 The next item of business is the continuation of the debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government 2017-2018. I invite members who wish to speak this afternoon to press their request-to-speak buttons now. Shona Robison Our programme for government sets out an ambition of ensuring that our public services meet the changing needs of the people of Scotland, not least our ambitions for the delivery of high-quality health and care services for all. Our guiding principles are that we believe in creating a Scotland where people live longer, healthier lives at home or in a homely setting where services are integrated around the needs of the individual and focus on prevention, early intervention and self-management and where everyone can get the services that they need. To help meet those principles, we published in December the health and social care delivery plan, setting the priorities for action throughout this Parliament. At heart of our approach is one of investment and reform to meet the challenges that face our health and care services. We build up on a strong legacy, a record high 90 per cent of Scottish in-patience say overall care and treatment was good or excellent. Our A&E services are the best performing in the UK. Continuing and increasing investment is vital, building on our record levels of spend will ensure that the health revenue budget increases by £2 billion by the end of this Parliament. Within that, there must be reform as well. A deliberate shift in the balance of care will increase the share of front-line NHS investment towards our community health services of primary and social care, as called for by Opposition parties in this Parliament. Bluntly, the shift will not be easy, but it is necessary for the future. A stronger community health sector will give more timely support to people and ultimately relieve some of the pressures on our hospitals, but we need to ensure that performance continues to be supported. For that reason, we are investing in better services to meet rising demand. That is why, for elective care, we are investing £200 million to expand the Golden Jubilee and establish five NHS elective care centres. Equally, we need to invest in those principles in the most value. Having examined the merits and challenges of extending free personal care for those under 65, we will take forward Frank's law, as the First Minister announced. I want to pay particular tribute to Amanda Coppell, who I visited this morning, and those who have campaigned on this important issue. As a result, up to 9,000 people currently receiving personal care will no longer be liable for charges for the personal care that they receive once this policy is implemented. I know that this policy has support across this chamber, and I hope that we can continue to count on that support from all sides of his seat to ensure that the UK Government does not claw back any benefits from people as a result of the extension of free personal care. We will build on our strong and capable workforce over this Parliament. We are well on our way to putting in place 250 community link workers and practices serving our poorest populations and training 1,000 paramedics and ensuring that all GP practices have access to a pharmacist to build capacity for mental health care. We will deliver an extra 800 professionals to expand support. We will strengthen the quality of services by introducing a safe staffing bill to enshrine safe health and care staffing in law, starting with nursing and midwifery. We will continue to take forward national workforce planning. Following publication of the national plan for NHS staff this June, we are working with stakeholders to publish plans for the social care workforce and for primary care staff, including GPs. Above all, we need to invest in the workforce, the heart of our health and care services. The First Minister announced on Monday that we will lift the 1 per cent public sector pay cap. Our nurses and public sector workers deserve a pay rise. Of course, investment alone is not enough. Our services need to change to meet the changing needs of health and care within the Scottish population. That is reflected in our bold approach to mental health services. In March, we published our 10-year mental health strategy. To back our vision of a Scotland where people get the right help at the right time will improve support for children and young people. For example, in the coming months, we will start a national review of personal and social education and the role of pastoral guidance in schools. We will also improve transition from children's adolescent services to adult mental health services. Of course, we have announced our investment in alcohol and drugs in a key area of public health. Iain Gray Many of my constituents—I think that this is probably true of everyone in the chamber—are waiting 30 or 40 weeks for access to therapies such as talking therapies and mental health. The minister cannot surely believe that this is acceptable. That is why we have published the new mental health strategy. We are seeing a huge investment in the workforce that is growing. Of course, that is why we are investing in that workforce to make sure that we can reduce the amount of time that people are waiting for. Whether that is for acute services for those who need it, but also in the field of primary care, the vision for the new multidisciplinary team with the new GP contract at its heart is absolutely about making sure that, when someone goes to their GP, they are able to be signposted then and there to the right professional, whether that is a mental health worker or someone else. That is what the new multidisciplinary team will be based around. We will also take action, as I was just saying, around public health such as drugs and alcohol. As I said, we have announced in the programme for government an additional £20 million annually for alcohol and drug services. Of course, we are making the links to mental health, because we know that often mental health and addiction issues are combined very briefly. Neil Findlay. Minister, could you set out what the reductions have been in the drug and alcohol budget in the previous years? Of course, we asked health boards to maintain the spend on alcohol and drug services. Of course, the performance in terms of the waiting times targets for alcohol and drug services have continued to be met. However, in recognition of the need for more preventive work, the £20 million actually goes further than the £15 million that Neil Findlay was referring to. I hope that Neil Findlay could perhaps bring himself to welcome the additional £5 million that is now going to be going in annually to alcohol and drugs services, because that will make a real difference on the ground. Of course, other public health issues are highlighted in the programme for government, such as diet and obesity. We will limit the marketing of products, high in fat, sugar or salt, and we will consult on a new diet and obesity strategy to explore what more we can do—radical action—to tackle some of the big public health challenges. I have spoken at length about health, but I want to illustrate what is true in our approach to all public services at Scotland-deserved services that improve and deliver, and those are the principles that are enshrined in our programme for government. We now have Miles Briggs to be followed by Clare Hockey. I would like to start by welcoming the announcement on Tuesday by the First Minister that the Scottish Government has at long last agreed to implement Frank's law and deliver free personal care for Scots under the age of 65. I want to pay tribute to the one-woman campaign that is Amanda Cappell, who, during the time that I have sought to bring forward my Frank's law private members bill, has become not only a good friend but, quite frankly, an inspiration to me and I know so many across this chamber. Having spoken with Amanda on Tuesday, I know how grateful she is for the support that she has received. I have to put on record her thanks and my thanks to the Dundee Courier newspaper, particularly the former political editor, Kieran Andrews, who supported Amanda from the outset in campaigning for this most important change. I think that it is only right and important that I also take this opportunity to thank the Parliament's non-governmental bills team for the help and advice that they have provided me as I have sought to progress my members' bill in Parliament. As Ruth Davidson said on Tuesday, if the First Minister and the Scottish Government wishes to get Frank's law in and working on the ground as soon as possible, they will have the support of those benches and I believe the whole chamber. However, let me be clear to the Government benches. For too many people in Scotland, Frank's law is needed today. It was needed yesterday and we need to see this action from the Scottish Government to deliver this policy at the earliest opportunity. It is more than 10 years now since the Scottish National Party Government took full charge of Scotland's NHS. Therefore, I believe that it is an appropriate moment to assess the record of more than a decade now running our health services in Scotland. A legitimate place to start that assessment is the SNP's 2007 manifesto. I am sorry to say something that is littered with broken promises. Targets pledged in 2007 for waiting times from referral to treatment and for cancer patients have been consistently missed. An NHS redress bill has failed to materialise. A promise reduction in antidepressants has instead seen antidepressant use soar. A pledge to ring fence mental health funding for health boards and local authorities has been abandoned. Health checks for all men and women when they reached age of 40 discontinued. The list goes on, and any similar analysis of the SNP's 2011 and 2016 manifestos reveal a further catalogue of letdowns. However, not only have they failed to deliver many of their own manifesto pledges for improvement, this summer has seen confirmation from a wide range of indicators that show that our health service is moving backwards under this failed SNP Government. In the past year alone, the A&E waiting times target has been met just six out of 52 weeks. The 18-week referral for treatment targets hasn't been met for more than three years. Waiting times for vital diagnostic tests are increasing. More than one in 10 cancer patients are waiting too long for treatment. Outpatient waiting times are growing, and the number of outpatients waiting longer than a year for treatment has jumped by more than 400 per cent in the space of just one year. Performance in seeing inpatients in day cases is deteriorating, and five out of six targets for stroke patients are now being missed. In addition, over a quarter of adults are waiting too long for psychological therapies as has already been mentioned. The list goes on. The Government is set to miss its target for getting GP services online. Delayed discharge is still costing hundreds of thousands of lost daybeds. The proportion of significant and high-risk backlog maintenance in our NHS estate has increased under this Government. At the heart of so many of the problems that we are seeing across our health service is the sad reality that we have a worsening and severe NHS workforce crisis—one that the Scottish Government has had warnings about for years, but a Government that took more than a decade to publish an NHS workforce plan. Decisions that were made by SNP ministers during their time in office have exacerbated the workforce crisis, and I think that they need to have the humility to accept that. It was Nicola Sturgeon as health secretary who made the very poor decision in 2012 to cut the number of student nurse placements, arguing at the time that the cuts were a sensible way forward. When the RCN was warning the First Minister at the time that the move was not sustainable and would impact on patient care, more recently, in the 2016 budget, the SNP cut funding for alcohol and drug partnerships by £15 million. As Neil Findlay has already raised, it was therefore a bit ironic for all members of this Parliament to hear the First Minister announced on Tuesday funding for alcohol and drug services when it is her Government who has put those services in such a difficult position over the past year. Scottish Conservatives recognise that there is an ever-increasing demand for health services in Scotland, that we face significant demographic challenges, and at the same time, we need to shift the NHS to invest in prevention, innovation and community services. In the run-up to the 2021 election, we will continue to expose this Government's ever-growing record of failure on our NHS, but we will also work with NHS staff and health experts to offer positives alternatives that will offer a new approach, and one that we will ask the people of Scotland to endorse in 2021. The SNP Governments over the past 10 years in office have consistently been champions of public services, and nowhere is this more evident than in our NHS. Where the Westminster Government has embarked on a hostile campaign of cuts and an enthusiastic opening up of services to private bidders, we have been fortunate in Scotland that our health service is devolved, allowing our Government to follow a more productive, inclusive and person-centred approach than in the rest of the UK. Despite the restrictions of Barnett, this SNP Government has protected the front-line health budget and, as used this money wisely, it has increased spending with the annual health resource budget up 40 per cent from 2006 to £3.6 billion today. At the end of this Parliament, we will have seen increased health funding by almost £2 billion on top of the £3.3 billion already delivered by the SNP. We are investing £116 more per head than the UK Government on health and continue to invest in our primary care and community services. Since 2007, the SNP Government has increased staffing in the NHS with 12,000 more full-time equivalent staff than were in place when they took office in 2007. Staffing is projected to grow by another 1,400 more full-time equivalent staff in the coming year, if I can just make a little bit more progress, Mr Finlay. However, this is not just about putting more money and more people into the existing system and hoping for the best. We are building a health service fit for the challenges of the 21st century, one that will increasingly be about prevention and that looks to put the patient firmly at the centre of care. Scotland was the first country in the world to implement a national patient safety programme and hospital safety is continuing to improve. Figures published show that between January to March 2014 and January to March 2017, hospital mortality has fallen by 8.4 per cent. That is a world-leading programme. The integration of health and social care is just another example of how this Government has revolutionised health service delivery. While that integration is in its infancy, it is a model that has been looked at by others not only in the UK but elsewhere. As the First Minister outlined on Tuesday, the Scottish Government will look to limit the marketing of foods that are high in fat, sugar or salt. We need to work on the causes of ill health and diet and lifestyle because they are massive contributors to a whole range of health programmes, including diabetes, heart disease and cancer. In addition, the Scottish National Party Government will implement a new soft opt-out scheme for organ donation, which will benefit many people each year who would otherwise not have had life-changing or life-saving transplants. Where once families and friends would watch loved ones suffer and even die on a donor waiting list, now those patients will have a chance at a new life. This Government will work to implement Frank's law, implementing free personal care to those under 65 who require it. I am proud to say that our NHS will adapt to address wider issues around promoting health and wellbeing, tackling inequalities and supporting parity of importance between physical and mental health care. We recognise in Scotland that we need to have holistic systems to tackle problems that have multiple contributing factors. Because of this, the Scottish Government will, in every year of this Parliament, increase the share of the NHS budget being spent on mental health and on primary health, community health and social care too. An additional £107 million for health and social care integration previously announced in January will ensure that more people are able to be cared for in their homes instead of in hospitals. At the Unison Scotland nursing conference last week, I heard the inspiring nursing 2030 vision for the profession in Scotland from the chief nursing officer Fiona McQueen. She spoke of a nursing service that increasingly will be about prevention, addressing issues around promoting wider health and wellbeing, tackling inequalities and supporting parity of esteem between physical and mental health care. She outlined the future of nursing in Scotland, where it will continue to develop as a personalised rights-based service, embedded within a caring and compassionate professional relationship with individuals and communities. Nursing will continue to take into account wider physical, psychological, social, family and community life, and nurses themselves will be prepared for increasingly technological environments. In stark contrast to Westminster's treatment of nurses, the SNP Government has maintained bursaries and free tuition for nursing and midwifery students. They have also ensured better pay and conditions for NHS Scotland staff as a whole, with entry pay in the NHS in Scotland at £881 higher than England and more than £1,300 higher than in Northern Ireland. Mike Rumbles With