ins and outs of transport brief. I hope that he will work together on a project for transport justice for Scotland, but there are no proposals here today, and I would suggest that better buses be the first step on this journey. I look forward to working with the First Minister and her team in as constructive a way as possible. The green and independent group will continue to oppose government policies where we do not agree, but we are, as I am sure ministers, open to working constructively wherever possible. I remind members, though, that if they are participating in this debate over the two days, they should be here for opening speeches and they should be here again tomorrow for closing speeches. Kevin Stewart, to be followed by Claire Baker, speeches of a maximum of six minutes. It is quite often in this chamber that I feel like in a parallel universe that the First Minister stood up today and gave a very positive speech about the Government's programme for government, and the opposition parties take a huge amount of it out of context and argue against things that they have argued for themselves. Let me give you an example of that in terms of Ms Bailey's opening speech, roundabout independent commission on local government funding, which I welcome, which is something that Alec Riley and Anne McTaggart called for in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. It is part of our flexibility and autonomy for local government report. It seems today that that is no longer what Labour wants to see. Also, she talked about teacher numbers and a reduction in teacher numbers. Today, Mr Riley at committee was arguing that there should be a flexibility on teacher numbers and the pupil-teacher ratio, and local government itself should be able to choose if it wants to reduce numbers. Sometimes I get that parallel universe feeling. I welcome the independent commission on local government funding and I welcome the news that the council tax will continue to be frozen throughout this Parliament. I also welcome the introduction of the community charge debt bill, which will see the final demise of the community charge, the poll tax, 21 years after its abolition. When we had a situation where nearly 85 per cent of our fellow countrymen and women who were registered turned out to vote in the referendum right across Scotland, I think that that was possible only because people thought that there was going to be a new society and that they were not going to be hounded for past debts. I hope that we can continue to get people to participate in such large numbers. We cannot afford to lose those people and we must harness people power by ensuring that more power is given to people. In recent weeks, the Parliament's local government and regeneration committee has been taking evidence on the community empowerment bill and we have travelled to Dumfries in Fort William to hear the views of people there and of the surrounding areas. In Fort William the other night, we had the opportunity to meet the buzz project. I played drums, Bruce Crawford was on lead guitar and we got an idea of what that voluntary project was doing right across the Lochaber area without any council money and without any Scottish government money. Those are the kind of things that we need to encourage. As well as being out and about, here in Parliament we have heard from witnesses from Dundee, North Lanarkshire, Aberdeen and from many other parts of Scotland. Many of those folks are already very much empowered. We know that many communities are not quite in the same league. I am so pleased that there is to be extra £10 million in the Empowering Communities Fund because I believe that we still have a way to go in terms of community capacity building. I think that that £10 million can do a lot in that regard. The message that we have received from people is that they want to be more involved in the shaping of services, want better communication from public bodies and often want to take full control of the assets in their villages, towns and cities. In some parts of the country it seems that public bodies do well in communicating with folk and involving communities in shaping services, but in others, the very basics of encouraging participation is sadly lacking. What do I mean by the basics? On Aberdeen, a number of community councils feel that Aberdeen City Council is failing to communicate with them about planning applications and that their voices are not being heard. In Dumfries, the local government committee heard from representatives of the usual place who are trying to establish a fully accessible community café with a changing places toilet about their frustrations about getting a lease from the council and of the maze of being pushed from one council officer to another. I believe that participation requests and asset transfers, as seen in the community empowerment bill, will help to shift the balance of power to communities, but legislation itself and the additional funding will not necessarily lead to the best outcomes. The Government and all public bodies must ensure that best practice is exported from places such as Dundee, which seem to be doing so very well in encouraging community parties participation, to every other public body and council in our land. I know that all of us in this Parliament value the work of volunteers in the third sector, and we must ensure that we remove impediments to ensure that their work continues to thrive. In the next few days, I will be visiting Barnardo's, the Silver City Surfer's and Trussell Trust's seat and food bank in Aberdeen. Those organisations and countless others in Aberdeen and throughout Scotland serve our people well, and their efforts often make huge differences to the lives of folk and help to tackle injustice and inequality. I am so pleased that this Government is putting participation at the top of its priority agenda. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is so far been a wide-ranging debate, but I would like to focus on the issue of land reform. I welcome the announcement in the First Minister's legislative programme that the Government will be bringing forward a land reform bill within this Parliament. Land reform is an issue that Scottish Labour takes seriously. It was a landmark piece of legislation in the early years of this Parliament, and it is one that we are willing to work with others across the chamber to achieve. Land reform is a means to delivering greater equality, social justice and promoting the public interest. It is 11 years since we last passed land reform legislation, but I am pleased that, although we are now seven years into an SNP Government, we are now on the verge of a new land reform act. We have seen the Government encourage ownership, but so far we have not seen mechanisms to change the nature of land ownership in Scotland. The bill and a land reform programme can give us the opportunity, as well as the commitment of Government's times and resources. We are facing a very short timescale for delivery, and the necessary consultation and scrutiny of the bill will have to be concentrated if we are to see results by April 2016. We are committed to working with the Government to deliver radical and meaningful change, and it can be done in this session, but the Government must be prepared to take on the big challenges, addressing the issue of maximum land holdings, statutory land rights, the transparency of land ownership and a welcome statement that the First Minister made in that regard, tax and financial benefits. Delivery in those areas will be challenging, given the short timescale, but we should all commit to taking forward this agenda in this Parliament and beyond. I welcome the intention to establish a land reform commission, which should provide continuity and focus outwith the election cycles, making recommendations for keeping our land laws current and relevant. The final report of the land reform review group provides us with that road map. 58 out of the 62 recommendations can be delivered with the current powers of this Parliament. Whilst I welcome the proposed land reform bill, it will only be part of the solution, and I look forward to the policy statement that is anticipated next