 Is a very happy andounfable and festiv, Saint Andrews Day indeed Thank you minister, that ends member's business As the parties were so advised, we are moving straight on to the continuation of the debate from yesterday I know a number of members despite that warning, are not being included in the chamber Can I say to all those people Whether they are in chamber or not that if you spoke in the debate yesterday I expect you to be here for the closing speeches this afternoon and if anybody who spoke yesterday has not sought prior agreement to not being here then I am going to name them and shame them when we come to this afternoon. So the next item of business is the continuation of the debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government 2014-15 and I call Alex Neil as the First Speaker. Presiding Officer, I would like to begin by correcting something that Jackie Baillie said in yesterday's debate because, on a number of occasions, she said that over the period the SNP had been in government, the number of people working for Scotland's local authorities who lost their job was 70,000. I have checked the figures and I can tell you, on the basis of full-time equivalent, the number of people who are in the reduction and the number of people working for local authorities in Scotland over that period has not been 70,000 but 27,600 but most interestingly, when you look at the analysis of those figures three local authorities account for 15,000 out of the 27,600. Those three local authorities are Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council who account for 11,500 of a reduction in the number of people employed. Labour-controlled North Lanarkshire Council accounts for 1,600 and Labour-controlled Aberdeen City accounts for 1,900. Between those three councils, they account between them for 15,000 out of the 27,500. I think that, in the future, for Mrs Baillie's quoting numbers, she should check the facts first, and I just want you to register that at the beginning. In the six minutes or so, I have now just over four minutes left, I want to, of course, I will always take an intervention, Mr Kelly. Thank you very much, Mr Neil, for taking that intervention. Does the minister then accept, as a matter of fact, that thousands of local government workers have lost their jobs because of the cuts imposed by the SNP government? If all of those had followed the same employment policies as the Scottish Government, they would all be in a much better position. I think that if you look at the record of your local Labour-controlled authorities, I do not think that you have much to boast about. The budget that was set by us was originally set by Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown to the ones that imposed the cuts originally. I do not think that the Labour Party has much to boast about at all. On a more positive note, I want to focus in on my new areas of responsibility, because, although I cannot list all of them, it is a fairly long list. I want to highlight a number of areas where, as the First Minister said yesterday, I intend to make substantial progress in the period left of this Parliament. I also want to begin by saying that, even though we are now within 16 months of the end of this Parliament, there is still a great deal to be done. That is before we move on to the extended agenda arising from the additional powers that, hopefully, will be transferred to this Parliament in the months and years to come. I have identified five or six areas where I will be giving priority to over the next 16 or 17 months or so. Those are housing, fuel poverty, equality and welfare, pensioners' rights and democratic renewal. It is important, since today of all days, when we are talking about the transfer of power from London to Edinburgh, that it is important for us to remind ourselves of the very important principles that are established in the declaration by the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, in relation to subsidiarity within Scotland, because it is very much a part of the philosophy of this Government and the intention of this Government that we need to look at the future Government of Scotland internally so that we do maximise the democratic participation of our people. We all saw from the referendum and the participation in the referendum and the 85 per cent turnout the fact that there is a real hunger out there for people to become much more engaged than there have been over the last 20 years in the politics and decision making of our country. We want to help people to realise that ambition and democratic renewal is a key part of our forward-looking agenda. I wonder if you would agree with me that, if power is to be devolved, it should not stop at Glasgow city chambers but should go down to the actual communities. I could not agree more. I represent a constituency in North Lanarkshire and I look at some of the ways in which the housing stock in North Lanarkshire is managed and it is anything but democratic or accountable. It is a very good example of where we need to do much more in our communities to genuinely empower our communities, and empowering tenants much more than we have done in the past is a good example of how we need to do that. There has been a bit of an attitude in the past where the only empowerment that we gave to tenants in some areas was to give them a yes or no choice in the transfer of the housing stock from the local authority to a third-party organisation. Although any transfer should have the democratic acceptance of the tenants, that is a very narrow view of what tenants should be involved in. Extending tenant management, tenant control of local authority housing stock is an area for right for action in terms of democratic renewal and community empowerment. In the less than a minute that I have left, the other area that I want to just mention is equalities. Particularly three areas that will be priority for me. One is dealing with domestic abuse. Despite massive efforts by this Parliament and the successive administrations on a cross-party basis, we still have much more to do to eliminate domestic abuse in Scotland. I will work with all the parties involved to make sure that we do that. Secondly, the relatively new phenomenon of revenge porn very clearly requires to be tackled. It is totally unacceptable and it particularly is damaging for young people. I think that again, urgent action in that is required. Thirdly, in terms of the public sector appointments, getting more women on boards is absolutely essential. I know when I was health secretary and obviously the health department appoints more people to more boards than any other function in government. I made a distinct effort to use every possible occasion to maximise the recruitment of women on your health boards. I did that and I think that if you look at the health board proportion, it is reasonably high. However, we need to extend that and we need to do more in terms of equalities as well as women on boards. I am sorry that I cannot do any more in the very limited time