great care to members commenting on the national health service in Scotland, is it her view that everything is positive about the NHS in Scotland because so far I have not detected any kind of criticism at all? If you represented people in the north-east from Grampian, they are not very content with the NHS. Claire Hawke I thank Mr Rumbles for his intervention. Of course, the NHS is not perfect. I did not see the NHS as perfect. However, we have to acknowledge the extraordinary work that our staff do and the service that they provide to our communities, and every time you make comments like that, I can tell you that hurts nurses and NHS staff. I warmly welcome the First Minister's announcement that the 1 per cent public sector pay cap will be lifted. Band 5 nurses are between £225 and £309 a year better off here than those in England. Let's not forget NHS Scotland's policy of no compulsory redundancies in stark contrast to England, where there have been 20,000 redundancies since 2010 alone. However, the biggest threat to our NHS and public services is Brexit, and its effects are already being felt before we have left the EU. Already, the Nursing and Medwithery Council reported that only 46 EU nurses registered to work in the UK in April this year, down 96 per cent since July last year, when there were 1,304 applicants, this at a time when we need to recruit nurses. I welcome and applaud the SNP Government's consistent commitment to our NHS and to public health. It is a programme that builds on the world-leading healthcare that we deliver in Scotland. It shows a commitment to funding and to evolving what healthcare means in Scotland. It recognises the value of the healthcare workforce and it places the patient at the centre of care where they should be. Iain Gray, to be followed by James Dornan. One thing that the programme for government tells us is that the widely held view that this Government has achieved very little in 10 years is really beginning to hit home and to hurt. The First Minister has trolled campaign demands to concede necessities to make a virtue of and other party's policies to lift all, to pack into a programme designed to give the impression of frenetic activity. All the while, of course, making sure that she minimised any mention of the pursuit of independence, lest we are reminded that that is all that the past 10 years have been about. I hear the groans because independence is again the purpose which dare not speak its name. In all of that, there was bound to be some things to welcome. Law emissions zones, for example, Frank's law, lifting of the public sector pay cap, were raising the age of criminal responsibility. When it came to the self-declared number one priority, improving education and closing the attainment gap, the most remarkable thing was that there was nothing new. To be fair, the education secretary has already laid out his plans and he has made clear that he intends to bulldoze them through no matter what anyone says. We could have hoped that, over the summer, he might have listened to sense, changed course, but no. His own contribution to this debate on Tuesday made clear that everyone is out of step apart from John Swinney. Mr Swinney declared himself baffled at the conundrum, the contradiction, he said, if anyone could want reform in schools yet oppose his reforms. They are simply the wrong reforms. Regional directors appointed by government, answerable to government, implementing the national framework developed by government, featuring standardised tests designed by government, delivered in schools whose budget has been decided centrally by government, and all of this, overseen by a national education committee appointed and chaired by the education secretary himself. The real conundrum, Presiding Officer, is how on earth the education secretary expects anyone to believe that this is devolution and local autonomy. It is centralised, command and control. However, the biggest contradiction at the heart of this misguided reform agenda in education is when the First Minister says as she did, that her premise is a simple but powerful one. The best people to make decisions about a child's education are the people who know them best, their teachers and parents. She is right. The decision of parents, teachers, headteachers is that the Government's reforms are wrong, misguided, damaging and unwanted. Educationalists agree with them. The Government's own SNP colleagues and local government agree with them. Just as we went into recess, Mr Swinney's international education advisers specifically warned him against becoming too focused on changing the structure of the education system when, arguably, the more important aspects are the culture and capacity within the system. Not only do teachers, parents, educationalists and the international advisers agree that the Government is birking up its own tree, they also all agree on the real change needed. That is more resource, more capacity and, above all, more teachers. No wonder that, after 10 years of cuts to education. After all, the Government has spent £1.25 billion less on education during its time in office than it has simply maintained spending. It has 4,000 fewer teachers in schools than it has simply maintained teacher numbers. It is spending £491 less per head per pupil in real terms every year than in the budgets and the heritage when it came to power. Yet the programme's only new education funding is £1 million for school libraries. That is welcome, but that amounts to around £50 per pupil per annum. It is not going to make up for £1.25 billion. Just as lifting the pay cap is not going to be enough for teachers who have seen their pay eroded by 16 per cent in real terms, only today we see research from Bath University that shows that teachers in Scotland have working conditions that are considered extremely poor and that 40 per cent of teachers in our schools are planning to leave the profession within the next 18 months. That Government has taken our teachers for granted for far too long. The truth is that, to make the reforms to education that we really need, to restore teacher numbers, to make teachers' terms and conditions attractive enough to solve the recruitment crisis and stop those teachers leaving the profession, that would have required actual boldness and ambition on tax, the richest paying a little more. Instead, the First Minister says that she will have talks about tax. We had all this for nine years with the council tax. We had manifesto after manifesto making promises. We had cross-party commissions, cross-party consensus, but we have still got the council tax. It all turned out to be a smokescreen for a Government that pretends to be progressive but hides from hard decisions every single time. The First Minister said that she was prepared to be controversial. If, by that, she means pursuing education reforms with no support, no evidence, no resources and no prospect of improving outcomes, I suppose that that is controversial. At least that it flies in the face of all common sense, all evidence and all professional advice, but it is not what we need and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. I think that I would be missing my duty if I did not comment on the last two Opposition speakers. Miles Briggs was quite happy to give a very specific identification of issues that he thinks are wrong with the Government's record, but he quite bluntly would not take interventions from myself or my colleague John Mason, because he knew we were going to ask him about his own party's record in charge of the United Kingdom national health service, which is much, much worse than anything that is happening in Scotland. Remember that that is the one that is in real crisis, a word that is used a lot over here and over there. Crisis in NHS, that is in England and that is not up here. Ian Gray, I could give the speech just on responses to Ian Gray's contribution, however I do have a lot to say. What I will say is that to sum up Ian Gray's contribution was, let's not have any change to education, let's just throw more money at it. That was what you said. Spending time in a constituency over recess is one of my favourite aspects of being an MSP. Right up to the last two speeches, it was going to be a pleasure to return here to Holyrood. I have never been happy to be back and I think of it all the same than after reading this SNP's programme for government. It is a bold, exciting and visionary programme that we have in front of us. You can tell by the reaction of most of our opponents. I even heard it there. This bit is good, but you stole it from us. The rest is rubbish, not enough. How is it to be paid for? Why only now? Blah, blah, blah. Then we have got a comedy act of Ruth and Adam yesterday telling us that we should be building seven new towns, thousands more houses a year than we already have in a pipeline, and we are meant to take them seriously. Before there was a comedy act, there used to be magicians. Ruth was a magician, Adam was a glamorous assistant, of course. Their speciality was making council houses disappear, and man, they were good at that. The only problem being that they never mastered the art of bringing them back or replacing them, and that looks like a belated attempt to make them reappear as if by magic, and of course at no cost. Anyway, whilst they have been playing voodal halls up and down the country, this government has been getting on with the day job and how. A programme that consists of so much that I could spend another 10 minutes speaking about that, but I will just go on to education. The Parliament may not have been sitting over the summer and the schools may only just have returned. However, despite what we hear, Scotland's education sector has had much to cheer about over the last few months. I hope that everyone will join me in congratulating all pupils who sat exams this year, as well as thanking their teachers, staff and parents for the vital support that they provide. Scotland's teachers, as they always do, have gone the extra mile in ensuring that our children and young adults leave school with great qualifications and that they are well equipped for progressing into higher education or entering the world of work. Of course, we will take an intervention. Hymre. Mr Dornan is absolutely right. Our teachers have gone the extra mile. Does he understand that, in return, they do not want his warm words, they want decent pay and conditions to do their job? James Dornan. Yes, okay. My committee just brought out a report on workforce planning. I am confident that many of the recommendations on that workforce planning will be taken up, but if you can pretend that you can get that magic money tree and I heard, I do not know how many promises or wishes are in your contribution there, then that would be very grateful. For the third year in a row, the number of higher passes gained by pupils has passed 150,000 and a record number of Scottish pupils earned a university place on exam results day. Those are achievements that I am sure the whole chamber can commend. Speaking of personal capacity, since the SNP's electoral success in 2007, I am very proud that we have been able to achieve so much and there can be no doubt that Scotland is in a better place now thanks to a decade of SNP Governments. I will say something here that the problem that we have is that we forget just how dismal it was when we came into power in 2007. They were in such a state that they were giving money back to Westminster because they did not know how to spend it. Today's programme for government is certainly the First Minister's most ambitious yet, and it is welcome that the major reforms to her education sector remain a real priority. The programme for government gives the First Minister and her cabinet the opportunity to look forward, to refocus their efforts on refreshing their agenda. However, it is also an opportunity to build on the very strong foundations that have laid in the past. The Government can be proud that free early learning and childcare has been increased from around 400 hours under Labour to 600 hours now, which will be almost doubled to 1,140 hours by the end of this Parliament. We can be proud that £750 million will be invested through the attainment Scotland fund, which will drive forward improvements in educational outcomes in Scotland's most disadvantaged areas. We can be proud that it has rebuilt or refurbished 651 schools over 250 more than under the previous administration. We can be proud that tuition fees were scrapped and not labour scrapped by merely shifting when the fees paid, but really scrapped, which can be saved students up to £27,000 compared with the cost of studying for a degree in England. I regularly point out the doom and gloom of Spousebury Opposition parties in the past few days and speeches have been no different, but I always find that incredulous and a wee bit sad and predictable when the Labour bench is moan when we speak of teachers' numbers, just as Ian Gray's contribution did there, act as if they were the only party to be trusted when it comes to education. However, recent events show once again that they could not be further from the truth. Local authorities have been responsible for sacking teachers and for classroom assistants, and if you want any evidence of that, they were in the door two minutes in North Lanarkshire, propped up by the Tories, I hasten to add, when they cut 198 teaching assistants. They then come greeting about the SNP in the Scottish Government. However, unfortunately for them, the electorate is not stupid. For the past 10 years, the SNP has been busy governing for the people of Scotland. I am not really sure what Labour has been doing besides holding countless leadership contests, of course. I make no mistake, as convener of the education and skills committee, I know full well the challenges that lay ahead for the Scottish Government. However, I have full trust in the cabinet secretary and the major reforms that he is undertaking, and it will take the recommendations of the committee into account. I was delighted to meet him only last week at Hillpart secondary school in my constituency to hear more about the Scottish Government's teaching makes people campaign, which is pushing for university undergraduates and people working in STEM industries to enter the teaching profession. Last week, as I said earlier, my education and skills committee released a report on teacher workforce planning after hearing an absolute mountain of evidence from teaching professionals who advised, among other things, that more must be done to attract our brightest and best to become teachers. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary's view on our report once he has taken time to consider a recommendation. I welcome the announcement of the First Minister. Mr Dronan, it is time to write. It is seven minutes. Please wind up. Right. Do you want me to draw a conclusion? Just complete, please. Yes, okay. I share the Scottish Government's ambition in creating a world-class education system where everyone has the opportunity to succeed and the gap between our least and most advanced children is closed. In my own view, nothing the Parliament or Government does will ever have greater importance. I look forward to getting back down to business with my committee and I have no doubt that this outstanding programme for Government will make it more likely than not that our children will be able to reach the maximum of their potential. Thank you very much. Thank you, Colin. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Sandra White. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is an old joke cited since at least 1924 in which an Englishman asked an Irishman for directions. The pay-off line is when the Irishman replies, if I were you, I wouldn't start from here. Given the choice, I expect the Scottish Government in framing the programme wouldn't start from where 10 years of underachievement have put them, but they do. I will examine the justice elements of the programme. First, the commitment to crackdown on drug driving. Go ahead. Neil Findlay. I wonder if I could advise him that it's all in the delivery. Liam Kerr. Thank you. I look forward to delivering this speech. Thank you, Mr Findlay. First, the commitment to crackdown on drug driving, implementing specific driving limits for legal prescription drugs and an outright ban on illegal drugs. Good. This works and saves lives. Since 2015, 14,000 people have been convicted of drug driving south of the border, compared with 74 in Scotland. This is, of course, an initiative from the Scottish Conservatives, and I genuinely welcome that the Scottish Government has listened. We also welcome the move to extend the use of electronic monitoring of offenders in the community and enable the use of new technology where appropriate. I'm surprised that the member thinks that the issue of drug driving is a conservative policy point. When we said that we would increase or decrease the drink driving rate in Scotland, we said that we then turned to the drug driving rate. That's exactly what we're doing. Once it's implemented, Scotland will have the most progressive and robust legislation for drink driving and for drug driving for any part of the UK. That's precisely why I looked to welcome it and why Douglas Ross brought it up and the Scottish Government responded to it in February of this year. What I was going to say was that I welcome the maturity in taking on our good ideas. I'm delighted that Mr Matheson failed to abide by that. We cautiously welcome the bill to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12 and align it with the minimum age of prosecution. It would be cherlish to point out that this was a piece of legislation that was already announced by Mark McDonald in December 2016, and indeed over half the legislation that was proposed in the programme has been previously announced. Yet I am concerned. Why are the Scottish Government not standing up for victims? They could have taken this opportunity to introduce a genuine programme of restorative justice to tip the balance back in favour of victims who too often experience a justice system that offers them nothing. We also see no effort to ensure that life means life for Scotland's most dangerous criminals. Under the current system, families of murder victims cannot rest easy knowing that those criminals are sitting in their cells waiting for the day that they'll be let back into their community. We would change that and we will bring forward plans for a member's bill on this subject. I am concerned at the main justice headline in the programme. To extend the presumption against custodial sentences from 3 to 12 months, the people of Scotland will be horrified to hear the sorts of offences the SNP believes merit a presumption of non-constodial sentences. The most recent figures show that more than 100 people were given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months for attempted murder or serious assault. Yes, 17 per cent of those convicted of attempted murder or serious assault got less than 12 months. Under the programme, they could escape jail altogether. The Scottish Government, together with Police Scotland—I have no time, I'm afraid, Mr Rumbles—repeatedly state that tackling domestic abuse is a top priority. Quite right. However, if those guilty of attempted murder or serious assault from earlier, a considerable proportion were convicted with a domestic abuse aggravation. It is bad enough for victims of crime to see their tormentor back on the streets immediately after sentencing. How much worse must it be for a domestic abuse victim to have to let their aggressor back into the home following a serious assault? Had the presumption against imprisonment been in place in 2015-16, 27 people convicted of sexual assault would have been spared incarceration. The SNP may claim that community-based alternatives are robust, but a third of community payback orders were not even completed in 2015-16. That figure is rising. It may claim that their aim is reducing re-offending through rehabilitation. Then why has purposeful activity in prisons been slashed by 300,000 hours in the past year alone? I have no time, Mr Finnie. Currently, more than 1,000 prisoners in Scotland are not engaged in work or purposeful activity. That is 17 per cent of Scotland's prison population. The SNP does not like being accused of presiding over a soft-touch justice system, but that is exactly what is being delivered here. Prison serves four key purposes—punish criminals, deter would-be criminals, to keep the public safe and to rehabilitate those who have taken a wrong turning in life. Under those plans, under the programme for government, three of the basic tenants have been cast aside. Choosing to empty prisons rather than use them to keep the public safe is the wrong approach. Those misguided proposals do nothing to make Scotland safer. In so many ways, not least justice, this is a tired programme from a tired Government. Short on ideas, short on innovation, long on bluster and backbench sycophancy. Following 10 years of tears, the SNP would not choose to start from here, but thanks to losing sight of the day-to-day issues that the people of Scotland care about, they are where they are. They are not a programme for government, but a syllabus for soft-touch sentences. I welcome the programme for government, which has fairness, equality and ambition at its core. The Opposition benches, particularly the Tories, fail to identify. If I could just reply to some of the comments that was made, it has been someone who was a member of the Justice Committee. The work that is going on in the prison just now, particularly the young men, the revolving doors, trying to stop that rehabilitation, has a fantastic thing to see. What you are saying just now puts a shadow on the prison officers, the prison officers that mentor these young men and the young men themselves. We should be proud of what is happening just now. We want to get rid of that revolving door, and I notice that she used the word rehabilitation at the very end, so it is not just trying to catch her press coverage in the press. You should be looking at the fact that we are doing a good job, we are doing a good job. If you or anyone else who was doing that to stop the revolving door in the justice system, in the prisons for these young youth, then absolutely we should be applauding that. We should not actually be decrying about that, but that is not what I was wanting to start my remarks off, but I was having been, as I said, visited the prisons, etc. I think that the work that is doing there is very, very good. We can do more, and we are trying to do more. What I wanted to talk about is about the bill itself. It established the very first social security system in the UK based on the statutory principle that social security is a human right, and I think that we must absolutely emphasise that as a human right. 11 benefits being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, disability living allowance, personal independence payments, attendance allowance, severe disabling allowance, industrial injuries, disability benefit, carers allowance, sure start to grant funeral expenses, cold weather payments, winter fuel payments, discretionary housing payments and some powers in relation to universal credit, for example, the splitting of paying of monies and rent, etc. Huge, huge bunch of powers. Unfortunately, we do not have the full powers, I just wish we had. Mr Kelly, I will take intervention. Mr Kelly. I thank Sandra White for taking the intervention. She just listed a whole raft of powers there. Can we tell us when the SNP Government is going to start to use those powers to make a difference? I really find it really rich coming from, not just James Kelly, but the Labour Party. If the Labour Party had supported us in putting forward full powers for this Parliament, we would not have to have just 11, we would have all of them, so take no lessons from you, and we will put that forward as it goes through the bill. The people who are using it just now are absolutely quite happy with the way that it is going. They have all said in evidence that you cannot push it too quickly because the mistakes that are being made by the... You may laugh, you may laugh, but the mistakes that are being made with universal credit just show you that you cannot push this forward. You, as some of the people that we have had as witnesses, will see that those powers are coming, and they will come at the right time, at the right pace as well. However, pity that you could not support us, you supported the Tories and the fact that we should not have the full powers. I will not take any lessons from you. The Government of this Parliament has the opportunity to shape a distinctly Scottish social system with dignity and respect, as I said and replied to Mr Kelly, in stark contrast to the regime of the Tory Government and the DWP. The Social Security Committee, which I am convener of, is central to the passage of legislation, and more importantly, with the commitment from the Scottish Government to include those with lived experience service users, will also shape the bill, ensuring that services and processes are designed to deliver a system that is not only fit for purpose, but has a commitment to a human rights-based approach, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. The Scottish Government believes that people should get all the help that they are entitled to. That is why the bill includes a statutory principle, which reflects the Scottish Government's commitment to help to maximise people's incomes and encourage the take-up of all benefits. To date, the Scottish Government committed to increasing benefits for carers to the same level as jobseekers allowance, by introducing a carers allowance supplement by summer 2018. Mr Kelly, there you go, will deliver the best tax scheme grant by summer 2019. They are, Mr Kelly, another one, to increase support for low-income families with young children, introducing a funeral-expended assisted benefit by summer 2019. Mr Kelly, to provide critical financial support to people at difficult times, improve benefits for disabled people and people with ill health, and, unlike the Tory Government in Westminster, there will be no assessments carried out by the private sector, as is reiterated today by the minister, Jeane Freeman, in answer to the First Minister's question time. The Scottish Government will also work with the Department of Work and Pensions to introduce flexibilities to universal credit in the way that it is paid. I am aware that there is a meeting of the committee—not my committee but the joint ministerial committee group—I think that it is in the 14th next week that we will discuss that very issue. There will also be grants from the welfare fund and discretionary housing payments as well as providing help with heating costs and extending the winter fuel payment to families with severely disabled children. Most importantly, the Scottish Government will ensure that those who need support are aware of the benefits that are available to them with a campaign to maximise the benefit take-up. I think that that is important because we can provide the benefits in sport, but if there is a lack of awareness of what is available, the system will have failed. That is an important part of it. There is one issue, and I know that I am running out of time, so I want to raise this particular issue here. I really would be interested to know the view of the Tory members of the UN's judgment on the UK Government attacks on disabled people. The International Committee of Disabled Human Rights Experts delivered a series of damning attacks on the UK Government over its failure to implement the UN disability convention with the chair of the committee telling the Government the delegation that it is cut to social security and other support for disabled people had caused a human catastrophe, which was totally neglecting the vulnerable situation—not neglecting, worse than the vulnerable situation—people with disabilities found themselves in. It is a very damning report, not just damning. It is criminal, and I would really like to hear a response when the next Tory gets up to speak. The Fight Against Injustice puts the fire in my belly, so I want to highlight two areas in the programme for government where justice campaigners have brought about change. In 2013, my colleague Jenny Marra and I visited Amanda and Frank Coppola at their home in Cymru not long before Frank passed away. That visit will stay with me until the day I die, because we were moved by the pain of Frank's wife and family watching their husband and father taken by Alzheimer's, suffering the indignity of selling cherished items from a life in football to trying to fund Frank's care. The announcement on Tuesday to address the issue of care provision based on age-knock condition is a victory for Amanda and her family, but they did not do it for them. It is too late for Frank. Others would not suffer the injustice that they did, but I say to the health secretary that there must be no smoking mirrors on this one, and it must be the start of addressing the overall crisis in social care that is here now. On period poverty, I know from the campaign to ban transvaginal mesh how difficult it is to get mainstream media to talk about issues of women's health and wellbeing. I commend Filmmaker Ken Loach, Monica Lennon, my colleague Andy Trussell-Trust and all the other pressure groups who have brought the issue into the public consciousness. You also commend Gillian Martin and Women for Independence and many of the other people who were raising the issue some time ago. I would take to think that you were just being parochial on this. If Mr Dornan would listen, I said that all of the other pressure groups who have brought the issue into the public consciousness might be beneficial to listen. The programme for government completely fails on the biggest issue that is affecting every community in every town. That is unprecedented and sustained attack on local services through a deliberate policy of chronic underfunding. £1.9 billion has been cut from our councils since 2010. We know the Tories' loath local government. They have never believed in the public provision of services that is funded by our collective taxes. That is why, time and again, they have used the law to restrict the power of councils and councillors—rake-capping, the poll tax, the sale of council houses, competitive tender and the abolition of the regions, surcharging and more. We expect that from the Tories. That is why they exist. However, in recent years, the SNP has exceeded even the Tories—a central imposed council tax freeze, centralising the nation of police, fire and other services—and cut after cut after cut after cut. Now, education reforms that Michael Forsyth would not have dared to introduce. Council revenue funding, down by 11 per cent since 2010. In West Lothian, £96 million has gone and another £66 million is to go. Mid Lothian has £42 million more to cut and Edinburgh and I watering £148 million. I have not heard a word about that from any SNP-backed venture and I do not expect it. Tens of thousands of jobs have gone already. Clare Hockey has mentioned that 20,000 jobs have gone in the English NHS—a scandal. It pales into insignificance to the number of jobs that have gone in local government, but nobody mentions it on the Government's side. Nobody mentions it. If jobs have gone in the environmental services that keep our streets clean and safe and social services that support the elderly, young and vulnerable, grants to voluntary groups cut, then frozen, then ended altogether, education support staff on temporary contracts and then they are not renewed, youth work cut, staff undervalued and grossly underpaid—no, thank you. I welcome the end to the pay cap, but it has to be funded and go some way to making up for the seven years of wage decline and we need new cash. It cannot be funded from more jobs and service cuts. If a factory shuts or jobs are lost in any sector, we see a task force, the pace team and other Government support. What support have our council workers received? Absolutely nothing. I say to the Government that that cannot go on. It breaks my heart to see the services built up over years by skilled public servants and dedicated councillors of all parties being systematically dismantled. It is the oldest trick in the book. Underfund services, to the point that they cannot function, accuse them of being ineffective, either hide them off or expect a third sector to pick up the pieces at a reduced rate. No, thank you. All the while, poverty and health inequality increases. What are the streets of this city any morning and you will see the rough sleepers, the homeless, those with mental health and addiction problems? A £10 million fund to address rough sleeping, at a time when £1.9 billion has been ripped out of council services and IGBs have had their drug and alcohols budget slash several times. Several times that number is a tragic insult. Councils are the front line in the fight against poverty and health inequality. Housing schools, mental health projects, day centres, classroom assistance, libraries and youth workers, welfare rights and social work, community centres, home care, planning, economic development and transport—that is the front line. The health service fixes our health. Those services prevent it in the first place, and those are the very services that civilise our society and are being eroded to the point where senior council officers fear—we are heading to a point where it is the only possible option is that they can provide only statutory services. That is a damning indictment of 10 years of this Government, in which every time rhetoric triumphs over reality. Thank you, Mr Findlay. Richard Lochhead is followed by Graham Simpson. It is a somewhat sad reflection of our political culture that the position of opposition parties is always that government programmes and government announcements are disappointing and too modest and that parties that have been in power for 10 years or more have always run out of ideas and steam. Speaking as a MSP who has been in this chamber since 1999, I have to say that when I read the programme for government and heard the First Minister's statement, I was very generally impressed. There is a sense of refresh about it and it is an ambitious, bold programme that is going to make a real difference to Scotland's economy if it is implemented to social justice in this country. I have, of course, in the future of Scotland's environment as well and generally improve the quality of life of people living in this country, so I am impressed with the programme for government. I should say that one of the opening remarks in the programme is perhaps an understatement and it says that Brexit will continue to provide the backdrop to much that we do over the next year because there is a danger that the Brexit negotiations and the way they go undermine many of the good intentions that the Scottish Government has in this Parliament share. Being a loyal MSP, I, of course, read the press in general every day of the week and I noticed this morning that there were two stories of the dangers posed by Brexit to the north of Scotland and the farming pages, the headline warning over cut to the migrant workforce, where Manette Batters, the deputy president of the national farmers union—that is the English NFU, of course—said an