week. We need to take a comprehensive approach. We cannot possibly deliver everything in this bill, but we need to be clear about the pathway that we are on and the destination that we are headed towards. We should be thinking in the long term about where in 10 or 20 years' time we want to be. Scotland has a highly concentrated land ownership pattern. We should be thinking how do we encourage and support greater diversification of ownership and open up the benefits that this can bring for local economic development, housing and renewable energy? Land ownership, as well as land use, needs to be seen as a public interest matter, because land is a finite and crucial resource. Although the headline proposals dominated reporting of the land reform review group report, the significant statement made by the group was a recognition that land was a finite and crucial resource that needed to be used and owned in the public interest and for the common good. That is key, and it is the principle that we should use to direct public policy. How do we do that? If we accept that land ownership patterns must change in the public interest, that clearly implies that there must be ways to have the public interest tested in land transactions by potentially tackling further concentration in ownership patterns, or shifting the focus to land being sold in smaller lots and smaller parcels. What are the practical steps that can be taken within this Parliament? The land reform review group argued that there should be upper limits to land holdings. Is there a point where concentrated ownership in the hands of the few becomes detrimental? Is 432 people owning 50 per cent of private land, or 16 individuals owning 10 per cent, is that acceptable, justified or beneficial in a modern Scotland? In the interests of widening social justice and access, could there not perhaps be a public interest test or measure introduced here, for example? Fran shoes the safer system to exercise a public interest. We need to look at what models we could have here. Do we need to look at a use it or lose it policy on developers and land speculators who are land banking? The review group proposed a number of new bodies, but a land agency, supported by Community Land Scotland and the review group, seems a practical way forward that we can make swift progress on. If we are clear about where we are headed with land reform in Scotland, then solutions must come from across government, from finance, from housing, from local government. We need to understand an act on the land dimension in all areas. We just need to look back at the land registration act, which was narrowly defined within the minister's portfolio. We then missed an opportunity on land reform for an example of a lack of joined up government. The announcement on the removal of business rates exemption for shooting and deerstocking estates is welcome, particularly additional support that is going to give to the land fund. Are there other opportunities? For example, are there opportunities open to us with the replacement of stamp duty with the land and buildings transaction tax? There are taxes and financial incentives decided by the UK Government, which are relevant, but we need to look at the powers that we have here and how we can use them. In the current budget, the focus has been on domestic and commercial property when it comes to land and buildings transaction tax, but is there not an opportunity there to also look at how government could influence land values, if it is so wished? Land reform is complex. It cannot be delivered solely by the new minister. At this point, I would like to give thanks to Paul Wheelhouse for the work that he has done on land reform, and I think that we have worked constructively across the Parliament. I hope that that can continue with the new minister. If the Government is serious about changing our patterns of ownership, it needs to be open to the debate around all levels of government. Much of what the First Minister talked about is relevant to the community empowerment bill, which is currently going through Parliament, and that has a significant role to play in opening up more opportunities. We are committed to strengthening that bill, but at the moment, it looks like it has been too cautious around some of the areas, and there are dangers that could be too restrictive. There is difficulty in defining and determining some of the tests that have been placed on that bill. The proposed bill gives the Parliament an opportunity to deliver meaningful change in Scotland, and I look forward to its publication and progress. Thank you. I am afraid that we are fast running out of time in this debate. I must ask everyone to keep to their six minutes, please. Sandra White is followed by Rhoda Grant. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the First Minister to her new role and congratulate all in their appointments. I really look forward to taking forward the Scottish programme for government along with everyone else. I also welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to legislation to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish elections. Speaking to many young people in my constituency, I certainly know that they will welcome that, but they would also really like to have an opportunity to vote in the Westminster election. I hope that that will go forward from the Smith commission or otherwise. I also welcome the strengthening of community involvement, which my colleague Kevin Stewart has mentioned in his contribution. It is a fantastic news that groups in my constituency will set my benefit from and in many other constituencies throughout Scotland. I want to touch on two particular areas. One is gender equality, and the other is domestic abuse. We will look at gender equality. The First Minister has already mentioned that the make-up of Scotland's new cabinet sends out a strong message of gender equality, and the United Nations has held a 50-50 gender split in the new cabinet. I think that it is something that we in the Scottish Parliament should be very proud of indeed. We know that the current Scottish Parliament does not have legislative powers to address the issue, and the Scottish National Party has already mentioned it. I understand that, in August 2014, the Scottish Government wrote to the UK Government proposing a transfer of relevant provisions from the Equality Act to the Scottish Parliament, and I wonder whether the FFM, whoever is closing, might have an update on that particular part of the correspondence. We also looked at the Scottish Government's women on board quality through diversity consultation, which was launched in April 2014. That proposed measures to achieve gender equality through gender quotas on public boards. The consultation must be welcomed, and I think that it has already been raised by others in the chamber. That particular consultation, as an announcement of 50-50 by 2020, is something else that this Government and this Parliament should be very proud of. However, in the long term of things, we need to change the culture in Scotland to get proper gender equality. I want to touch on something else that will provide gender equality. The commitment to increasing childcare will help to create equality, giving all three and four-year-olds and, in most disadvantaged two-year-olds, 600 hours of childcare per year. We all know that it is equal to 16 hours a week during term time, and plans to increase this to 30 hours a week if the Government is re-elected. It would make it so much easier for mothers and parents in general to be able to go back to work. However, I want to raise a point about local authorities, and perhaps the Cabinet Secretary for Education might want to take that particular part on board. We need to ensure that local authorities play their part in that, and ensure that there are places there for the hours that they are able to go into nurseries and preschool. I would hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Education would look at that. I can touch on domestic abuse issues as well. We all know that stopping domestic abuse is a crucial issue for all of us, but it is all united in that particular aspect. If I touch on some of the