that I have available, but I hope that that gives some sense of the priorities that I intend to follow in the 17 months left of this Parliament. I want to begin, if I can, with my own words of welcome to the First Minister and her administration. We are seven years into this SNP Government, but it is important that we acknowledge what can be seen at least as a change in tone and style from this Government over the last two weeks, notwithstanding some of the reaction today over the Smith commission. Like most colleagues from all sides in this Parliament, I want to work with the Government when it is taking action to support the lives of people in Scotland. To that end, there are a number of proposals in the legislative programme that give me encouragement. Just last night, in our debate on Oxfam's Even It Up campaign, I outlined why land ownership reflects just one of the extreme inequalities that afflict our nation and which we need to tackle if we are to build a more progressive society. Less than 500 people own over half the land in our country. Not the threat to individual poverty that would pose if we had less in the way of alternative employment, but still an affront to our sense of fairness and to our broader social and economic wellbeing. The indications are that Scottish ministers intend to take a slightly more radical approach than that indicated by their initial, rather insipid response to the original findings of the land reform review group. If that is indeed the case, that will be welcomed on this side of the chamber, and we look forward to the launch of the consultation next week. Check against delivery. I believe that those are the words that often adorn press releases or press copies of ministerial speeches, and with a similar caveat that we await further detail, there are several other proposals that I want to welcome—the help to mitigate welfare cuts, a stronger focus on the living wage, and who knows, Presiding Officer, maybe Labour and S&P will eventually even see eye to eye on legislation in this area. The fair work convention, with the accompanying focus on gender equality and creating decent, sustainable jobs—and I know that is an issue particularly close to the heart of the finance secretary, and I hope that we can work with him on making progress in this area—votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, an issue that the whole chamber has now come together on, and again when we make progress. Moves against human trafficking, to which I particularly want to pay tribute to the work of my colleague Jenny Marra, and a commitment to address the needs outlined by Gordon Aikman in his campaign to support those with motor and neuron disease. Those are just some of the measures where I fully expect Labour to be working constructively with the S&P over the next year or so. On childcare 2, there are the makings of a common agenda. We seem to agree the direction of travel on creating more accessible, affordable and available childcare places, although the fact that we are moving at a slower pace than the rest of the UK leaves us with some concern. It is perhaps when we move on to the broader issues to do with education that I begin to have some difficulty. There is an immediate and obvious contrast between the stated aims and aspirations outlined by the Scottish Government and the budget decisions taken by the same Government that could actively hinder their delivery. Labour would entirely support action to raise attainment, particularly that focusing on more deprived areas, including, for example, measures designed to widen access to higher education. Unfortunately, the reality is that, across Scotland, the Government's funding decisions mean that local authority, after local authority, is currently having to work out exactly where ministers want to cut education budgets. Just last week alone, we heard how Highlands Council, Falkirk and East Renfisher are struggling to maintain the priority that they wish to give education in the face of Scottish Government cuts. Yesterday's local government committee local authorities were extremely positive about the removal of ring fencing of budgets that has taken place under the Scottish Government, so there is great flexibility for local authorities as to how they spend the resources that are allocated to them. However, Mr Macintosh, like many of his colleagues, calls for additional funding to local government. Where does he see disinvestment taking place to allow the additional funding that he wishes to see? Not only do I not recognise that picture that Mr Macdonald paints, the stark facts are that this Government spends its time arguing for full control over fiscal powers from the UK Government and yet freezes the council tax on an unsustainable level and the intellectual paradox that push it. I cannot believe that the SNP and Mr Macdonald in particular cannot recognise that, but not only to cut local authorities in the way that he has, but to refuse to give them any powers to raise additional resources themselves, puts a straight jacket around local government and gives them no flexibility to address these issues. Just a bit confused, Mr Macintosh. No local authority has to take the council tax freeze voluntary based on the funding from the Scottish Government. It's not quite Panty season, but Ms Addison delivered that with a straight face. As I remember, I'm not sure it's actually called blackmail, but there was an offer given to local authorities. It is Panty mine season, so they were given an offer. Either take the deal offered by Mr Swinney and get a decent increase or don't take it, that includes the council tax freeze, or face a cut. I'm sorry, but I don't think that that is exactly it. You ruined your last 30 seconds. I feel like a local authority officer faced with his generous office from Mr Swinney, but no choice whatsoever. When we're facing education cuts, council tax cuts, bed cuts for delayed discharges, a priority that we will support, but the reality is that there is no money going to councils to support that. We will try to work with the Scottish Government. I hope to put their money where the mouth is. First, I apologise for any part that I may have caused the confusion regarding my place in the debate yesterday. The debate, such as those of its predecessor programmes, is important as we continue our progress, hopefully our joint progress towards the vision that we certainly have for our country, the direction in which we wish to travel. Now, I will not rehearse all the well-trailed arguments that we have had in the last year and indeed this year, save to repeat a quote from the introduction of the last year's programme, which was that peradventure, taking decisions in Scotland works for individuals, works for families and for communities. This is our matter, no matter how the impairments that we face, this is the route that we should travel. I believe that what this programme for government is and should be about is about taking those decisions with participation. It is about participation of the individuals