abrupt reduction in the number of EU workers able to work in the UK after we leave the EU would cause massive disruptions to the entire food supply chain. Of course, the other main story in the P&J this morning was that Aberdeen may face brain drain due to Brexit. Aberdeen is facing a brain drain of EU citizens with almost 50 per cent, I will repeat that, 50 per cent, planning to leave Scotland due to Brexit. It has been claimed that the figures come from an international study from KPMG that showed that Scotland faces losing nearly 63,000 EU citizens, mostly young qualified workers, with highly demanded skills such as IT and engineering. I suspect that the next year or so it is going to be overshadowed by the Brexit negotiations and the impact on Scotland. Last week, I was very lucky to have a good briefing from the income maximisation section at the Murray council that was set up recently, where I learned that 50 per cent of the funding for this very valuable unit that is helping hundreds of families across Murray—particularly some of the more vulnerable members of our society—cote with welfare reforms and ensure that they get the benefits that they are entitled to. The fact that 50 per cent of their funding comes from Europe was a surprise to me, and it just shows you how the EU funding issue—never mind the labour issues I have just mentioned—filtrates right in through all corners of our society and makes a real difference to people's lives. In terms of income maximisation, I welcome in the programme for government the idea of providing a financial health check to families on low incomes because of the impact that welfare reforms are having on our society. As Sandra White said, I welcome the new social security agency that has been set up with 1,500 members of staff to be recruited to work in that. I would urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all 1,500 members are not in the central belt or in our main cities but that many of the 1,500 workers are working in our communities the length and breadth of Scotland and particularly in rural Scotland. The fact that the creation of a new social security system is going to be created with dignity and respect at its heart is a very welcome comment, especially when we contrast that with what is happening with the UK Government, which has just been slammed by the UN for Grave and Systematic Violation of Disabled People's Rights. The social security system that we set up must make life easier for people, not what the UK Government system is doing, which is making life harder, and it must support claimants not pile on the pain as is happening at the moment. We have an issue in Murray, for instance, where the assessments that are being carried out at the moment mean that many people in Murray have to travel to Inverness to have those carried out, people who are not capable of travelling, people with anxiety problems, people with serious mental health issues. After anecdote that has been sent to me in the last 24 hours about the pain and stress that people in Murray are being put through because they can't get the assessments in their own doorstep in their Murray communities. I will be raising that issue with Scottish ministers and I hope that they will put pressure on the UK ministers. We will also be raising this issue with the Department of Work and Pensions. It is an outrageous situation. I have situations where people are spending money on their own fuel to take their clients to those assessments in Inverness because they have no way of getting there under their own steam. I have people on the phone to me, as I had yesterday from some of my local communities, who are really anxious because they simply can't make the journey. That is the characteristics of the social security system that we have from the UK Government. I very much welcome the fact that the system that is going to come under the programme for government is going to have much more compassion at its heart. I also say over the next year that I hope that the Scottish Government will put pressure on the UK Government on a whole host of other issues that potentially may undermine many of our good intentions in this Parliament. This morning, a constituent in Keith called me, or emailed me, I should say, to tell me that Lloyd Pharmacy wants to charge him an extra £50 for delivery to his AB 55 postcode of a mobility scooter for his terminally ill wife. Despite the fact that the website suggests that delivery to UK addresses is free, another situation is utterly lacking compassion in this day and age. Lloyd's and other companies should be delivering free when it comes to medical equipment to north of Scotland and other rural areas of the country. I urge the UK Government to go on and sort out the regulation in terms of the exorbitant discriminatory delivery charges that we experience in rural and northern areas and other areas of Scotland. I urge the UK ministers to implement the programme for government that is very ambitious, it is radical but we also have to make sure that Scotland's voice is heard and that we influence some of the ridiculous, stricoriant policies and decisions that have been taken place by the Conservative Government in Westminster. John Mason Presiding Officer, last year, Nicola Sturgeon came before this chamber and outlined a programme for government containing 13 bills. Three have been passed. This year, she has presented us with 16 bills. Some of them repeat to join the queue. The first question is this. How are we to take seriously a programme from a Government with such a poor record of delivery, delivery that is needed? There are little more important people than having a roof over their head. After 10 years of SNP government, we have too many people sleeping on the streets every night. You can see it just yards from this building. We have 5,000 children classified as homeless, 5,000 children. We have more than 10,000 households in temporary accommodation, many in bed and breakfast, some for as long as 18 months. That is up from last year. Of those households, more than 3,000 also in increase have children. This Government has failed the most needy in society. The Scottish Conservatives have called for a nationwide homelessness strategy. All parties bar the SNP called for that. We can give a cautious welcome to having an objective to end rough sleeping. However, aiming to do something and promising to do it and then delivering are very different things. Was this Government's response to the homelessness crisis and it is a crisis? Does the member take any responsibility for the issues of concern that he raises, people sleeping rough, people in crisis, that some of that might just have something to do with the welfare changes that have been pushed through by his Tory UK Government? I see them all the time in my surgery. I would think that he might see some of them as well. Will he be honest in accepting the responsibility of his own Government for much of that? The SNP is the Government in Scotland. The homelessness crisis has been getting worse under the SNP and you have so far rejected having a nationwide policy to deal with it. So what is the response? Set up a focus group and a fund but with no clear message on what they actually want to do. Now people become homeless for all sorts of reasons. Helping them isn't easy, I'm not pretending it is, but why not announce something that we know does work? A housing first approach where the first thing someone who presents themselves as homeless gets is a home. To achieve that of course we actually need more homes. That's why we on these benches have been looking at how to achieve that. Last week with Davidson set out some of our ideas, like creating a new generation of new towns backed by a new national housing and infrastructure agency and with a minister in cabinet leading the charge, not that I want to promote Kevin Stewart, Presiding Officer, or unlocking land and its value to put into infrastructure using land value capture, radical thinking of the kind that's needed, not talking shops, but leadership. We think, and homes for Scotland agree with us— Can we just hear the member and have conversations across them? Mr Simpson, continue please. I'll apologise on Mr Fraser's behalf. We think and Homes for Scotland agree with us that we need 25,000 new homes being built in Scotland every year across all tenures, and that's not happening. If we go on and build those new towns, we have the chance to be forward thinking and design them in a way that meets energy reduction targets. We could set energy efficiency targets that exceed most of what's being built at the moment, design streets that work for pedestrians, cyclists and, yes, motorists, design in the green spaces that people want. On the subject of cyclists, Presiding Officer, I do personally welcome the increase in funding for active travel, and I look forward to seeing Humza Yousaf at Peddwl for Scotland on Sunday. I hope that he's not put off by the weather forecast. We don't just need new homes, we need to improve existing ones. Thousands of properties in Scotland are standing on a condition cliff edge. We need action to help people in tenements, for example, to improve the homes that they live in. We'll have more to say on this in the coming weeks and months. Part of the answer to improving poor living conditions, which can lead to breathing problems, skin complaints, depression, marriage breakdown, is to improve energy efficiency. The announcement of a warm homes bill is not new. It was announced last year, but there is still no mention of it, including measures to improve energy efficiency. Fuel poverty affects a third of households in Scotland. Last week, I, along with Alex Rowley, Liam McArthur and Mark Ruskell, an unlikely allowance I grant you, wrote to Kevin Stewart. We called on him in the warm homes bill to set a date for the eradication of fuel poverty. The programme for government says the bill will quote, set a new statutory fuel poverty target, which is not quite the same thing. I realise that I'm tight for time, so I'll end by saying that we need to do more to tackle homelessness, we need to build more new homes, we need to improve energy efficiency, improve the homes that already exist. The time for talking is over, it's time for action. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I'll call on John Mason to be followed by Daniel Johnson. John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There have been a number of speeches so far in this debate, so I want to respond to some of the points, as well as making some of my own. Firstly, there have been several mentions of the New Fourth Crossing, which I certainly welcome, but I'd like to particularly mention the success of the M8, M73 and M74 completion, which I think has been a huge success and is making life so much better for many businesses and individuals, including in my constituency. I am vice-convener of the economy committee, so you might not be surprised that I would like to say something about the economy in my speech today. Firstly, I would like to focus on some of the events that have been happening this week. One of the key challenges for Scotland is our lack of growth in population. It is incredibly difficult to grow an economy with a static population. I think that it was Jack McConnell who really took a lead on that and understood it and realised that we had to tackle it. We have seen a levelling off of the previous downward decline and a slight increase in recent years, which is more than welcome, but I would suggest that any Scottish Government will find it difficult to match economic growth in England if our population growth falls way behind theirs. That is why it is all the more disappointing this week that the UK Government has not involved Scotland in its thinking about immigration post Brexit. As colleagues have said, that will impact both in individual businesses, but I would also suggest that it will affect the whole economy. It was clear in yesterday's speech by Roseanna Cunningham that the economy is much wider than a simplistic measure like GDP, and it needs to include factors such as the environment and inclusivity. There is no point growing GDP by 5 per cent or 10 per cent per year if only a very few people benefit from that growth. I was a bit disappointed at both Jackie Baillie and Dean Lockhart yesterday, who both seem to take a very simplistic emphasis on GDP when they are both in the economic committee and they both know that it is much more complex than that. Productivity is another word that is banded around, but again there is a danger that we use it too simplistically. At least on the surface, reducing the number of staff in a restaurant or care home might suggest that the remaining staff are becoming more productive. Yet is that what we actually want from a care home or a restaurant? Maybe we would rather have more staff in the restaurant to provide customers with better service, and maybe we would rather have more staff in the care home to make sure that the residents were looked after better. I do very much welcome the emphasis in this programme of including a wide range of factors within the economy, for example the use of electric or low-emission vehicles. As the First Minister said, we welcome innovation and we want to lead it. The target of no new petrol or diesel vehicles after 2032 is ambitious, challenging and exciting. On the economy committee, we also cover energy, and I think that a number of us were impressed by the possibilities for hydrogen-powered vehicles as well as electric ones. While electric cars probably have a higher profile for the time being, I do believe that hydrogen should be seriously considered, as it potentially gives options for storing energy, for refuelling vehicles faster and for being used in the existing gas network. Related to that is the commitment to low-emission zones in the four biggest cities by 2020, which I think is a big step in the right direction. Secondly, the further work to be done on the citizens' basic income or universal basic income, as some know it, is also very welcome. It certainly seems to me that in a wealthy country like ours every individual and every family should be guaranteed a certain income, which is unconditional. Of course, extra income above the basic can be made conditional, but I do not accept that basics such as food, clothing and shelter should be conditional on anything. Surely those are basic essentials in a country like ours. Although Ruth Davidson suggested that she would not welcome citizens' basic income, there is support for it from right-wing parties in other countries on the grounds of removing much of the complexity of the welfare system. Thirdly, I look forward to the paper on income tax options. Not an easy subject, and we do have to be aware of what England does as people can move around. Too big a difference on the top rates could be a bit of a risk, and we need to make changes carefully and see how people will react. We have to accept that we are limited by not having control of the national insurance system, which is effectively part of the income tax system, and which is not really progressive at all. However, we are where we are, and I look forward to the debate on that topic. I will turn to some of the comments from the Conservative party. If I have understood their position correctly, they want more spending on health, more spending on education and possibly in other areas, but they also want to cut taxes. I would like to use that phrase that Scotland could be the highest tax part of the UK. In response to that, I would say that their position is inconsistent. If they are serious about more staff in the schools and more staff in the NHS, they have to tell us where that money is coming from. Secondly, they make the mistake that taxation is inherently bad. If Scotland has the best public services in the UK that attracts families and businesses to come here because of our quality of life and the quality of the workforce, then it can be a very positive thing that our taxes are higher. I am grateful to Mr Mason for giving way. I am always interested in listening to his arguments, but surely he himself is self-contradictory because he is a member of a party that supports cutting air passenger duty attacks in order to grow the economy and therefore stimulate greater tax revenues. He does not see that his party's stance is just a reflection of what we have been arguing on a larger scale. One of the strengths of the SNP is that we are in government and have been repeatedly put there by the public. Secondly, we are realistic and willing to take on good ideas from other places, but we are not going to go to the hypocritical place where the Conservatives are of cutting tax and increasing expenditure or the ridiculous place that Neil Findlay explained to us this afternoon, where he just wants more money on everything and he never knows where it is going to come from. The Conservatives confuse the overall size of the economy with how our income and wealth is shared. Those two are not the same. I do not think that I am trying— Mr Mason is in his last minute. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just welcome a couple of other issues that are in the programme, very much welcome the proposals on organ donation and also on rough sleeping. I have to say again that it is a bit rich coming from the Conservatives and Graham Simpson in particular, that the party of right to buy, the party of selling off council housing and the party of sanctions pretend that it cares about homelessness. I am very happy to conclude and welcome this programme for government. We will all spend a lot of time looking at the detail of it, but for now it is sufficient that we agree that we want a healthy and growing economy, but we also want a society where there is more fairness and less inequality. Thank you. I call Daniel Johnson. Have you followed by Marie Todd? Mr Johnson, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Bold and ambitious. One thing that we can all agree on is that the First Minister's spin doctors were working overtime in the lead-up to Tuesday's speech. The biggest surprise, though, of my first years in MSP is just how little legislating we have done in the last year. So maybe bold and ambitious was less spin and more necessity, making up for a year when we had lots of talk but very little action. Unfortunately and disappointingly, the speech did not match the spin. The First Minister spoke of bold action, but the detail shows that those were merely bold words. The bold ideas might have been things such as the Green's policy on citizens' basic income or our proposals to use the tax powers of this Parliament. All that the First Minister has done is announce that she will talk about those things. Bold ideas but no commitment. Of course, there were things that we welcomed such as on early years and a Scottish investment bank, but neither of those things are new. They are re-announced or reheated. However, I agree with one thing in particular. In education, yes, we certainly do need bold and ambitious action, but in terms of what was announced, it was not bold, it was blinkered, it was not ambitious, it was dogmatic. Rather than new ideas, we got a reassertion of John Swinney's unpopular reforms and a commitment to keep on going regardless. His own consultation shows just how widespread concern and mistrust of his reforms are. Parents, teachers, academics, unions and experts, Minister Swinney has struggled to find any support from any of those quarters. In the debate that has followed, it is clear that none of the opposition parties are willing to support his proposals. For all the Deputy First Minister's reputation for competence, there is a very real danger that he will fail to pass an education bill through this Parliament. There is only one potential source of agreement, and that is from the Conservative voices from across the chamber. That should be no surprise because the assumptions and insights that drive those reforms have a precedent. The same logic, the same dogma, the same solution to schools pursued by the Conservative Government of the 1980s lies at the heart of those reforms. With his governance review, John Swinney is simply bringing Ken Baker's school reforms to Scotland, centralisation of control of schools, undermining local accountability, national funding of schools, ministerial micromanagement of what is taught in our classrooms. Those are the hallmarks of Ken Baker's reforms and the same formula that the Deputy First Minister is applying to Scotland. It was therefore odd to see Mr Swinney pick an argument with a potential ally from across the chamber in Liz Smith. He argued that he had to support his reforms, because any reform must be good reform, and the only possible reform were his reforms. In short, John Swinney's argument seems to be one of reform for reform's sake. He is simply out of touch. Liz Smith, I am interested in what the member is saying, because we are very clear indeed that we do not support quite a number of the Swinney proposals, but could the Labour Party explain whether or not they are in favour of the principle of reform to raise standards in our schools that have been declining for such a long period of time? Daniel Johnson I think that there are two very clear reforms that we need. We need reform in terms of resource because we have seen declining levels of investment, but also, as the member will be aware, we have heard evidence after evidence in education committee about the mistakes that are made by Education Scotland and the SQA. We have seen the reams and reams of guidance and support coming from Education Scotland. We have seen the mishandling of the introduction of new examinations, and both of those institutions have been left completely untouched by John Swinney's reform. Indeed, Education Scotland is being placed at the very heart of his reform and central control of the education system. If we want to look at reform, we need to look at reform of those central institutions. Coming back to my key point, the real issue at heart—indeed, I think that the real issue that Liz Smith had on Tuesday and one where we agree with the criticism is that the creation of regional collaboratives will change our school system fundamentally. Regional directors will be appointed by the chief inspector of schools, a role that will report directly to the cabinet secretary for education. Where will parents go if they do not agree with the annual improvement plan that the regional director will be mandated to produce? What will happen if a headteacher disagrees with the regional director? There will be no local accountability for education policy or redress for its delivery, and headteachers are now part of a chain of command that ends at the cabinet secretary's desk and explicitly links the expectation regime to the local management of schools. When the headteacher disagrees with the regional director, he will know only too well that metaphorically his desk sits just across the hallway from the school inspector. While those plans for governance are wrong-headed, when it comes to school finance, they are downright confused. The Government is currently consulting on how it will fund schools, and what is clear is that it wants to set budget centrally. What is far from clear is how. It does not matter how strenuously denials are made in this chamber or in glossy consultation documents. Central setting of school budgets necessitates a method of calculation, one that turns national priorities into local budgets. If it looks like a funding formula, if it sounds like a funding formula, if it acts like a funding formula, then it is a national funding formula, and we only have to look at the turmoil south of the border to see where that leads. It is clear that those changes are neither bold or ambitious. They are dogmatic and being stubbornly pursued. Those changes are not supported by any of the parties in this Parliament. Those changes are not supported by parents. Those changes are not supported by teachers. Mr Swinney must stop and listen to the voices of criticism. The change that Mr Swinney must make is one of direction and to stop those reforms based on discredited policies from the past. Mr Johnson, I call Mary Todd to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like so many folk this week, both in Scotland and internationally, I was delighted by the bold and ambitious plan for Scotland that the First Minister set out on Tuesday. From lifting the public sector pay cap to restricting the advertising of junk food, investing in active transport and the electrification of the newly dualled A9, there is plenty for the people that I represent to welcome. Today is my first opportunity to put on the record just how delighted I am at the announcement that ferry fares in the Northern Isles are to be reduced. An excellent example of this Government working for our rural and island communities and delivering on manifesto promises. In looking to the future of Scotland, I find myself in the very unusual position of agreeing with something that Adam Tomkins said on Tuesday. In Scotland, we are not short of challenges and we are not short of new political thinking designed to address and combat them. I completely agree with that. We face a unique set of challenges, like our ageing population and our vast and rural geography, particularly in the highlands. Those will often mean that we in Scotland have to lead change rather than follow in its wake. We will have to be bold and do things that may not have been done before. I know that that is tough for those in this chamber of a conservative nature who likes things to stay the same. The First Minister was absolutely right on Tuesday when she said that no one has ever built a better country by always taking the easy option. We will need new political thinking to overcome the challenges ahead. A prime example being the Government's openness to ideas like citizens basic and income, which is one of the new and ambitious ideas that are growing around the world. One of the most powerful things that a successful Government can do is to create the environment where its people can flourish. I want to talk about a particular project that we have in the highlands that demonstrates that the SNP Government has done that, is doing that and will continue to do exactly that. It is an award-winning project that is attracting international interest, which has received a great deal of support from across many portfolios in this Government. It covers housing, digital innovation, health and social care, employability and skills, low-carbon economy, caring for our veterans and business with a social purpose. Health and social care integration is going to be absolutely essential. Scotland is leading the way in the UK on that. We, the people of Scotland, should be justifiably proud of that. In common with everyone in this chamber, I imagine, I want to grow old and frail in my own community. In the highlands, we have been working on a way to make that happen. Fit homes have been developed as a result of a collaboration between Albinhousing Association, NHS Highland and Carbon Dynamic, a modular build construction company that is a private enterprise with a social purpose. That is where the green credentials come from and the employability strand comes from. Also involved at the design stage are the very people who will soon live in those houses. Those people share the Scottish Government's vision of a fairer, more equal country. They have been empowered to deliver that vision in their local area and very soon beyond it. The fit homes are modular units that can either stand alone or be added to existing homes. They are top-quality construction that is easy to keep warm—you will be pleased to hear—and they are changed with changing needs. The same construction that is going into those social houses is going into shooting lodges in those states of wealthy folk in the highlands nearby. They are fitted with cutting-edge technology that can monitor health and enable folk to stay at home where otherwise they would be in hospital. It is a preventative healthcare project that can improve patient care, free up hospital beds and was developed by innovators in the highlands to meet our unique healthcare challenges. It is an example of the great things that can happen when we create the environment in which people can flourish. The fit home project is also focusing on preventative interventions using artificial intelligence that is developed around case-based analytics that is originally developed for our oil and gas industry, transposing that knowledge base into the health and care field. That will allow health and care agencies to intervene more quickly if it is appropriate to do so, and it might potentially prevent admissions to hospital ever being needed. Through a social enterprise model, they are going to reinvest profit back into health and care delivery. The investment and the commitment that this Government has made in enterprise and innovation, in health and social care integration and their willingness to work cross-portfolio and to try new things is well established. Their investment in superfast broadband infrastructure, closing the many gaps left by the UK Government, as was mentioned in yesterday's debate, has enabled this type of technology to be developed in the highlands. Seeing a social enterprise from the highlands partnering to develop cutting-edge artificial intelligence, virtual reality and preventative health solutions provides vision and aspiration to all of us. I know that those involved have not just UK but global aspirations. Let me finish by saying that I believe that the programme for government outlined on Tuesday will create a better environment for people to flourish and will build the nation of leaders and innovators that Scotland can be. I believe that because I see it already. I call Rachel Hamilton. We are followed by Bob Doris. I am pleased to take part in day 3 of the debate on the response to the Government's programme for Scotland. I want to ensure that my constituents are part of an inclusive, fair, prosperous and innovative country. Firstly, I would like to point to the cultural strategy being developed and published in 2018 following yet another public consultation. We know that culture is a driving force in our local communities and in our nation. Culture plays a central role, a role in attitudes, values and relationships. My new constituency of Ettrick Rocks from Berwickshire is an example of a place buzzing with a vibrant and thriving culture. Summer has been jam-packed with a full programme of cultural experiences. In Selkirk, I was lucky enough to participate in the common riding. From the town square up to the three brethren on a coloured hailing horse called Vinnie. Proudly, this year's Royal Borough standard bearer, Kieran Riddle, rode ahead in a spectacle of community spirit, showcasing our unique border's identity. Other highlights of the summer were Kelsa Civic Week, marking its 80th anniversary along with Hoit, Coldstream and Jedbro. It is great traditions like civic weeks and common ridings that teach us important values, values of inclusivity and acceptance, and pride in Scotland's towns and their histories. It is fundamentally important, however, to teach those ideals from an early age and ingrain them within our communities. Civic weeks have young people at its core. Ladies and lasses are pointed as guardians of a rich tradition. What better example to show the confidence and respect that we have in the next generation by trusting those young people to honour and respect traditions that date back decades. In advance of the year of young people, I must highlight that the Scottish borders are not working for everyone. We are losing youth to the lure of the big cities. Many leave university and do not return. We need to question why. To lose some of our best and brightest because they do not recognise the borders as professionally advantageous or, indeed, a place to raise a family is the fault of this Government's central belt agenda. Somewhere along the line, young people start to believe that the borders might not just be the place for them. They are no longer able to satisfy their future aspirations, whether it be a warm and affordable home, a good education, support to start a business, the opportunity to gain skills, a sense of fairness, of inclusivity or just to be happy. We have the powers to create the right environment for young people to stay in the place that they grew up, to study, to live and to work and to give back to their communities. We must also encourage leavers to return, visitors to settle and new people to come and invest. We should not forget the values and needs of these young people. Their opinion and contribution is valued and they provide us with new ideas for innovation and entrepreneurial fresh thinking. It is all good and well encouraging people to visit and even better for people to stay, but to do that, there needs to be the infrastructure to support that. In that respect, I look forward to the infrastructure plans being published soon. The biggest issue, the number one issue that impacts lives of people every day, is slow broadband. The programme for government calls for more effective development of community broadband projects. In my experience, community broadband provides endless bureaucratic nonsense that does little to improve broadband issues in rural constituencies. Poor broadband speeds have a detrimental impact to local economies, especially rural ones. It damages businesses, small and large and impacts on lives. Constituents contact me complaining of slow broadband or broadband disruption daily. Yes, I will. Can I ask her what representation she has made to the UK Government with regard to improving broadband? I thank Claire Hockie for that intervention. I did in fact write to Fergus Ewing and he set out his stall by responding by saying that deployment timescales and related targets will be determined through the procurement process, which will be launched later this year. Forgive me if I lay that out to you because my constituents are very skeptical about what the Scottish Government is doing. One constituent, Claire Hockie, might be interested to know, moved to the borders with the promise of superfast broadband. Can I make this point, please? Five years on, the constituent is still waiting and considering relocating. Is that what we want for our rural constituencies in a minute? Areas are not yet equipped to do— You are in your last minute. Can I get some extra time, please? I am giving you some extra time, but you are getting about 30 seconds now. It is time for all constituencies. We are told when broadband was coming and every effort to make sure that it is fast. The fact is that geographical barriers still exist and rural constituencies are left behind. Rural constituencies tend to be fairly large, but without adequate transport infrastructure, too. More potholes and roads, more horses than buses, and a train that drops you off at the station with no link to go further. We need sensible policies starting with an integrated transport system that makes living, working and enjoying accessible. Civic Week's common ridings that people can travel to with ease, cultural attractions that are adequately signposted, young and old, from close and afar, to access jobs, culture and tradition. Although the programme for Scotland makes reference to the seven stains mountain biking in Scotland, it only aims to introduce dedicated carriages for cycles and other outdoor sports equipment on rural routes in the north and west. Why not mention Borders Rail? Although, through oversight, the south of Scotland is being left out of initiatives that it would otherwise benefit from, to conclude, as culture at the forefront as a driver, other parts of Scotland can share in the growth of Scotland's cities have, too, but to do that we need to get the basics right. The infrastructure and the availability of housing to keep young talent and to attract new talent. Thank you. Before I call Bob Doris a couple of housekeeping matters, you are the penultimate speaker, Mr Doris, so I remind members who have spoken in the debate over the course of the previous two days that they should also be here for closing speeches. They are in their offices watching now to start making their way to the chamber. I also say to the front a point of order. Participate in the first day of the debate, and I have returned to the chamber, Presiding Officer. I see Mr Fraser and Mr Kelly who have been present throughout the three days of the debate will be responding for their parties. I can see no one in the Government front bench who was here yesterday during the proceedings. Is it competent for somebody to respond to a debate who has not been present to hear it? That is not a matter for the chair, that is a matter for the Government who they put up to respond to debates. As you well know, Mr Carlaw, that is more time taken up. I was going to say that the front benches will also have an extra minute or so now in hand in their summing up. You are all very experienced, and I know that you will be able to speak for an extra minute without too much trouble. I call Bob Doris to be followed by Richard Lyle. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that Mr Carlaw was just trying to buy some time, so I will go back to the chamber and get to hear my speech, so thank you very much for that, Mr Carlaw. The programme for government is bursting at the seams with ambition for Scotland, and I would like to use my contribution to highlight a number of opportunities that I feel the Scottish Government can seize to develop it further to build on what is already in the programme that I outlined the other day. For example, the Safe Staffing Bill will enshrine in-law the principles of safe staffing in the NHS, starting with nursing and the withery workforce planning tools. That is not a new thing, but it began the development in 2013. We will see the correct clinicians in the correct place at the right time and at the correct staffing levels. Record numbers of staff in our NHS with record funding from the Scottish Government underpinned now with a safe workforce level on a statutory footing. We should all welcome that, and we should all support that. However, we can go further. I would seek information from the Scottish Government on how workforce planning tools can be developed further in the social care sector. With health and social care integration, our care home sector should be part of an integrated approach to staffing levels and skills mix. I would also say that every time I hear the Scottish Government talk about the five new elective centres for surgery, particularly for our older citizens, £200 million, I welcome that, but that should be designated as community health spend, because that money is going to be spent enabling people to stay in their houses. Budgeting that money as part of the acute sector is financially wrong. That is a community initiative and it gives a false impression of the money that we are investing in community health. I would like to move on to the education bill now. Of course, the Parliament should scrutinise it in great detail. However, more localised control by head teachers, guided by the hopes and desires and the needs of young people and their families is something that we should all support and supported by local authorities and regional mechanisms. Yes, we have to look at the details, but we can surely support that, depending on how much time I have. Yes, you can take the intervention, if you wish. Daniel Johnson. I thank the member for giving way, but the key point of the proposals that have been set out is that regional directors are being in control of policy and they will be put in place by central government. How is that compatible with the localism that he just painted? I will say more about the localism as a developer in my speech, but I would ask you to engage with the bill rather than turn your face against it at this early stage. I think that that is just the wrong approach. I do not recognise the funding position of Scotland schools as some of the opposition parties have outlined here today. That is not the position in my constituency in Maryhill and Springburn, where an additional £3 million plus each year will now be invested to boost attainment direct to schools through the pupil equity fund. That is something to be absolutely welcomed. I want to say one final thing in education before I move on to transport. In this chamber, in January 2009, when we were discussing the new national qualifications that are now in place, I raised concerns of unintended consequences about the lack of an exit exam in relation to NAT4s and other qualifications. I just wanted to raise that given its topicality at the moment. I would like to move on to the transport bill now, Presiding Officer. I really hope that we see additional powers and regulations that are given to local authorities, because my experience in Glasgow with First Glasgow, which I do my best to build a constructive relationship with generally but it is not always the easiest thing in the world, but they are very courteous and I am trying to get that dialogue going, is that there is just no consultation process whatsoever when that company decides to change alter or access service? They would say the four-week notice that they give to the regional transport authority is that consultation. No, it is not and it is not good enough. Consultations about service alterations or cancellations must be put on a statutory basis and I hope that that is in the transport bill when it emerges. I also hope that the transport bill gives considerations to co-producing routes or changing tendering rules in relation to routes, because quite often what happens is that a bus company puts a service on knowing that it is socially desirable, knowing that it is going to lose money, they pull the plug on it and the regional transport authority moves in to subsidise it. There has got to be a better way of doing things, huge opportunities in the transport bill and everyone in this chamber should be welcoming that. I am delighted to see the child poverty bill being mentioned. I am also delighted to see the £50 million fund to start to look at directing monies, not to solve child poverty but to flesh out that framework that the Parliament is legislating on at the moment. The evening Times reported earlier this year that 2,000 families in Glasgow were using food banks during the school holidays. I am delighted to see the SNP city government in Glasgow now looking at mechanisms by which to make sure that every young person will get fed during the school holidays, not means tested in community centres, in schools or whatever. I think that there might even be a better way of doing it. In my constituency, I see a network of football clubs, dance groups, youth clubs, drama societies, music groups, sports groups and the Scouts, a whole vibrant variety of organisations that sometimes struggle for cash. They also do that during the summer holidays in October week. They offer effectively subsidised childcare. You pay £50 and your kid goes to football camp for two weeks. Let us use some of that money to fund some of those organisations so that each young person, when they come to their summer holidays or their Easter break or their October week, could have a schedule of activities via the drama clubs, the football clubs, the dance groups, the youth groups, the music, the sports societies and let us make sure that they get a meal whilst they are there. There could be a more integrated way of tackling child poverty that actually boosts the other educational opportunities for young people and their social development outwith schools. I can see that I am starting to run out of time. I have tried to do today genuinely what most other people have not done, unfortunately, and that is to debate the Scottish Government's programme for government. I have only mentioned a few of the pieces of legislation there. It is bursting at the seams with ideas, but most people in this chamber have sought to make party political points rather than engage with it. I hope that that yabw politics disappears quite quickly and that we have a cross-party consensus on improving those bills and getting on the statute books, because it is ambitious for Scotland and that is what this Parliament should be all about. Thank you very much, Mr Doris. I call Richard Lyle, the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to begin by associating myself with comments made by my SNP colleagues over the past few days and sharing in the sentiments that this is a programme for government that is ambitious, filled with ideas and a passion to deliver for all the people of Scotland. Moving on to my remarks today, I want to focus on a number of key areas. There are so many bills, but I want to focus on some key areas, including looking into my subject of the week, which is jazz. Reflecting on the impact of Brexit on an economy, the impact of planning on our desires for economic growth, all framing, of course, my two main points, which is the record of achievement on the economy and our future plans to deliver for Scotland. This SNP Scottish Government has a record to be proud of in the economy from the establishment of highly competitive business rates regime, extending the number of business premises that pay no business rates through the small business bonus scheme to 100,000, cutting the business rate poundage by 3.7 per cent for all business properties and our action supporting Scotland's trade, exports and international connections. Indeed, this SNP Government has presided over the Scottish economy, experiencing its longest period of uninterrupted growth since 2001. I am sure that many members will have gathered by now. I am rather skeptical on the accuracy of the findings of the jazz report, particularly in light of the answers that the cabinet secretary received in response to a question that I posed yesterday. We have to remember that there are more items involved than the country's economic standing. I am sure that there are some who will disagree with me and I have just heard some of them trying to disagree with me there, particularly those who want to continue to talk Scotland down. I believe that a review of jazz would be a welcome step forward, a view that is supported by others outwith this chamber. Over 50 years ago, I remember that the UK Labour Government was bankrupt, having to go to the IMF for a bail-out loan, also the concern of severe balance of payments that the UK had under both parties. Funny how no one wants to talk about that now of no time to talk about balance of payments nowadays or the trillion-of-pounds deficit that the UK Parliament now has. Making progress on my remarks, I want to reflect on the independent review of the planning system. Planning stimulates the economy. The planning bill will ensure a greater focus on delivering the development that Scotland needs with our infrastructure to support it. We must be proactive in bringing investment to Scotland and to our many areas that will benefit from economic upturn that projects will bring. Whether it is large-scale building projects or housing development, we have to ensure that we meet the timescales that meet the needs of local people and developers. I agree with the desire to set out a clear view on how areas will develop in the future. If others are critical of the previous process, they have to support the intention to speed up the planning process. I note that one member has highlighted the delay in planning applications and I agree that that must be looked at. Yes, planning has to take into account the green belt, but if we want to speed up planning and build new towns, as some have suggested, then the review should go a long way to supporting those aims. We need a planning system that is streamlined, pragmatic, supports innovation and development and encourages the growth of our communities and our industries, which, of course, grows our economy. We have to work with local communities, businesses and entrepreneurs to provide economic growth. If we do not allocate the land, the green belt, to build on, then where will we get the new towns, the houses or the jobs for our population? That is why I believe that the bill announced and the programme for government will build on the recommendations of an independent review carried out by a panel of experts last year. It will help towards supporting economic growth, the delivery of houses and the increased community involvement in planning decisions. I am proud of the SNP Government. I am proud that it is getting on with the day job, but it is also because it is delivering the type of forward thinking and space for innovation that our nation will thrive from. The programme for government, outlined by our First Minister, sets our nation on a trajectory over the coming years, a trajectory that shapes and paths our way to a fairer and more prosperous future for Scotland and its people. However, it should be remembered that it is set against the backdrop of Brexit and the increasing reckless approach that this so customary of the Conservative UK Government. Indeed, while our Government acts with innovation, ambition and future thinking to grow our country and our economy, the UK Government has found out for having no plan for Brexit associated negative impact on economic growth. We now see the pound to euro rate slumping, the pound that we are on par with the euro. Over the past years, there has been a massive devaluation of the pound against both the euro and the dollar. Brexit paints a bleak image. So much that some in this place want another Brexit referendum, while I say good luck to them in this regard. However, I hope and I believe that, ultimately, our programme for government shines bright. I hope that ambition and desire to improve the life chances of everyday Scots. Be on the economy where we will deliver a national investment bank to support growth, to our investment in delivering innovative low-carbon energy solutions on the lifting of the public sector pay cut. The people who keep Scotland running are the public sector workforce. There are plans for education just through the environment. In finishing, the message from the debates over the last few days is clear, Presiding Officer. This is a programme for government put forward by our First Minister, indeed this SNP Government in its 10th year in government. It is one that delivers, delivers for the people and delivers for Scotland. Thank you very much. Before I move to closing speeches, I thank the members who have taken heed and turned up, though we have a rather substantial list of those who took part in the debate over three days or not in the chamber. Their names have been taken down and punishment will be, we will decide which punishment we will have in due course. I have a range of them at my... I have to have some fun. I now call Alex Cole-Hamilton to close for the Liberal Democrats. Seven minutes are there abouts, Mr Cole. At the top of this debate on Tuesday, the First Minister rose to deliver the intent of her programme for government. She travelled some well-trodden paths of self-congratulation, but there were some measures in which she has heeded the calls of other parties that I want to recognise and for which she should receive justifiable praise. For the news that we shall soon pass Scotland's own Turing's law and with it pardon those wrongfully criminalised for their sexuality, in her government's willingness to extend the presumption against prison sentences of less than 12 months whilst finally increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 12. For Scotland's children, in her commitment to meaningfully consider the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child whilst not standing in the way of John Finnie's efforts to end the physical punishment of children in Scotland. For those in particular, I offer the thanks of those benches, but for each of those shifts, significant as they may be, this debate has seen the inadequacies of her government and the inertia that now grips it laid bare. In education, where efforts to stop our slide down international rankings consist of the unwanted centralisation of school governance. In the continuing shambles around CAP farm payments and its impact on the rural economy, which, as my colleague Mike Rumbles was right to point out, received not one line in the First Minister's statement, and in a health service, missing targets and desperately short of staff in nearly every discipline. It is there, if you will permit me, Presiding Officer, where I shall focus the remainder of my remarks. For there is no higher test of government than the provisions that it makes for the needs of its citizens when they fall ill. We are all of us dependent on the NHS from our first day to our last. As such, its stewardship is the alpha and the omega of public service delivery. Over the summer, however, we have seen the true metal of the Government's efforts in this agenda, and they have been found wanting. For yet another cycle of parliamentary business, the rhetoric of this chamber to put mental health on a parity with physical health has not been matched