things that has been done by the Government in 2007, funding for initiatives to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women has increased by 62 per cent, and the Scottish Government is investing £34.5 million between 2012 and 2015 to be targeted at a large range of initiatives to tackle violence against women. The First Minister mentioned clear's law today. The trial of clear's law in Ayrshire and Aberdeen for six months started yesterday, I believe, on 25 November. It allows women and men to access information on the new partner's offending history. It can be used by somebody concerned about a partner's abusive behaviour or by a third party. That is really important. A third party worries about someone in a potentially dangerous relationship, and I really look forward to that being rolled out throughout the rest of the country. The consultation on introducing a criminal offence for committing domestic abuse is also to be welcomed. Legislation to look at revenge porn is very welcome indeed, as is the new trafficking laws. I look forward to the legislation that has been put forward by the First Minister, not just in the two areas that I have picked up on, but in other areas also. I think that it is an excellent programme for government. It is looking at equalities and the social aspects as well. It is something that the Scottish Government should be proud of in the years that we have been in government since 2007. We have tried to look at all the aspects of government, particularly the economy, but also the social aspects. I thank the First Minister for putting forward the programme for government, and I look forward, as I said, to working along with him. Many thanks. I now call Rhoda Grant to be followed by Christian Allard. I am pleased that the first official visit that the First Minister undertook was to carers last week. I also extend my appreciation for the work that the 657,000 carers do in looking after loved ones, and I also welcome the carers bill. I think that this is timely because Friday is international carers' right day, so it is right that we should have a bill announced this week. Many people who are carers do not see themselves as such, but they are simply loving family members who, regardless of the lack of support that they receive, will continue to care. It is important that we do not take advantage of that commitment, that we support and enable them and make sure that their caring role does not impact on their life chances. Where we can, we need to help them to continue to make an income and support their continued employment. Carers save our public services over £10 billion a year, so they deserve to have good quality and suitable support. The First Minister said in her statement that the Scottish Government had given almost £114 million a year to carers over the past seven years. My colleague Neil Finlay made an announcement that it was out-understanding that that was over the past seven years and not per year. I would be grateful of some clarification in the summing up speech from the First Minister. The statement and, indeed, the documents surrounding the carers bill give very little detail about what might be included in it. It is really important that the bill is not empty words but has some bite and gives carers access to the first-class support and services that they receive. I understand that carers assessments will be renamed to carers support plans, but we also need things in the bill that make short breaks are right for carers. We need to identify carers more easily. We need to make transitional arrangements for carers when they move between health board and local authorities, or between health board and local authority areas, or that the person that they are caring for moves between youth and adult services, or that they themselves move between youth and adult services. One of the most vulnerable groups of carers are young carers, so we have to make sure that they particularly get the support that they need and that they have their own carers support plan in place. We need to tackle a lot of the challenges that they face, including their own advice and support services. I heard today that the Sky and Lochals young carers group is devising a toolkit for schools to make them aware of the needs of young carers and help them to support them. We need to make sure that young carers have the same opportunities as other young people and help them to access education as they would if they were not young carers. The bill also needs to look at other promises made, for example, emergency plans that were promised over three years ago and have still not come to fruition. That is something that carers are really concerned about. The statement said that there would be accessible advice but not accessible support. We need to make sure that there is also support and that those are produced in a way that suits carers and that are person-centred. We also need access to appropriate respite care, whether that is a day, a few hours or indeed a weekend. It has to be what suits the carer to give them the ability to continue to lead their lives. The First Minister will be aware that Scottish Labour has pledged its support for the Scottish Youth Parliament Care Fair share campaign. I would really appreciate it if perhaps the carers' bill would allow the Government to do the same. It is not hugely expensive but would make a big difference to the lives of young carers. We are also suggesting that the care inspectorate has responsibility for inspecting services to carers and that local authorities publicly report on an annual basis about the services that they provide to carers. Much more needs to be done. The carers' bill is a vehicle to do this, and I very much hope that the Government will… The First Minister mentioned a statement that I made about funding for carers. I would like to take the opportunity to clarify that, due to a misprint in my statement, it said that funding was per year. In actual fact, it is correct that funding was over the period from 2007 to 2015, so I wanted to take the earliest opportunity just to rectify that matter. I appreciate that clarification and it coming so early. I turn very briefly, Presiding Officer, to domestic abuse and welcome the consultations on revenge porn and domestic abuse legislation. However, that is something that we have been calling for for quite some time. We would hope very much that that legislation would be within this Parliament and maybe question if there is a need for a wide consultation, since I think that most people are signed up to the importance of tackling violence against women. Indeed, this Parliament has a track record of doing this, but we need to do an awful lot more. The First Minister talked about genuinely wanting to work across the chamber, and this is certainly an issue that I think that we would be more than willing to help her to work with her with. Yesterday was the start of the 16 days of action, and it was also the same day that we saw crime figures showing that sexual offences are on the rise. That may be because of better reporting and better detection, but it is very worrying, so could more be done. I also just mention briefly the traffic— If it is briefly because you really need to conclude— And exploitation, Bill. Can I ask if that would include sexual exploitation, because I think that that is really important and that is an opportunity to do it? Finally, I am grateful that you met Gordon Neckman, and I think that we all agree that he is inspirational. I welcome the announcement that you made today, but you will know that Gordon will be in a wheelchair before that stage in his life and will still have to pay for his care. Can I ask that you join with us and scrap the unfair care tax today? Once again, can I make an appeal for members to keep to their six minutes? Christian Allard, to be followed by Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the First Minister for the programme for government today, through the inspirational programme, which is setting out the legislation and policies that will shape our urban and rural communities, legislation and policies that will shape our country. I believe that this programme will ensure that