and communities, it is about empowerment of those communities, it is about ownership and the attendant responsibility, it is about fairness across society and it is about, as a fundamental, the maximisation of happiness of the individuals in our community. It was Henry Ford that said, nobody can really guarantee the future. The best we can do is to size up the chances, manage the risks involved, estimate our ability to deal with them, then make our plans with confidence. I would argue that the fundamentals that underpin this programme, participation, empowerment, ownership and fairness will make us more confident to handle whatever the future throws at us. Participation, for example, in the general economy, through, for example, childcare releases a greater opportunity for work. The proposal to increase further funded hours a week not just to three and four-year-olds but to disadvantage two-year-olds, not just from 16 hours a week but to 30 hours a week of free childcare doesn't just create participation, particularly for women in the workplace, but it establishes a long-term benefit to the community because of shared communication and experience for those children receiving childcare in their early years. Forgiven me, I'll carry on about me. Participation in the workplace goes beyond that. Success in achieving a high-wage, high productivity economy is built on innovation and an improved research and development environment. It requires, in fact, demands expansion of the principle of participation in the workplace. In the fair work convention that we spoke of last week, to improve dialogue between employers, Government, public sector bodies, trade unions and employees generally in a marriage between capital and labour is absolutely critical to secure Scotland's highly sought place in the global economy. That participation in the workplace and elsewhere in the Scottish economy requires more than involvement. It requires and it demands ownership, be that part, equity ownership in industry and commerce or quasi-equity ownership in the public sector. Employee involvement is absolutely critical. More so, community ownership such as in energy activities is important, but more importantly is the ownership of land. Lloyd George famously said that the land belongs to the people and so it should. Not because it's some fanciful dream, but because of harsh economic facts. I welcome plans to improve and hopefully accelerate proposals in the community empowerment plan to build with the intent to acquire 1 million acres of land for public ownership by 2020. That is a sound proposition. In visage, the extension of compulsory purchase powers. Sorry, I missed that. Will Mr Brodie support the extension of compulsory purchase powers? Tick Brodie? It should be applied if and where necessary. Ultimately, as I said, the plan that hopefully we will follow in the bill that is set up to do all this will embrace the appropriate processes. Avoidance, even reduction of land and property speculation can only benefit businesses and housing for communities over the longer term and thereby our economy. Presiding Officer, I have summarily addressed keystones of participation in ownership, but I also mentioned fairness and happiness. Fairness is not just about the determination of the living wage, though that is very important to us. It is about filing the ambitions, the entrepreneurship, the innovation and the internationalisation of Scotland's people and the employment and income that flows from that to develop a tax and social structure that we will build on, secure and establish fairness and individual happiness. That should be the basis for a rapid reduction in the monstrous income gap that currently besmirches our society. If we do not address that, then that chasm will eventually devour all of us financially and socially. Last but not least, fairness demands that we issue rightly are passed in current culture and foster gender equality, as has been mentioned. Also foster fair treatment and representation of all, irrespective of race, social condition circumstances and age. That merit, hopefully, once we have sorted that, will be the defining feature of our society. Let us have a programme that takes us one further step towards that participative owning fair in meritorious Scotland. It was Chekhov, who said— Chekhov is very interesting that your time, Malcolm Chisholm, followed by Christina McKelvie. I welcome many of the measures and proposals that were announced in the legislative programme by the First Minister yesterday, not least because several of them were in response to Labour campaigns on, for example, the living wage, 50-50 childcare and access to higher education. Having said that, I believe that in some areas the Government needs to go further, while in others such as housing, very little is said in the document. Can I start, however, with an area of complete consensus? On page 41 of the document, it says, the Scottish Government will continue to build on Scotland's position at the cutting edge of developments in marine energy. I was absolutely devastated this week to hear that the world-leading Palamas wave power in my constituency went into administration on Monday, and yesterday, 40 of the 56 highly skilled employees were sacked. I'm meeting Fergus Ewing about that tomorrow morning, but can I just say here that I hope that the Scottish Government will do everything it can to ensure that the work of Palamas goes on, and that all of those highly skilled employees continue to develop the marine renewable technology that we so desperately need. There are many other areas of consensus. Trafficking being one, and I must pay tribute to the superb work of my colleague Jenny Marra in that regard. 50-50, obviously, we welcome the proposals on that, and also the proposals to legislate on a specific domestic abuse offence and a specific revenge porn offence. Can I just add in that area of policy, however, that I think that the Scottish Government does need to look again at some of the detail of the legislation in relation to stalking. That was featured recently because of the high publicity given to the circumstances faced by Janice Galloway. In response to her question, I was told that the Scottish Government is considering changing the law in relation to non-harassment order, so I hope that that will be taken forward in any other action that is needed to protect the victims of stalking, as well as the victims of other forms of violence against women. I welcome the childcare proposals in general, although I think that the Government does need to diversify its approach to childcare. Of course, we want more nursery provision for three and four-year-olds, although I think that they have to look at the issue of making sure that that is two years for everybody. However, I think that they also need to look at the key issues of flexibility and affordability, which are the big issues that Kezia Dugdale has flagged up in all the extensive work that she has done on childcare. I welcome the proposals on public health, particularly