by action. The excoriating reception of the delayed mental health strategy has been underscored by the equally pressing reality that there is still no replacement for the suicide strategy that expired in December, and yet this summer we learned of an 8 per cent increase in people taking their own lives in this country. In child and adolescent mental health, we still see young people like my constituent, Dan McGregor, forced to wait nearly a year for treatment. That alone is a national outrage, and yet the number of children under 18 being prescribed antidepressants has doubled since 2010 because of an insufficient provision of talking therapies. In workforce planning, we have GP surgeries in our nation's capital closing shop for wanted partners, while half of all nurses told the Royal College of Nursing that staffing shortages led to patient care being compromised on the last shift that they did. The safe staffing bill, the Government's response to that crisis, has been criticised already by the sector for only paying lip service to patient care. It will do nothing more than ensure that workforce planning tools are in law. Those tools are already mandatory, and yet they fail to deliver the staffing levels and skills mix that are required to meet the needs of patients. The failings of the Government's drug strategy can be measured out from cradle to grave. In the past three years, more than 700 babies were born with neonatal abstinence syndrome and require immediate rehab. We learned in August that nearly 900 people died in drug-related circumstances last year, which is described by Scottish Drugs Forum chief executive David Liddle as a national tragedy. That requires a fundamental rethink to our approach. Put simply, that statistic sets us apart as the worst-performing country in drug-related mortality in the whole of the European Union. Ask any expert and they will tell you that there is a causal relationship between this Government's 23 per cent cut to drug and alcohol services and this tragic human cost. That is an index of shame for this Government, but it would be all too easy for me, as an opposition member, to simply point out where standards are falling and where the Government is inadequacies of command. As we move forward into this year, I will provide and offer some radical and constructive solutions, such as a doubling of child and adolescent mental health service funding and a talking therapist in every GP surgery, a penny on income tax for education to restore funding to our nurseries, schools and our college places and the immediate restoration of funding to our drug and alcohol partnerships. At the end of her speech, the First Minister described the kind of Scotland that she wants to build. I do not think that there is a soul in this chamber who doubts her integrity or does not share much of that same ambition, but we will never be the best place to grow up if our kids can get a better education south of the border or while kids also in crisis can wait up to two years for mental health treatment. We will never be the best place to be cared for when we fall ill if you cannot get a doctor's appointment or you have to wait hundreds upon hundreds of days for hospital discharge. We will never be the best place to grow old while our senior citizens cannot access the care packages that they need to live independently. The debate traditionally sets the tone for the year ahead. In the spirit of consensus, I want to finish by reiterating our thanks to the Government for heeding the calls of my party and of others in the areas that I have described. I reach out to them in all sincerity in the hope that we can work together so that they might take responsibility for the failures that are identified and to listen to the plurality of solutions that come from other benches in the chamber. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hampton. I call John Finnie to close with independence. Up to seven minutes please, Mr Finnie. The green is a bigger part than I beg. Hush on my soul. Historically correct, but wrong now. I welcome many of the announcements in the programme for government. For instance, were he pleased about the public sector pay cap that is to be scrapped? I think that we need to realise that there are some expectations that will require to be managed here. Then there is a requirement to deliver in years of lost income for valued public servants. Part of the discussion that we need to have about is the discussion on tax powers and certainly count the Scottish Green Party. Two years ago, we proposed using the new tax powers to cut income for people in lower than average incomes and to raise income tax for people in higher than average incomes. It is more aggressive than others proposing across the board rises, but it is entirely about making Scotland fairer, raising funds for high quality public services, and we will be happy to engage with others on the issue. But one plea please, let's be creative with these powers. Rather than tweaks to a system inherited from the UK government, last year we got the Scottish Government to cancel a tax cut for higher earners. Let's see if we can go further this time, much further please. It's been suggested that this is the greenest budget ever and I think that time will tell that. In the interim, the Scottish Green Party will scrutinise. We recognise that we have no monopoly on environmental issues and welcome the growing consensus that the challenges that are placed by this planet are significant and will require collaborative working. Many of the announcements have the potential to mitigate climate change but, as ever, the devil is in the detail, the finances that are delivered behind each of those announcements, the policies that are developed in relation to the announcements, the way in which different policies interact and the overall direction of travel, the review and assessment that is made of those policies. So taking some of those individually, facing out the new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032, that's to be welcomed, including making the A9 Scotland's first fully electric-enabled road. Well, if that's the plan, let's start at the north and head south for once. Thurzo south, please. It's a good ambition but, given that many of the manufacturers are stopping making petrol and diesel engines, wasn't this going to happen anyway? Shifting to electric cars can help to reduce air pollution and climate change emissions but they won't tackle congestion. Investments in our railways, buses and bike lanes will tackle congestion. In the programme, it says that the A9 electric superhighway also sends a very important signal on the future of motorised transport in Scotland. It certainly does. It sends the signal that the motor car is still king. Oh, but there's a similar push to electrify the railway that runs alongside the A9. The Scottish Government had an aspiration to electrify all the lines between Scottish cities by 2030. Next year we're going to see the Highland main line have the refurbished high speed trains and I spoke to a rail expert about that and asked about it and he described them as diesel guzzlers. That surely can't have a situation where we've gone 2030 and that's still the case. They would be over 50 years old. On the question of active travel, of course we welcome the doubling to 80 million from 2018-19 but that of course reflects a previous under investment and you compare that to the 150 million annual sub-sys day that the Scottish Government plans giving to the most polluting form of transport by cutting air departure tax. A cut for aviation will increase inequalities and that's entirely inconsistent with the Scottish Government's commitment to social equality. Aviation is disproportionately used by higher income groups, 70 per cent of all flights in the UK, taken by the wealthiest 15 per cent of the population. Of course in contrast lower income people disproportionately depend on buses walking and cycling and the recent Scottish budget saw spending frozen on those particular modes of transport. To put it into perspective that £150 million, that's dearly three times the total support for buses through the bus service operators grant. I welcome the bus fund, I welcome the extension that takes place but it's quite apparent that the Scottish Government have low expectation for buses. Indeed the transport minister at one of our committee meetings said that our own survey data shows that the proportion of bus journeys undertaken in rural areas is significantly lower than that of urban areas. As such currently in rural areas there can be limited capacity for mode shift to bus. There's no reason to believe that this is in fact a limiting factor in modal shift, rather it's a recognition of the shortcomings and the quality of transport in semi and rural areas. That is the position that the Scottish Government had that they didn't envisage growth in bus and I hope that the signals are changed to that. In relation to the innovation fund, very welcome that £60 million to deliver the wider low-carb and energy infrastructure solutions for Scotland, it's going to take a lot of energy in every respect to delivering that. We have the planning bill coming up and that's something that the Green Party maintain a very keen interest on and there are opportunities there to reflect some of the policy announcements in the decisions that are taken in relation to that. Turning to the ScotRail franchise and the contract, we welcome the cross-party engagement. The Scottish Green Party is unequivocal. We want to see rail nationalised, that's not presently what's possible. We want to see it acting like our fairies, serving our communities and not share holders. Low emission zones, four largest cities, very welcome and maybe an example of green pressure bearing fruit there. Mark Ruskell, my colleague, led a debate in this earlier this year and has raised questions at FMQs. Of course we welcome the creation of four zones in the cities but there are 38 pollution hotspots across Scotland in a number of areas, including my hometown of Inverness. There must be consultation. The consultation is going on. The Scottish Government must considering the funding options for that and must jointly fund with the local authorities. In the short time I've left, good, the advisory group on reducing waste, good, the possible levy on coffee cups, deposit return, what's missing from a government that allowed dogs to be mutilated. I could offset that shameful episode by having a complete ban on fox hunting, CCTV and abattoirs. Human rights, the advisory group, that's very welcome. On the education, it's unacceptable, the position we're here. One of the plans is to, in addition to a reform of school governance, will include a comprehensive review of how local decisions are made and how local democracy is working. Education is a huge part of local government and if you proceed as planned then local democracy won't be working and I would ask the Government to listen to the range of voices on that. Finally, of course welcome the care for the under 65 with the generative illnesses and I hope, as the cabinet secretary said, that the Westminster will not claw back the benefits. Presumption against 12-month sentences is very positive. Colleagues in the Conservative benches would do well to understand the intention of it and the autonomy of sentencing judges. Sentencing sheriffs must have confidence, of course, in alternatives to custody and the £20 million for drug and alcohol services does have to be the money that has been lost. Thank you for the equal protection support. I hope that you do the same for my colleague Mark Russell's 20 mile an hour bill. My apologies again to the Green Party elapsed. I call James Kelly to close for Labour up to seven minutes please Mr Kelly. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to close this programme for government debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. It has been a bit of an up and down atmosphere over the past three days. Perhaps people are still getting over their summer holidays. I think that in terms of the SNP's summer holidays it doesn't need a postcard to know where they've been. They've been on a fishing expedition looking through the manifestos of the other parties in order to find some ideas for their programme for government. We welcome the fact that the pay cap is going to be ended after the SNP had voted against that. We welcome the fact that there's going to be an organ donation bill, which was piloted by Anne McTager in the last parliament. We welcome the fact that there's going to be progress on free access to sanitary products in universities, colleges and schools. Something brought to the fore by my colleague Monica Lennon, particularly in her publication of her proposal for our private member's bill. We welcome all those initiatives. However, the programme for government has been characterised by a real lack of ambition and particularly a lack of ability to demonstrate that you want to use the new powers that Mr Swinney has been handing down to you. What an absolute scandal in modern Scotland is that we have 260,000 children in poverty. It's risen 70,000 in the last five years under the SNP watch. Although the £10 million fund is welcome, it's simply not good enough to address the scale of the problem, particularly when you have had more powers passed on to you. We had 40 minutes from the First Minister and we heard about the rehashed education reforms, but we didn't hear about the ex-cienties of parents and teachers. We have had to look at the school system with 4,000 less teachers and 1,000 less support staff, and watching standards begin to plummet as a result of the lack of investment and resources from the SNP Government. On housing, of course, we welcome the action on rough sleepers, but we get the impression that the Government does not realise the scale of the crisis in the housing. There is an element of complacency there. It is not surprising when you saw that it underspent the housing budget by £20 million last year, despite the fact—not at the minute, Mr McMillan—that there are many, many thousands on the waiting list for housing. The other thing that characterised the debate on housing was the contribution from the Scottish Conservatives. Of course, that is a new big idea that we heard from Ruth Davidson and Adam Tomkins, but I must say that it really galled to hear those speeches when you think that the Tories ran down the housing stock in the 80s and 90s, coupled by savage cuts to local government funding, which then did not allow those local councils to replenish any of that stock. Then, when they returned to power in 2010, they pursued a welfare programme that drove, unfortunately, too many people on to the streets to sleep rough. When it comes to housing, those words come with a complete lack of credibility. Mr McMillan, I thank James Kelly for taking the intervention. Mr Kelly mentioned welfare. Can he then apologise to the chamber for his colleagues at the Labour Party when they voted for further austerity measures with the Conservatives in the House of Commons? Perhaps Mr McMillan should apologise to the people of Inverclyde for voting through a budget that cut £160 million from council services. We heard from many SNP-backed ventures during the course of the debate that they seem to gloss over the reality of what is happening in Scotland. They can perhaps excuse some of the younger members. Rumours of a reshuffle continue to abound. Obviously, they wanted to play into the First Minister's good books, so the programme Busting with Ambition really meant, please First Minister, can you give me a job? Then we heard, but you can't excuse the more senior members of the SNP benches. We heard a speech from Stuart Stevenson trumpeting how the SNP had such a great record on climate change, but he failed to mention the fact that, in relation to the air departure tax, the Government plans to reduce that by 50 per cent, not only taking £189 million out of the budget, but also undermining the Government's target to reduce carbon emissions. I want to go on to Keith Brown, who seemed completely oblivious to the low-pay nature of the economy. As Alex Rowley said, there are 71,000 zero-hour contracts and there are 466,000 people still not being paid the living wage in Scotland, two-thirds of whom are women, so that's an absolute scandal. I'm sorry, I'm actually beyond my time, but I would take the intervention. The real test going forward for the SNP Government is going to be the budget bill, because we'll then see whether they're prepared to put their money where their mouth is, and whether they're prepared to back up the warm words in the programme with actual action, which not only scarps the pay cut, but preserves jobs and services and addresses the actions that are needed in Scotland's communities. Thank you. I call Murdo Fraser. We can serve just nine minutes of their abouts, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a long debate to wind up, but I will do my best in the time available to me. I start by echoing the comments made by a number of colleagues across the chamber in paying tribute to Kezia Dugdale. Being leader of a political party is a great responsibility, and Kezia Dugdale served her party with great vigor and commitment. I'm sure that we all wish her well in the future. We now have, of course, what has become an almost annual fixture in the parliamentary calendar, the race to be the next Labour Party leader. I think that it's quite remarkable, Presiding Officer, that out of the 23 current Labour MSPs, no fewer than nine of them have either been leader, deputy leader, acting leader or a candidate for one of those positions. That's 40 per cent of the entire Labour leadership in this