Scotland will be both social, democratic and socially just. And at the heart of this programme, we have the Land Reform Bill. Presiding Officer, let me be clear, for the many northeast constituents I represent in rural Scotland, land reform is very much about social justice. Social justice for our young people growing up in our rural communities, and not as complex as the member said, Claire Baker early on. The First Minister speaks about a radical programme of land reform. In the northeast, this programme won't be seen as radical. Earlier this year, for example, in Bancory, I witnessed a packed hall full of people coming to listen to Leslie Reddack talk about a book Blossom. These audience made no apology in declaring their strong support for land reform. Looking back, Presiding Officer, the people who came to listen to Leslie Reddack were not local farmers, and some, like me, were not born and bred in Royal Decide. But all understood that in order for our rural communities to flourish, land reform is needed from this Parliament. There is a burning desire across rural Scotland to build more prosperous, fairer and better communities. Access to land is what our young farmers want in order to stay in the communities they were born. It's about the right to live and work where your parents live and work. I meet too many young people who have the skills and the expertise to farm, but without access to land, they just can't. Presiding Officer, access to land is not all about land ownership, it's about having the mechanism to allow the land to be farmed by the people who live on it, some for generation. The land reform commitment that we talked about is much as about social justice, and I think Alison Johnston talked about that, but it's about local democracy. Many look at the French revolution, main legacy being the land reform agenda that shaped what modern France is today, a country of villages, a modern country, vibrant rural communities where social justice and local democracy are thriving. We want a little bit of that, Presiding Officer, in Scotland. Many are looking forward to see the main legacy of this Scottish Parliament to be its land reform agenda, bringing many parts of rural Scotland to the 21st century. Sometimes I wonder why so little has changed in the attitudes of people living in our rural communities here in Scotland. Why all practices belonging to the 18th century still prevail, but this is where we are at. This Parliament has the opportunity to shape our country for the better, and I look forward to debate the new land reform bill. I look forward as well to any progress this government can make on laws of succession and I welcome the succession bill announcement from the First Minister. The feudal difference between land and other property still survive as part of Scotland's law of succession. Other European countries have moved on. The introduction of feudal tenure in Scotland was 900 years old, and some would call the intention of this bill to be radical. I disagree, Presiding Officer. 900 years old legislation is not fit for the modern Scotland I choose to live in. We need to be honest about our own weaknesses and confident when addressing them, and we need to be proud of our own successes as well. If rural Scotland needs to be where ideas flourish, businesses locate and jobs are created. Presiding Officer, I do represent the north-east many coastal communities as well, and just like our rural communities, anything this government can do to empower them is very welcome. I thank the First Minister announcement on the Harbos Bill. I look forward to debate it in Parliament. It's a great opportunity to reform some aspect of current Harbos legislation to remove Scottish Minister's power to compile transports to bring forward privatisation proposal is more than welcome. I understand why the power hasn't been exercised by Scottish Minister since the version, but again, Presiding Officer, privatisation for me is never the answer. I saw the UK manufacturing industry being decimated by privatisation just like many of our public services have been eroded. Coastal committees are looking forward to keeping control of the future, to keeping control of a local economy, to keeping control of their own harbors. The Harbos Bill is important for the future of our coastal communities from Peterhead to Fraser butter, for our booming energy sector in the north-east and of course for our fishing industry. I would like to thank the First Minister for responding to the needs of our rural and coastal communities. A commitment to empowerment is reaching every part of the north-east of Scotland. I would like for many businesses in the north-east of Scotland who are paying business trades announcement to restore the business trade exemptions for shooting and deers talking is very welcome. The First Minister will shape our communities, it will shape our countries. Scotland can see that the First Minister is leading a Government of Purpose, a Scottish Government for all, all of us who live here. The result, Presiding Officer, will be a Scotland that is both socially democratic and socially just, society based on prosperity, participation and fairness. Many thanks. I now call Murdo Fraser to be followed by George Adam. As Ruth Davidson pointed out earlier in the debate, the statement was trailed as a boost to the Scottish economy. I must say that I struggled to find many measures that would deliver that. The small business bonus is to continue and we welcome that, but was it ever in doubt? Indeed, what we see is an expansion of business rates to cover previously exempt areas. There was also a trial of the expansion in childcare, but again, when we examined the statement, nothing new is proposed beyond what has already been announced, except of course that we have now, it seems, killed off the notion forever that only with independence can better childcare be delivered. There was no attempt, as Ruth Davidson pointed out, to address the issue of age discrimination in childcare. I can illustrate this perfectly, because I have two children, I have a daughter who was born in August, who got a full two years nursery provision, and a son born in January, who got merely five terms of nursery provision. An attempt by my colleague Liz Smith to overturn this and provide equity was defeated in the education committee, despite being supported by all parties other than the SNP. The SNP is serious about equity and social justice and improving childcare. We need to start to tackle this anomaly. The statement deals with the question of access to higher education for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, a laudable ambition. I have pointed out in the chamber many times before, Scotland's poor record compared to every other part of the United Kingdom when it comes to access to higher education for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, notwithstanding tuition fees applying elsewhere in the UK. The First Minister trumpets free education, but of course there is no evidence of a deterrent effect from a graduate contribution or tuition fees. Why? Because those fees come with generous bursaries that are funded from the fee income. I do not know the First Minister's personal circumstances. I am a few years older than she is, but when I went to university, I went to university on a full grant because of my parental circumstances. I suspect that, in the same case, I was applying today in England to go to university. I would not only be exempt from paying any fees, I would also be the beneficiary of generous bursaries, but maybe the same would apply to her. It is therefore disingenuous to suggest that she would not have been able to go to higher education if a graduate contribution were to be introduced if that were the case on similar lines to that applies in England. In fact, Scotland's record on access to higher education is not a good one and it needs to be improved. I want to deal with the question of land reform. I am a veteran of the parliamentary scrutiny in 2003 of the act that was then passed. Members with long memories will remember our erstwhile colleague Bill Aiken railing against Mugabe-style land raids. What we have today, it seems to me, is