in relation to e-cigarettes. I support e-cigarettes. There is a very useful tool for many people trying to stop smoking, so I think that they are important in that regard. However, I would support a ban on e-cigarettes for under 18-year-olds, and I hope that the Government will consider limiting the sales of e-cigarettes to tobacco registered outlets. I welcome the other proposals on health. I would just say that there is one issue that was in their 2007 manifesto that I would like to flag up. They said that they would bring in no-fault compensation for the NHS. The current system is expensive and slow, and we have had working groups looking at no-fault compensation for some time, so I hope that there will be an outcome of that, although it does not look as if we are going to get an outcome during this Parliament. I am disappointed in that. Another omission is in relation to private housing. Again, I think that substantially in response to the great work of James Kelly on this, there was a consultation on this recently, but we heard nothing. There is not one word in the document that I can see about private rented housing, and yet last week, for example, we learned that Edinburgh is the second city in the UK in terms of the percentage of a private renter's income that is spent on rent. There clearly is a need for policies in terms of rent capping and longer tenancies that are complementary to that, and I am very disappointed that we heard nothing about that in the legislative programme announcement yesterday. Another omission was no mention of a bill on lobbying. People can take different views on lobbying, and I do not want to go into the pros and cons of my colleague Neil Findlay's legislation, but it is the procedure of this Parliament that a member can bring forward a bill, but that bill can be taken over by the Government. At that point, of course, the member will leave it to the Government. It is quite wrong for the Government to say that it would take over Neil Findlay's bill and then do absolutely nothing about it. I think that the Standards Committee should look at that. No, because it was here for part of the debate on the lobbying that it is the Standards Committee that are looking at this, and we are taking great care over it. Until we have gone through the whole inquiry, it would be inappropriate to make a decision. I am afraid that that misses the point that I was making about procedure. The procedure is not being followed, and that is totally unfair to my colleague Neil Findlay. Finally, if I can just end on the community empowerment bill that has already started, I am really looking forward to this as one of the most interesting bills as it goes through Parliament, but I did note a quote from the SCBO on their submission to it, which I think that I have just got time to read. The transfer of assets should not be driven by public sector cost-saving exercise. The basis for asset transfers should be that communities are able to better utilise a public sector asset for their own purposes. If the last word can be about a current example of that in my constituency where the Grant and Improvement Society are trying to take over some land from EDI, which is basically a council arms-length body, at the moment that is at the discretion of EDI. The board has said no to the Grant and Improvement Society. I hope that it will change its mind, but I hope that the bill, when it is passed, will force it to change its mind. The First Minister has set out 12 bills that will take us all forward in crucial ways. In the context of social justice, she has committed £100 million to help to mitigate the damage caused by Westminster's welfare cuts. She is leading by example in pushing forward with the application of the living wage of £7.85 an hour from April next. She has set out moves on violence against women, the pilots of Claire's law and a particular issue that I have been campaigning on and led the debate on in this chamber on revenge porn. I am especially pleased to hear that the Government is committing to giving careful and full consideration to making revenge porn the distribution of intimate images without the consent of those pictured a criminal offence. I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that that might be an opportunity to look at the stocking laws and see how we can maybe improve those after they have been in practice for a while. That is something on this topic, in particular that Scotland could really lead on, and I am very pleased that that is a component of the legislative plans. Of equal importance is the prospect of the introduction of human trafficking and exploitation bill. As colleagues well know, this is another area that I have been repeatedly campaigning on and brought it to the Equal Opportunities Committee in the last session. It remains one that is outside of the knowledge and comprehension of many people because it is so shocking. The notion of groups of young men or boys and women and girls locked into dirty rooms to serve men and help prisoners and made to work is beyond the understanding of most of us. The danger is that we sideline it because we find it so hard to believe that it is actually happening and believe me it is. I commend a short film, Nefarious, The Merchant of Souls, to the chamber for their understanding of how difficult a subject that is. That we are shown ourselves to be tough and determined to obliterate the abuse is testament to our fundamental commitment to equality, fairness and essential human rights, rights that the Tories would prefer to be abandoned. New guidance on support for those with motor neuron disease and as people know, I have campaigned for seven years and taken many individual local authorities to task on the issue of care charging. Plans to legislate on that if local authorities are not to end this practice have to be commended. I also commend Gordon Aitman and paid tribute to him in raising this topic to the top of the agenda. On domestic abuse, we have all welcomed all of these and we should impact, use these laws to impact very, very positively on the lives of many, many, many Scots. This Scottish Government already has an impressive record, one that voters clearly recognised, which is why the SNP now has a membership of over 93,000, more than the Lib Dems, UKIP, combined right across the UK. Scots have recognised the hollow promises of that famous thaw, and we have seen just hollow that was today. Within a few hours, we saw the Westminster Government disengaging from what it had committed to in order to buy a no vote, threatening pensioners, delivering dishonest messages about what a yes vote would mean and telling those on benefits that they would be left with little or nothing. On the streets during the campaign, we heard the evidence of those false statements over and over again. Oh, one elderly lady told me, but she told me that I wouldn't get my pension on Friday if I voted yes. If there is another referendum tomorrow, I am confident that we would have a different reply, but that is in where we