chamber. Such a lot of leadership, Presiding Officer, but so little to show for it. Of course, I'll give way. Jackie Baillie? I wonder whether the member would care to reflect on how many times he's tried, but failed. Murdo Fraser? Only the once, Ms Baillie, but we stand in awe of why you yourself would not put your name forward. You would be the people's choice to lead the Labour Party. Back to Jackie Baillie and the 14 Labour MSPs who have not yet stood for leadership. Don't worry, your turn will come along soon enough. Those three days of debate have been about the Scottish Government's programme for the coming year. As my colleagues have pointed out over the past three days, there are aspects of the programme that we will support. We welcome the easing of the public sector pay gap, although we await hearing the detail of what is proposed. We welcome aspects of education reform, bringing in conservative ideas that my colleague Liz Smith has talked about for years, empowering headteachers and greater parental involvement. We welcome plans to implement Frank's law, which my colleague Miles Briggs campaigned for for so long, alongside many others, to extend dementia care to those below retirement age. In too many other areas, this is a programme that either has the wrong priorities or simply fails to meet expectations. Let's take what was being said about the economy, which the First Minister was indicating earlier in the summer, would be a priority for the Scottish Government. On the very day that she stood up to read out her programme for government, we learned that Scotland had slipped in the UK's prosperity rankings and now stands at ninth place among UK nations and regions compared to seventh in 2015. According to Barclays wealth and investments, only Wales, Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east of England have poorer performing economies than Scotland. Today, Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank published their SME health check, showing that the health of SMEs across the UK is at the highest level for 18 months. That is very good news, but Scotland lags behind the UK average. The need for action on the economy is greater than it has been at any point before. Rather than bold action, what we see is a mishmash of proposals, re-announcement of ideas already in train and a rehash of old ideas. One of the centrepieces of the Government's programme is the creation of a Scottish national investment bank. In welcoming this on Tuesday, Ruth Davidson said that this had been first announced in May 2013. Ms Davidson was being generous to the Scottish National Party Government, uncharacteristically generous, if I may say, because when I checked back that fine newspaper of the courier, I read this report. The Scottish Government has earmarked £150 million to establish a Scottish investment bank. First Minister Alex Salmond said yesterday at the STUC conference. That is a report, Presiding Officer, not from 2013 but from the 22 April 2009. Eight years ago, Presiding Officer, it is finally being taken forward. I hope that progress is faster than on some other much-vaunted Scottish Government initiatives. Last year at this time, the First Minister announced the creation of a Scottish growth fund, a £500 million boost to Scottish business, £0.5 billion to be invested in the Scottish economy. Here we are, 12 months later, how much has been paid out of those £0.5 billion, not one penny, to support the Scottish economy? This is a Government that must do better. They have also told us that they will take forward the recommendations of the Barclay review, and we will be hearing more about this from the finance secretary next week. However, it is not interesting that, out of the headline proposals from the Barclay review, two of them, in relation to reducing the level of the large business supplement back to the UK rate and reintroducing a tax break for new premises that lie empty, are simply reverting the policy choices made by the previous finance secretary, which have now been shown to be serious errors. This is an SNP Government having to spend their time moping up their previous mistakes. Presiding Officer, where is the money to be raised from to pay for this? If the Scottish Government follows the Barclay review recommendations, it will come from charging charitable bodies who currently provide sports and leisure facilities. Sports clubs, local authorities swimming pools, leisure centres and gyms will all be hit with rates bills, meaning that they will have to put up their charges for those who want to swim or exercise. How will that square us with Scottish Government policy by encouraging more active lifestyles and tackling obesity is lost on me? Rather than addressing those concerns, what we were treated to yesterday from the economy secretary was a bizarre rant in which he claimed in a speech laden with errors that no one in the Conservative Party had acknowledged the opening of the Queensferry crossing. I do not know where he was on Monday, but he must have missed all the pictures and comments from all of us who were privileged to be there at the opening of the crossing. He must not have been listening to my colleague Jackson Carlaw's speech on Tuesday, when I think for three minutes he talked about the Queensferry crossing and his own contribution to that process as the chair of the parliamentary committee, because, Presiding Officer, they only hear what they want to. The Queensferry crossing was not the only engineering marvel from Fife this summer, because there was, of course, in addition to the Queensferry crossing, the magnificent new aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth. Where was the Scottish Government press release? Where were the tweets? Where were the selfies taken by the workers at Recife on Ungovernment? Not I peep could be held from the Scottish Government. The First Minister only acknowledged the aircraft carrier when I shamed her into it at First Minister's questions before the recess. That is the difference between the Scottish Government and the Conservative opposition, because we on these benches celebrate all Scottish successes on the Government benches. They only celebrate those who are stamped with the letters SMP. Rather than me judging the SMP's programme in the economy, let's look at what businesses themselves are saying. Both the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Federation of Small Business have raised concerns about what is being proposed on a deposit return scheme, saying that it lacks a detailed impact assessment on business. They are concerned about progress on provision of superfast broadband, but their greatest concern is about what is proposed from income tax, where there is a clear hint from the First Minister that the SMP is about to create even greater tax differentials between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Nothing could be more damaging to growing our economy by making Scotland the highest tax part of the United Kingdom. To sum up, there are aspects of the programme that we can support, but too much of it is simply focusing on the wrong priorities. Whether it is stopping sending serious offenders to jail, as Liam Kerr said, or whether it is hiking taxes or dragging their feet on economic reforms, this is an SMP Government heading in the wrong direction. They might think that this programme for government is a relaunch that sets them on the right track, but even nationalist commentators are not convinced by this Government's record. Writing recently in The Guardian, the commentator Kevin McKenna, a supporter of Scottish independence, said this of the SMP Government and I quote, on health, education, taxation and on its attitude to Scotland's hard-pressed SME sector, the SMP had 10 years underpinned by large majorities to reverse generations of decline. They opted instead for an easy life when they could have been bowled, but they blew it. If that is the judgment of nationalist commentators, they can hardly expect us, or indeed the Scottish people, to be more generous in our support. They are a Government that must do better. I call on Michael Matheson to close with the Government. Cabinet Secretary, till 5 o'clock please. I must confess that listening to Murdo Fraser in his closing remarks, starting off with talking about electoral success is not a strong hand for Mr Fraser. Look at my colleague John Swinney. He is a mantle piece where he has more Murdo Fraser's on it than he knows what to do with, given your electro pedigree. I do not think that you are in the best place to give anyone, anyone at all, advice on how they should succeed in elections. On Tuesday, the First Minister set out a bold and ambitious programme for Government. It is a programme that recognises the significant achievements that we have achieved over the past 10 years and which is ambitious for the future of our nation. It is a programme that recognises Scotland's place as an outward-focused, global contributor that is committed to human rights and to protecting the very environment that we cherish and which we live in. Creating that inclusive fair and prosperous society also requires our public sector organisations to play their part in delivering a more socially just Scotland. In the debate this afternoon, with the focus on public services, that is at the very heart of what we want to achieve with this programme for government. During the course of the debate, when my colleague Shona Robison opened the debate, she highlighted some of the challenges that we face within our NHS and there can be no part of our public sector that struggles more with having to face up to the changing nature of our society. Will that be the changes in demographic that we are all aware of alongside with the advances in medicine and in treatment, the way in which we need to change the way in which we deliver NHS healthcare in the future? As Clare Hockey highlighted in her contribution, focusing on our NHS, that is not just about structural reform, that is not just about simply renaming services in one way or another, it is about fundamentally changing the way in which our NHS and our health services are delivered. A key part of what we have taken for as a government has been the integration of health and social care. People talk about the integration of health and social care now and dismiss it as though it is taken as granted. For anyone who has worked within the NHS or within social care, they will know that the integration of health and social care has been the holy grail of trying to make sure that we deliver more effective services to the people of Scotland and across the rest of the UK. We can see, for example, in England and Wales, the way in which they continue to struggle to deliver integrated health and social care, largely undermined by the ever creeping privatisation of the NHS in England and Wales. However, the reality is that we have made major strides in how we integrate our health and social care system here in Scotland, which will deliver real change in the way in which services are delivered to the people who require them. That is an example of reforming and changing the way in which we deliver our health and social care system. As someone who worked in that sector, I know exactly the difference that it is making and how services are being developed today. The First Minister is also in her statement on Tuesday. She set out our ambitious plans for our education system here in Scotland, strengthening our education system by closing her timing gap and setting out radical reforms for education governance, giving headteachers new powers and responsibilities, and, importantly, strengthening the voices of teachers, children and parents at the very heart of our education system. However, a number of members in the course of the debate today in talking about public services made reference to social security, and in particular the creation of the new social security agency here in Scotland. Our social security agency will work very differently from the callous approach of the Conservative Government at Westminster. We will have a social security agency that is based on fairness, dignity and respect, all three of which are missing from the welfare system in England being run by the UK Government. To set out our ambitions compared to that of the UK Government in making sure that it has fairness, dignity and respect in its heart, the first benefit that will be paid from it will be for carers allowance, supporting carers to make sure that they can continue to make the important contribution that they make to our society and to build on that. The first new benefit that it will pay will be the best start grant, helping to support mothers and babies at the very key point when they need some financial support. That sets out our ambition to have a better welfare system here in Scotland, and one that we will ensure that there is dignity to those who have to make use of it. Can I finish this point first? I want to give way to Mr Rumbles. Can I also say that it is difficult to accept or to listen to anybody on the Conservative benches to talk about rough sleepers without acknowledging the callous actions of your own government in London and the damage that it is causing to individuals and communities through the cuts to welfare provision within our society? No MSP! There can be no MSP in this chamber that has not had a constituent in tears at the way in which they are being treated by the welfare system that is being created by the UK Government. Let us not just dismiss the UN report that talks about the humanitarian crisis that has been created by the changes that have been taking place within the UK welfare system. When the Tories come here and start to lecture us about tackling rough sleepers, they should look at themselves in the mirror and recognise the damage that they are causing to people day in, day out by their callous actions in curing welfare provision. I thank the minister for giving way and he has raised some very important points, which I agree with him. However, when the First Minister, in her opening statement, said nothing at all about the rural economy and the problems facing the rural economy, especially with the form business payments throughout rural Scotland, you have a few minutes at least to address that issue because there are a lot of people out there waiting for this issue to be addressed. If the member cares to look at the programme for government, there are a whole range of measures that we are taking forward in order to support our rural communities and our rural economy. We will continue to take forward ambitious plans in order to make sure that we support our rural communities and our rural economy. However, I turn to a couple of the justice issues. The rather bizarre idea that the Conservative Party in some way is the one that comes up with the idea of drug driving tests. The reality is that the drug driving test was actually in the independent North report, which the only part of the UK that is fully implementing it is Scotland in order to make sure that our roads are actually safer. However, I want to turn to the issue around the presumption against short sentences because listening to the Conservative Party times on justice matters is like listening to someone reading out a daily mail editorial. The reality is that we know that short sentences—and the evidence shows that, not just domestically but internationally—short sentences are very ineffective at tackling offending behaviour. What have we got in Scotland? We have got re-offending down to an 18-year low. Why is it down? It is down because we have been increasing the use of community disposals. We want to build on that and use the evidence that demonstrates the real impact that it can have. In doing that, we reduce the risk of someone committing further offences and the risk of someone being a victim of a crime. However, we have also listened to the views of victims. That is why, before we will even change the presumption against any short sentences, we will make sure that all provisions in the domestic abuse bill, with the support of this Parliament, are implemented before there are any changes made to that. I am limited in time, I am afraid, and I want to make further progress. One other piece of legislation that was not mentioned, which I regret, particularly from Alex Cole-Hamilton giving his previous background, is the vulnerable witnesses and pre-recorded evidence bill. That will allow us to increase the provision of pre-recorded evidence. Why is that important? That gives us the opportunity to take children out of our court system. It allows us to make sure that we can fundamentally alter the experience of children who suffer from traumatic abuse and the way in which they engage with their justice system. I had the benefit last week to go to Iceland to see the Barmhust model in action. It is inspirational. We are determined to bring that to Scotland, to reform the way in which our justice system works for our children and our young people and vulnerable witnesses. That legislation will help to support us in achieving that. This is a Government that has a strong track record over the past 10 years. Fundamentally, reforming our public sector, building on the progress that we have made through reforming our laws and in making sure that we build a strong economy here in Scotland, but one that is committed to creating a socially just and a progressive Scotland. This is a programme for government that is ambitious, bold and will take this nation forward over the coming year. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes our debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government 2017-18. There are no questions to be put at decision time, so I close this meeting of Parliament.