a mishmash of proposals that will do little to improve good land use and support good practice. We have powers for ministers to intervene where the scale of land ownership or the conduct of a landlord is acting as a barrier to sustainable development. We await to see the detail of that, which will be coming out in due course. On any level, that represents a massive expansion of state power. What qualifies Scottish ministers as arbiters of what is good land use or qualifies them to decide on what is an appropriate scale of land ownership? The best that can be said of this is that it is a charter for lawyers. We may even have to rethink our opposition to the Human Rights Act on the side of the chamber. We see the proposal from the Scottish Government of a land reform commission just what rural Scotland needs another quango. The imposition of business rates on sporting estates. The class war is alive and well in the Scottish Parliament. Has any assessment been done of the economic impact? Has any assessment been done of the cost? Has any assessment been done of the jobs that might be lost? Mr Allard will tell us. Christian Allard On business rates, does he not think that plenty of businesses, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, find it totally unacceptable that we have to pay business rates and that such large estates do not have to pay business rates? I look forward to Mr Allard taking that argument to the gamekeepers employed on estates in the north-east of Scotland and explaining to them why the income that pays their wages is likely to be affected by that measure. However, what is wrong with the Scottish Government's approach to land reform is that it has an ideological opposition to ownership of large areas of land by private individuals or by private trusts. However, what is important is not who owns the land but how the land is used. Even community ownership, as we heard this week, has its own problems. There are many excellent estates, athlete estates in partnership with its combination of forestry, farming, sporting interests, tourism, energy and housing. It is an exemplar and it speaks volumes that the factor of athlete estates, Andrew Bruce Witton, was so dismayed by the illogical direction of the land reform review group that he had to resign from it in protest because it lacked in his view an understanding of the real issues. What concerns me is that we are seeing a bidding war on the left, between the Labour Party and the SNP, each trying to be more radical when it comes to land reform, but lacking any clear understanding of the real issues in rural Scotland. What we need is an evidence-based approach, not an ideological one, and that is what the Scottish Conservatives will provide. I welcome the First Minister's first legislative programme. Although we live in challenging times, it shows vision and provides hope for the future. Although Kevin Stewart has already said that we will listen to some of the Opposition members, that seems to be part of a parallel universe. The Scottish Government has achieved so much since its first election in 2007. One of the major issues that the First Minister brought up was how we support our families across Scotland. I welcome the First Minister's commitment on childcare because, in two weeks' time, I will be a grandfather. I might have a declaration to make here on the fact that my daughter Jessica and John might be looking for that type of support in future years as both of them go on to work. Access to work, as Sandra White rightly said, is the whole reason for that policy, because it makes economic difference. The First Minister is saying that it is one of the best investments that we can make to ensure that those families get that opportunity. One of the things that I agree with is that the legislative programme is in the three key principles that are based and founded on priorities, participation and prosperity. In fairness, the priorities were not one of the commitments. That is really the important part of it, because the First Minister has already announced that the SNP 2016 manifesto will set out the ambitious plan to almost double childcare provision. If we get another term, as has already been mentioned, then there would be more hours for our children and families there as well. The Scottish Government has expanded and funded hours by 45 per cent since 2007, and there is still more work to be done, but that is worth up to £707 per child per year, and that is quite a big investment as well. However, as we look at this debate, as with everything else, further devolution of tax and benefits will enable us to unlock the resources that are required to support the transformational change in provision. Access to tax revenues and benefits savings arising from increased labour market participation will contribute to the cost of achieving this type of transformational change. However, with more powers comes more responsibility. As every debate seems to be about what happens next and what happens next as we have the challenge of before the Smith commission—not at the moment, thanks—promises were made and expectations from our citizens are high. Let us not forget that it was Gordon Brown who said that we are going to be within a year or two, as close to a federal state as can be. Now, Gordon Brown underwrote the infamous vow. He became the credible voice, the hero of the no campaign, if you wish, within a year or two, he said. Now, where is this credible voice? Where has the credible voice gone at a time where Scotland needs people to put their arguments forward? He is off on the dinner-after-dinner speaking circuit, and he saw other cronies, Westminster cronies, Danny Alexander, who has called the proposals for effective home rule and unprecedented new powers that put us irreversibly on towards a federal UK. With all that in mind, is it not the case that we give this Parliament the powers that the people of Scotland want? We can talk about making the type of transformational change that we all want with those powers. However, in education already, the Scottish Government has a strong commitment to driving improvement and ensuring equity and attainment throughout Scotland. We only have to look at what the First Minister has mentioned. Raising attainment for all programme, which was launched already in June 2014, is a programme that is trying to work in our commitments to ensure that a child is not a victim of their postcode. They get the opportunity to be able to be part of education and be all they can be in their future. That is what the First Minister is trying to do here. However, all that is in stark contrast with the situation that we find from the Westminster elite, because they currently believe that they are going back to business as per usual. Yes, no problem. Liz Smith, I thank the member for taking an intervention. Could he explain what it is that prevents the Scottish National Party from changing the birthday discrimination when it comes to nursery provision? That is nothing whatsoever to do with Westminster policy. George Adam? I say that we are talking about transformational change in this debate here. We are talking about being able to give young people the opportunity to move forward. I am saying that for us, everything connected, we need to have the powers and the levers within this Parliament. That was promised by all the known parties. All of that has been achieved during very challenging time, and Westminster has continually promised us yet more austerity. As I said earlier, the programme builds on the Scottish Government's previous work, but we need to ensure that Westminster delivers on the promises that it has made to the people of Scotland. We need to ensure that we have the powers that make the transformational change that all our constituents want. Much good work has already happened, but we must continue to be ambitious and, as the First Minister said, be bolder in our ideas. I welcome the programme for government and look forward to working towards the type of country we all want. I welcome the commitment that is expressed in the First Minister's statement today to review the council tax and to look at new ways of funding local government. I think that