are now and we must move forward unless or until the sovereign people of Scotland demand something different. Maybe James Kelly is going to give us something to do. James Kelly. Can I remind Ms McKelvie that the referendum is over? Scotland voted no by a majority of 400,000, and we all need to move on, and part of the vow being delivered today is part of that. We have seen a McKelvie. Yes, Scotland did vote because they voted for a vow, a vow that was empty, that was hollow in your holding hands with your Tory pals across the chamber once again to justify the fact that you turned your back on the Scottish people. We have limited control over what we can do now for ourselves. Within those control, our First Minister's legislative programme is clear and committed to the protection of our most vulnerable citizens. Do you remember them, I ask the Labour Party, because they know that they have been forgotten? Therefore, it is disappointing to see the very limited offer from Smith. Those, where's the equalities? Where's the minimum wage? Where's our tax and revenues all reserved to Westminster? In spite of the predictable disappointment of Smith's report, we must now up our game and work even harder to meet the demands of the 1.6 million people who voted for independence and those who voted no based on the vow. Rightly, those people will not be content with the limited controls. It really hurts the truth, doesn't it? It really hurts or Smith allow us to operate less than 30 per cent of our taxes will be set in Scotland if we're 20 per cent of the welfare budget. Only 20 per cent of the welfare budget will be in our own control. Yet, from the recent polls, we know that 75 per cent of Scots, you know those ones, you turn your back on, want a Parliament to have total, yes, total control over welfare policy. Our powers do not match the promises and they certainly do not match the aspirations of the Scottish people. We have a duty, our responsibility not to sit and laugh at the people of Scotland, to the sovereign people of Scotland, all of them, yesers and nos, and that ambition, this Government programme, is a clear statement, the SNP Government's commitment to those common values of prosperity, fairness and equality, the lack of ambition, imagination and just share anything for the prominent parties. Members got time more seconds. It's not the settled will of the Scottish people and you will feel the full force of this when they realise you have renaid on the vow. Presiding Officer, let me be positive. I begin by saying that we particularly welcome two aspects of the Scottish Government's announcements yesterday relating to education and young people, specifically the growing issue about how best to support children with additional support needs, and secondly that there will now be full focus on addressing the attainment gap. Those are both critical issues within Scottish education, particularly as they bring very specific challenges to some of our most disadvantaged children. The statistics speak for themselves, and in the Conservative-led debate just a few weeks back, we all agreed that the current state of affairs is simply not good enough, so we very much welcome those two points. I'm not entirely persuaded, I have to say, of the need for new attainment officers in every local authority, since I think the directors of education are probably the right people to have the handle on that. I won't just now, if you don't mind. I think that the Scottish Government needs to explain exactly what that role is going to be, how that funding stream will be provided, and I'll be very interested to know what the criteria will be in terms of measuring the actual outcomes. The First Minister was actually wrong yesterday when she offered the view, and she said this in her speech, that, against every main measure, she said, Scottish school education is getting better. That is not factually true. If she cares to read essays by people like Keir Bloomer and Lindsay Paterson, whom I know the Scottish Government has great respect, they have flagged up very carefully praising where it is due, but also setting out where we are not doing so well, and we've actually fallen back. Just as the previous cabinet secretary was wrong when he argued a year ago that Scotland does not have any failing schools, the First Minister needs to be careful to present an absolutely accurate picture. I won't, if you don't mind. Of course, improvement is not all about money. We've had several robust debates in this chamber about what we need to do about the problem, and that is now set against a particularly challenging economic environment for councils, which Ken Macintosh referred to. We've had councils discussing the possible increase in class sizes. We've had them possibly talking about reduction in the school day. Some pupils starting school at age six instead of five all to save money. So I think there are serious issues there. The Conservatives will say again, unashamedly, that it only heightens the need for some radical reform, a radical look at how councils actually do manage schools. If we don't believe that they are the right people, we need to have a debate about that. We make schools absolutely accountable to those who matter most—pupils, parents and teachers. On the theme of choice, we very much welcome Sir Ian Wood's proposals, putting more diversity into education—something that my colleague Mary Scanlon will talk about in her contribution. We also warmly recommend that the Government is right when it comes to concentration on literacy. I come to childcare, and it is undoubtedly good to hear about the Scottish Government's proposals to expand on that, and we very much support that. However, to pick up the point that Malcolm Chisholm made, it is about flexibility, it is also about the affordability of it. However, again, I don't believe that we will be able to do anything about the social justice in some of this if we are not prepared to take very strong action about this birthday discrimination. As Ruth Davidson said yesterday when she tackled the First Minister on this, it is absolutely wrong that, because of the date of the birthday of a child, they are not provided with the same access to nursery provision as those who are born in other parts of the year. I will ask the First Minister—again, I wrote to her last week about this—that the Scottish Conservatives will keep on going on this issue until we get some progress. Let me turn now very quickly to further and higher education. I think that one has to wonder why it is that university governance is back as a priority. Not only did this Parliament carry out a very thorough review of university governance within the context of the post-16 bill, not only has there been an amended code of governance agreed following the excellent work of Lord Smith of Kelvin, who obviously has his hands full in other ways today, and not only is there a continuing inability of the Scottish Government to produce any proof whatsoever that universities are not running well because of a problem of governance, notwithstanding all those things, this Government puts university governance as a priority within the new education bill. I do not think that many people in the sector understand that, and they certainly do not understand it when, obviously, there are far more pressing issues like college places. I have heard many times from the Scottish Government that we should not really worry too much about the college situation because the full-time equivalents have kept up extremely well. That is absolutely true, they have, but that is not the statistic that we should be dealing with. Yesterday, the First Minister spoke eloquently about the need for greater flexibility in the workforce and a job market that is increasingly responsive to the needs of young people. That is the exact point about college places. It is the college places that best serve some of the disadvantaged in society, women, part-time places, and those are the ones about which there has to be greatest concern. I come back to the point that, to target university governance where no problem exists at the same time as ignoring some of the college issues is unacceptable. I will end my comments on exactly that point. I think that this Government is undeniably left-wing and undeniably keen to extend the powers of Government. While we will support some aspects of the programme, the expansion of childcare and additional support needs tackling the attainment gap, improving literacy and, of course, eradicating human trafficking, we will not stand by and allow the state to be increasingly undermining the rights and freedoms of individuals, families and communities. On that principle, this Government can expect very fierce opposition from those benches. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, to underline the fact that this is a radical Government. Radical land reform is rightly at the centre of the social justice debate. The land reform review group Final Report, the land of Scotland and the common good, sets the tone of the wide range of land reform policies contained in the SNP programme. We can transform our nation's fortunes through the optimum use of that most basic natural resource. Land reform will deliver participation, prosperity and fairness, but, above all, we have to diversify ownership to create social and environmental sustainability. Inequalities in Scotland are summed up by the most concentrated pattern of land ownership in Europe. Land reform is based on the public interest, which is overwhelming support in this Parliament. First, we need to know who owns Scotland. Next, we need to build local capacities to own and utilise the land sustainably. Crucially, the proposed land commission can facilitate the best ways to transfer land, whether public or private, to a new set of non-traditional owners. A good example of the new hope in land ownership has received unjustifiably mixed coverage this week. The Isle of Gia community buyout in 2002 has transformed the island with a growing population and a variety of new commercial activities to complement farming and tourism. The BBC nevertheless hinted this week of financial trouble for the Gia heritage trust, which took over the island for about £4 million in 2002, saying that it was almost £3 million in the red. However, the trust replied that it is invested in housing and other developments in the island, some of which have been borrowed, some granted from supporting organisations and some raised from the island's own businesses and efforts. In addition to improving our housing stock, it says that £1 million was paid back to lenders within a year of the original purchase of the island. Over £800,000 has been raised through the trust's renewable companies and the value of the island has increased to over £7 million. They have recently carried out a strategic review supported by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. A typical hostile press has focused on a grumpy farmer, alleged divisions among islanders and implied incompetence among community leaders, not on their successes. Those islanders are due to take part in a vote of confidence in the chairwoman of the trust this week. That sits in stark contrast to the conduct of private estates that sprawl across our landscape. We never know how much in the red they are and the media rarely asks. Also, families who live in such large estates, such as those owned by the 432 individuals and trusts that control half of rural Scotland, never ever get asked their opinions about the future of their land. Lairds avoid taxes through skillful accountants, and James Hunter and Company suggested to the Scottish Affairs Committee in Westminster that huge landholders offset losses on land through tax accounting via non-landed enterprises. All those powers are still reserved and not on the offer by the Smith commission at Giveway. I thank Mr Gibson for giving way. Would he acknowledge nonetheless that many of these private landowners are doing a highly successful job when it comes to the economy of Scotland? As Andy Wightman said in the national newspaper today, those ideas that I am talking about will be opposed every bit of the way by powerful vested interests. There is a powerful vested interest. The Lairds, in some cases, had 1,000 years to fill their domains, so it will take community bodies such as Gia, Egg, South Uist and Noider a few more than 10 years to sort out the mess that they often left behind. The North Harass community trust has successfully built new homes, run the deer shooting and creates newable energy income, as chartered by Fiona Mackenzie in her recent book. She calls it places of possibility. That sums up the intent of this land reform package. The review of local government finance can take land value tax seriously and look at many others that are possible in its review. I want tenant farming reform included in the land reform bill, like many others, and real powers given to the Land Commission to chart the how as well as the what of sustainable land ownership. We could measure success of land reform against membership of Scottish land and estates, which is 2,000 at present. Perhaps in 10 years' time it should be 20,000 in a vibrant mix of communities, smaller landholders and reduced-scale sporting estates. Why not? As the land leaguers used to say, the land is before us, I commend the ambition and common sense in the Scottish Government's plans. Many thanks. I now call Alison McInnes to be followed by Dennis Roberts. It would be remiss of me not to start with a mention of the Smith commission unveiled just a few hours ago. Let us be clear, it is a bold package, new powers to give the Scottish Parliament the muscle it needs to build a fairer society with opportunity for all. Scottish Liberal Democrats have championed home rule for decades, so today is exciting for us, £20 billion in tax powers and £3 billion to build a Scottish welfare system. It delivers on the vow and more. It has been achieved through unprecedented cross-party talks, as all working meaningfully together, leaving behind the