that is long overdue and hugely welcome. Given the massive pressures that we can now see on our local services—particular schools and our care services—and the lack of capacity of our councils to act with the civic leadership role that we expect them to carry out, for example, in community renewables or town centres, that is a critical issue. I very much welcome the fact that we have a statement in front of us that puts that centre stage. The First Minister said that the council tax freeze would continue. I think that that means effectively that it certainly continues next year and the year after. I would certainly like her to review the issue of fully funding that council tax freeze, because that is one of the key issues that comes back from local colleagues at the local government level. A challenge is that the council tax freeze has not benefited those on the lowest incomes, who particularly rely on council tax benefit to survive. There are also impacts on many other vulnerable adults, in particular older people and people with disabilities, who are finding their support services being cut back, rationed or having to pay for services that used to be free. There is a cost to the current situation financially. As Jackie Baillie mentioned, the loss of 70,000 jobs in local government since 2008 has made a huge impact on the capacity to deliver the range of services. There is scope for more efficiency, but we are now at a point after the prolonged—oh, lovely, I was predicting that before two minutes were out. There has been off quoting of the 70,000 jobs. Could Ms Boyack give us an indication of how many of those jobs have been transferred to arms-length organisations that have been set up by councils? The key thing is that the number of people in local government that have gone does impact on the strategic thinking and the delivery of services. It is both those things. It is not just the output of service delivery. It is the fact that, in many councils, there is no longer the expertise to take on the challenging, innovative opportunities that need to be kept. It is clear now that the concordat is dead if not buried. It was not mentioned in this year's budget, so it is important, as the new First Minister takes office, that we move on from the past. I thought that Kevin Stewart was going to intervene on his committee's recommendation for cross-party talks. That is something that many of us have supported. The reason why it is important is that getting a new system in place has to have buy-in not just across this chamber but across council chambers across the country. If you look at the range of political involvement, it really is something that all of us need to be part of. I welcome the cross-party nature of the commission and the timescale. It is important that, if we are looking at designing effective replacement for council tax, we get that right. I welcome the fact that there has been a lack of detail on the type of system signalled by the Scottish Government. I hope that that means that the Scottish Government is prepared to take a wider view and go beyond the previous support for local income tax. Many of us have criticisms of it. It is not local. The rate would have to be significantly higher than previously suggested by the Scottish Government and it would hit young people in particular. I hope that that means that we can maybe move on. There have certainly been reports in the last couple of years that would suggest potential ways forward. In our own commission, the Labour Party's devolution commission, I was very keen that we looked at not just a new property tax but widening the tax base for local government in general. As the Scottish Government itself gets more tax powers and more accountability, surely that should be on the agenda for our local government colleagues as well. That has to be unfinished business. The work done by our commission and then by the Strengthening Local Democracy Commission points in the direction of new property taxes. We could all agree that the current council tax is not fair, it is not effective and it is well out of date. However, property needs to be on the agenda if we are looking at designing a new tax system. If we look across Europe, it is the most regularly used system to provide a key part of local government finance. It has also got to be about broadening the range of resource that comes to local government. The amount that local government raises by its own hand, notwithstanding the council tax freeze, is now 18 per cent. That leaves a big challenge. It means that we do not just need to look at the council tax, we also need to look at fair funding across the country, the issue of pooling and sharing and, critically, the issue of funding, what are national priorities set out in national legislation but are also local priorities where local councils might want to deliver those services in different ways, according to geography, according to social need. It is important that, when we see the new commission, it does not just look at the council tax in isolation, we have to make sure that there is robust funding for local government going forward, because we only need to look at the announcements over the last couple of weeks, the hits on class sizes, the teacher number drops, the library closures that are being suggested. Ms Boyack is in her last minute. We have already come in, the crisis that we have in social care. I thought that it was interesting that local government is going to have to pay extra into the pot to tackle the social care crisis. We have an urgent problem in terms of resources at the local level for providing for the range of vulnerable adults and older people that are not just a problem to be dealt with now, this is a current problem, it is not a future problem. Unison's time to care campaign makes that clear. The scale of the challenge means that we need more than is in this report today, but I very much welcome the fact that we will have a cross-party commission, I think that all of us need to engage in that process and make it work. Many thanks and our call Christine Grahame, to be followed by Elaine Murray. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the First Minister's commitments to social justice and to representing all of the people. Therefore, I will focus following on from the previous speaker on older people who, as the First Minister said in her speech, were carers for spouses and children, but indeed, First Minister, sometimes they are carers for their own parents. Because what is an older person, they are not homogenous group, they are as individualistic as any other age group. Indeed, to define older people is tricky in itself. Most people tend to think that somebody is older if they are 15 years older than where they are at that time. For the sake of debate, let's say between 55 and 95, 40 years, some age range. In 2012, there were more than 1 million Scottish pensioners, so far the Scottish Government has not done badly, it is not all well out there, but for this age group, the concessionary bus pass is a wonderful asset. It gives you social care, it takes you out and about, it is included, it is good for your mental wellbeing, it keeps you active. 77,000 pensioners receive free personal care courtesy of this Parliament. 