politics of division and grievance, and that must continue. There must be a constructive relationship between both Scotland's Governments. In this Parliament, over the past two years, the SNP has relied upon its majority. It has failed time and again to listen to reasoned principled opposition and has billed those policies through regardless. I welcome the First Minister's indication that this is going to change, that wherever parties believe that they have a good idea, that it will be listened to. With that consensus in mind, I will start on a positive note. There are many principles in the programme for government that Scottish Liberal Democrats share, and many areas where I think the Government will find ready support. Votes for 16 and 17-year-olds and land reform to name a couple. I also wholeheartedly welcome progress towards a new law and revenge pornography, and I look forward to the introduction of a human trafficking and exploitation bill. I want to focus the remainder of my remarks on areas where there is less consensus. The previous justice minister took the Government down a path that a lot of us are uncomfortable with. I want to lay down a challenge to the First Minister at this crossroads to change direction. She and the new justice minister have an opportunity to change direction to be more liberal. They can carry the consensus in areas where there is common ground. In others where there is political discord, they should at least be willing to listen. I hope that they are listening today because I want to see changes in a few key areas. I want to halt on the overused and detrimental police tactic of non-statutory stop and searches. Used correctly, stop and search is a legitimate tool to prevent and detect crime, but Scots are seven times more likely to be subjected to this tactic than people in England and Wales. Those individuals are searched when there are no grounds whatsoever to suspect them. We found out last week that over 8,000 searches had been carried out by armed officers on routine duties. Whoever believes that is not a heavy-handed tactic. The Human Rights Commission, the Children's Commissioner, charities and more share our concerns about unregulated and unaccountable nature of non-statutory stop and search. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of unjustified intrusions, purposeless interactions not based on any evidence or intelligence, and even the Scottish Police Authority has concluded that there is no robust evidence that these prevent crime. I ask the Government to back my efforts to amend the criminal justice bill to ensure that all stop and searches are regulated based on suspicion of wrongdoing and rooted in law. I want the powers of the chief constable to be set out. We must move away from a system that has allowed armed officers to routinely patrol our communities without ever being subject to public debate or parliamentary scrutiny. The need to define roles and boundaries has been exposed time and again on armed police, but also on the removal of valued local services. Operational independence has been used to stifle legitimate debate. It is a barrier to due scrutiny and good governance. Only yesterday, COSLA wrote to the chief constable and the SPA to stress the need for local scrutiny and early meaningful dialogue on national policies. We need to move away from a one-dimensional view of policing. The number of bobbies on the beaten crime figures do not trump all those other concerns. The police must operate within a framework set by this Parliament and the national force cannot be allowed to shirk transparency, accountability and community engagement any longer. With transparency and local community empowerment in mind, I hope that the Scottish Government will support the changes that I seek. We will, of course, return to the Government's flawed and ill-conceived plans to scrap corroboration. I am sure that we all look forward to the publication of the review and that there will be a good amount of debate following that. Again, I say that I hope that this minister will be more open to listening than his predecessor. I also hope that the justice secretary can bring renewed focus to the need to reduce the prison population and to improve the criminal justice system and particularly our prisons. Health figures out this week showed that complaints were up in our NHS. That rise was due to the inclusion of prison population and the many areas of concern were mental health services and rehabilitation services. We really must make progress on that. I hope that the Government will also be willing to look at increasing the use of community disposals and improving the situation for female offenders. By progressing the recommendations of the Angiolini commission, we can ensure that we have the facilities that are suitable for the prison population that we have. I want to echo what Willie Rennie said yesterday. Where we agree, we will be glad to support this Government's legislation and, when we disagree, we will always work constructively to improve it. Many thanks. I remind members that this debate is once again over-subscribed, so if members could take less than six minutes, that would be helpful. I call Dennis Robertson to be followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sure that many Liberals out there may be scratching their head thinking home rule. No, this is nothing like home rule that we have got from Smith commission and maybe Alison McKinnon, maybe a Liberal Democrat and maybe not the Liberal that wants for home rule. Presiding Officer, can I associate myself with everything that Rob Gibson said regarding the land reform? Indeed, I was actually going to speak about it. I was maybe stepping back just a little given some of the estates in my constituency. I am not sure if the law of treason is still on the statute book, but perhaps I should maybe move away from royal decide just for a moment. Presiding Officer, there is so much to be welcomed in the bills that are being proposed. Yesterday, the First Minister spoke about fairness, prosperity and participation. Presiding Officer, we have just gone through the most amazing participation of a lifetime, of perhaps the politics that has never ever witnessed before. The engagement of so many people in all their communities and the ones that probably came across more than others in terms of this engagement were the young people. I am glad to see that we have got cross-party support for the franchise for the 16-17-year-olds. It is just a pity that there are 16-17-year-olds in Scotland that are not going to be able to vote in the general election. However, there was another group that I met at Dynamic Hearth, along with the man Big at Hustings. It was a group of people with disabilities. They felt that their voice was not being heard. They felt that their voice was not being listened to throughout the engagement during the referendum. During that debate and Hustings, they made it very clear that politics needed to move aside and that their voice needed to be listened to. That is why