40 million cuts from the UK to the council tax benefit was plugged by this Government to help 200,000 people over 65. Importantly, the Public Bodies Joint Working Act puts a duty on local authorities to offer people assessed as needing social care, an option to design their own care package. I welcome the investment to reduce delayed discharge. That is deleterious to the patient of an older person who wants to get home and also those waiting for treatment. Community engagement is very important to the individual who should be at the centre of decisions. In fact, in the recent Old People's Assembly, it was proposed that there should be an older person on the board of, say, the NHS or a housing association. What about a wee quota there that is very fashionable? By way of attendance allowance, which I presume, I may be wrong, may be devolved, this will at last do something about the inequity of the funding savings that go to the treasuries, some millions of pounds that they have saved because we are paying for free personal care and claim is not being made for attendance allowance. However, I want to move on from this idea that older people are a problem. They are a huge asset. I love this picture on NHS Health Scotland. By the way, it is not a self-portrait, but the lady with the boxing gloves is ready to take on the world. Pensioners are a huge economic asset. In the UK, they contribute and tax some £45 billion per annum. Their spending power is some £76 billion per annum. There is a hidden value of their volunteering around £10 billion and another £10 billion through charity and family donations. They are a major economic force. Pensioner power rules are okay, so they are not all a problem. They give very much back to society. Sometimes we might even refer to them as the social glue that we have for us—much needed. I am pleased that the First Minister and the Scottish Government programme recognise the substantial contribution while recognising the needs of Scotland's older people. I have to say that I am looking at the cabinet secretary, Alex Neil. We had a bit of a stramash in the T-room trying to work out what 60-year-olds were called. We came up with sexagenarian—we have got to say that properly—or a hexagenarian. My hope is that having this sexagenarian or hexagenarium in the cabinet, in the position of social justice, focusing also on older people will ensure that, because we do not always need legislation, we need policies that recognise—Am I being heckled? I will take my boxing gloves. We need policies not only that support older people when they have their needs, but recognise the huge amount that they give to society. Remember the lady with the boxing gloves—she may come after you. Eileen Murray will be followed by Angela Constance. I am glad that I am going to be a sexagenarian next month. That makes me feel a lot better about it. I want to start by congratulating the new cabinet secretary for justice and the minister for community safety, who is in the chamber, to their new roles. The First Minister last week indicated that she was keen to listen to the views of Opposition members. It is in that spirit that I am putting forward some suggestions on behalf of my party to the new justice team for consideration. I look forward to working for them, but obviously with the situation of my party at the moment I cannot guarantee how much longer I will be able to do that, but I certainly look forward to working with them. One of the pieces of legislation, as Margaret Fraser already said, has already been introduced is the Prisoners' Control of Release Scotland Bill, which is sometimes, I think, incorrectly described as ending automatic early release. Currently, all prisoners serving less than a four-year sentence must be released after serving half of that sentence. That was some 14—over 14,000 people in 2012-13 who were serving less than four years. That bill will not affect those at all. They will still be released after two years. The bill only applies to sex offenders serving over four years and other offenders serving 10 years or more, and that is around 1 per cent of the current prison population. Obviously, there would be significant implications on the prison service and prison populations if, automatically, early release was abolished altogether. To propose that would, of course, be ffiscally irresponsible, but it could be argued that the bill is tokenistic. I suggest that we take a more radical approach in the longer term towards sentencing and reducing re-offending and reconviction. In 2006, the Sentencing Commission for Scotland produced a report on the early release of prisoners and their supervision on release. That report recommended that, at a time when a custodial sentence is imposed, the sentence should explain the effect of the sentence so that the offender, the victim, the media and the public at large are in no doubt about what the sentence means in terms of the time to be served in custody and that which may be served in the community. Victim support Scotland in a written submission to the Justice Committee in May said that it wanted to see a system in which sentences are straightforward and understandable to the victims and to the wider community. The bill does not add clarity to what a sentence means, because it would still be possible for the parole board to release a prisoner after serving half a sentence. I suggest that we look at an extension of the approach that was taken in the custodial sentences and the Weapons Scotland Act of 2007, which has not yet been enacted, which would be for the sentencer at the time of passing the sentence to prescribe the minimum term that the offender will remain in custody. When the offender reaches the end of the minimum period, he or she would be assessed with regard to the risk to the public and also the engagement with programmes in prison in reducing re-offending. If the offender poses a little risk and has taken the opportunity to address their offending behaviour, he or she could then be released under supervision if not a period of custody up to maximum limit could then be served. That, of course, would require change in sentencing policy and would require to be supported by a mandatory national programme of education skills development and drug or alcohol rehabilitation available to all offenders and also standardised methods of recording engagement and crediting prisoners for their skills gained or the recovery programmes indulged in. Where appropriate, that could continue and in fact should continue in the community after the offender has been released. I feel that the way to tackle high prison population should be through prevention and addressing re-offending and I think that there are opportunities to extend that further in how we investigate that. My second suggestion relates to the controversial issue of the abolition of the requirement for corroboration. We know that Lord Bonham's review group on safeguards is due to report in April, but having attended one of the sessions, it was clear that the remit is still investigating safeguards when the requirement is abolished and not looking at whether the requirement could be modified to provide better access to justice for the victims of person-to-person crimes such as sexual and domestic abuse. I wonder if the new cabinet secretary would look at extending the remit of Lord Bonham's group to include that. I sure if he did so he would have the agreement of all opposition parties. Our third suggestion concerns the police and fire services reform Scotland act of 2012. We know that there are problems with accountability, particularly of police Scotland, and those problems have surfaced since a single police and fire and rescue services were formed in April 2013. Local accountability in particular is far weaker than many of us were promised. I would like the new team to review how the act is working in practice. I am pleased that the new Scottish Government has adopted the bills proposed by Jenny Marra on human trafficking. I hope that that will be taken forward with the same force and purpose that Jenny's original proposals are, but I am disappointed not to see Neil Findlay's lobbying bill. I thought that that had also been adopted by the Scottish Government, and I wonder if it has not been progressed this year when there will be time to progress that. The previous justice secretary was also less sympathetic to the proposals that were put forward by my colleague Patricia Ferguson for an inquiry into death Scotland bill. I know that there are proposals for a fatal accident inquiry bill, but the consultation oddly seemed to spend a lot of time criticising Patricia Ferguson's bill. I felt that that was disappointing, and I wonder whether the new team might be prepared to meet Ms Ferguson to discuss the aims of our bill and whether, in fact, some of those aims could be incorporated into the new legislation. I think that there are many opportunities for consensus and collaboration. If the Government is serious about doing that, we are serious about taking part genuinely in discussion. We volunteer our views in good faith in the hopes that you are prepared in this new cabinet to listen to some of the things that we have to say and to discuss that with us. If you are prepared to do that, we are certainly prepared to take part in those discussions. I now call the last speaker in this part of the debate until Constance. This Government's ambition for radical reform remains undiminished, and the programme for government, as detailed today, is very much the springboard for the future. The success of our nation depends very much on us all working together to deliver a stronger economy and to build a fairer Scotland. Fairness and prosperity go hand in hand. We cannot have one without other. That is why our commitment to introduce a Scottish business pledge is so important, ensuring that, in turn, for public money and public support, we can work with Scottish businesses to deliver on that agenda for fairness, because fairness is fundamental to growing the Scottish economy. Therefore, in the programme of government, we are focused on more and better-paid jobs with a view to continuing our principal goal of sustainable economic growth. We are also focused on tackling inequality and passing power to people and to our communities. This afternoon's debate has been colourful in part. There has also been much consensus as well. It is important to note the consensus across the chamber on the First Minister's commitment that there should be no social care charges for those living with a terminal illness in the latter stages of their life. It was also welcome to hear the unanimity on the human trafficking bill and Clare's law, and our proposals for radical land reform are largely welcomed. Of course, we look forward to a spicy debate between Murdo Fraser and Christian Allard. I also noted in the First Minister's opening remarks that there was indeed spontaneous applause right across the chamber for her announcement on healthcare environment inspectors who have the power to order ward closures, for that is in the interests of patient safety. It was also heartening to hear that there is indeed support in this chamber for the franchise to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds who have done us proud in the recent referendum campaign. It is, of course, a great pity that those 16 and 17-year-olds will not be allowed to participate in the next election, which is the Westminster election next May. On a very personal note, I am proud to be part of a Government with its First Women First Minister and a Cabinet that is gender balanced with 50-50 women and men. We are one of only three OECD countries, and we have been commended by the UN for the Cabinet becoming a role model. I want to be clear, Presiding Officer, that this is not just about the position of a few women and a few positions of leadership. It is not about a few women climbing through the cracks or the gaps in the glass ceiling. This is about kicking open the door of opportunity for all women and others to achieve their full potential. I am very pleased that the First Minister has announced that we will work towards a voluntary target of 50-50 representation right across the public, private and third sector. Of course, we would very much welcome in this chamber the devolution of equalities legislation, which would allow us to take further action if need be if voluntary measures do not succeed. The Government has also written well in advance of the referendum to the United Kingdom Government seeking a section 30 order for the devolution of equality powers. We know that public appointments are improving. We know that 42 per cent of applicants to public boards are women, but we also know that there is much more to do, particularly when the number of women appointed as chairs remains far too low. Rightly so, Presiding Officer, much of the debate this afternoon has focused on childcare, and it is welcomed both as the best investment for children but also as a foundation stone to our economy. We know that lack of access to affordable, flexible, high-quality childcare is indeed the biggest barrier to women getting into work. I am proud that this Government, over the next two years, will invest £329 million that we will have 16 hours of childcare and early learning a week for three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds, and that by 2020 we will double that to 30 hours a week to eligible children. Of course, with independence, that 30 hours a week would be available to children aged between one and five years old. I take some caution about emulating the UK Government in its record on childcare because, when it comes to delivering for two-year-olds, it appears to have over-promised yet under-delivered. The First Minister spoke about her personal mission and how the importance of quality free education was imperative to her to pursue her chosen career. That, of course, is an objective shared right across this Government, because there are many of us now in Government positions who were the first in their family to go to university, children 20, 30 or more years ago from working-class backgrounds that took that step into higher education. We want to do more to improve access to higher education from those young people, from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We know, according to the latest UK statistics, that the situation is indeed improving, but it is not improving fast enough, and we will not do more from that acknowledgement. We have set out our ambitions, we have set out our targets that a child born today should indeed have an equal chance of participating in higher education, and the situation is similar with attainment. Education in Scotland is indeed improvement, but we have to address the long-standing issue with the attainment gap, and we will indeed pick up the pace, and this programme for government has very much signalled that. In this Government, we accept that there is always a case to do more within our existing resources and existing powers, but there is also a case for more powers to come to this Parliament, because the foundations of a strong and fair society are at the very heart of the debate about powers with a purpose. Take, for example, the attainment debate. The very heart of the attainment debate is the debate about poverty. Poverty does not stop at the school gates, and eradicating poverty is indeed the greatest challenge, but it is also the greatest prize. Thank you. The debate will continue tomorrow afternoon. The next site of business is consideration of business motion number 11682, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting up a business programme, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11682. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 11682, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next site of business is consideration of business motion 11683, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting up a stage one timetable for the British Sign Language Scotland Bill, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11683. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 11683, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next site of business is consideration of business motion number 11684, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting up a stage one timetable for the prisoners control of release Scotland Bill, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11684. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 11684, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next site of business is consideration of free parliamentary bureaus, as I asked Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11685, 11686 and 11688 on approval of the SSI's on block. The question is that most of you have put a decision time to which we now come. I propose to ask a single question on motions number 11685, 11686 and 11688 on approval of SSIs. If any member objects a single question being put, please say so now. No member has objected to the question is that motion number 11685, 11686 and 11688, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on approval of SSIs, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We move to members' business. Members to leave in the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.