I am excited about what is being proposed within the bills. I sincerely hope that the cabinet secretary's appropriate portfolios can look at trying to move forward the aspirations of some of our people with disabilities. It is all very well going down the route of just gender equality. I support it. Perhaps I am getting into dangerous water here when I say that I am not a great fan of quotas, but something needs to be done to try and ensure that we have a sense of equality within our society. That equality, and I sincerely hope that Paul Grice is not fearing for his job as a chief executive in this Parliament, because we do need some good men at the top as well as good women, Presiding Officer. The thing about the equality area is to try and ensure that it is equality for all. I suppose today that people with disabilities have asked me to come forward today and give their voice an airing in this chamber. When we are looking at increasing our apprenticeship programme from 25,000 to 30,000, they want to be included in that programme. They want a part of that apprenticeship programme to look at their specific needs. People with disabilities, Presiding Officer, that can work, that want to work, that are able to work, need the skills, need the opportunity. That is all they are asking for, the opportunity to contribute to society. They do not want to be known as the scroungers, they do not want to be known as the people who are looking for handouts, because they are not. They want to have a full participative part within our society and feel that they belong and can actually deliver. That is why prosperity and fairness comes into what I am talking about. Many people with disabilities in the workplace give more than their counterparts, because they know that they have had to work hard to get there. Presiding Officer, I remember when I was first elected, I was asked, would I be a role model for people with disabilities? I was slightly hesitant to say, yes but maybe no. The reason it was a yes but maybe no is because I did not want to be seen as the blind MSP, I want to be seen as an MSP who just so happens to be blind. This is the point about people with disabilities in the community and in the workplace. They should not be seen for their disability, they should be seen for the ability that they have to bring forward the talents, the skills that we should be looking to try and find the ways and opportunities to ensure that they have that focus maybe within the job market. That is why I am quite excited about what is happening within the education bill, because I want to provide the appropriate support for people. It gives them the opportunity, that appropriate support in their early education to take them forward, to look at opportunities where they can probably use their talents and skills. I do not have a degree, I did not go to university. University for me is not the goal that many people aspire to. It is about using your talent and skill and opportunity. If it is through college to be a tradesperson, a plumber, an electrician or a slater, someone in construction, it is absolutely fine because we do not need graduates to do a lot of those jobs. It is nice if you have the degree but we do not necessarily need that. I will ask you to draw to a close, please. That is why Serene Wood's report is exciting, but we need to be inclusive, and we need to be fair, and we need to be equal. My plea is to look at the people in our communities who have disabilities and give them a chance. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate. In six minutes, I cannot go through everything I think in terms of this document, but I certainly welcome it because I believe that we need to move beyond the constitution and start to have a discussion and a debate about how we tackle the big issues that are out there and how we give everybody the opportunity in life, how we tackle poverty and how we tackle inequality. If I could mention two areas in the paper that I think are very good and we need to see action and see them moving on, firstly, in terms of domestic violence, there has been progress made over the last decade, the last decade more, where police authorities, community safety partnerships are doing a lot more work and that is to be commended, but at the same time that has not resulted in the numbers of domestic violence cases and those suffering from domestic violence falling, so there is more to be done and I absolutely welcome that. The pilots in Aberdeen and Ayrshire is something that I am glad that is mentioned in this document and hopefully we can see how they work and pick them up. In terms of human trafficking, as Christina McKelvie mentioned earlier, sometimes the terminology human trafficking does not quite have what we are talking about as modern day slavery and I think that people will be appalled by that and I think again that I commend the Scottish Government for picking up on those issues and bringing those issues forward. It would be right for me to mention the council tax because I have since come into this Parliament through the local government committee made the arguments that we need to review how local government is funded and again I welcome the review, the commission however you want to put that and I think we need to have local authorities and everybody working together we need to look at a way forward for properly funding local government. The reality at the end of the day is that anybody can cut taxes, there are countries where you have very low taxes but you have very very poor public services and that needs to be addressed. I would say that money in local government myself in the past as well in terms of the funding that is there to mitigate the council tax freeze money. Us in local government argued that it was our money anyway and if Mr Swinney was seriously saying that the money that is there that is going on to mitigate the council tax freeze whilst local authorities would argue that it is not enough. If that money was to come out the problem being that any council who was to raise the council tax I think in Fife's case before you even started you would have to raise £4 million, £5 million in order to get past that money itself. Therefore that money will need to stay with local government regardless of what the new system of taxation, if there is a new system of taxation to go in and that is a point perhaps I can take up with the finance secretary and the deputy first minister at another point. Within the statement yesterday, Daphne Nicola Sturgeon talked about bed blocking rightly so. I think I like Niels looking a bit more relaxed sitting down there the day than perhaps he was last week the week before as health secretary and I've always said that regardless of the political colour in this place of the administration the reality is that health, health and social care there are major major challenges that are there regardless who it is that's running the government in Scotland and we need to be able to face up to those challenges. But I was disappointed yesterday because the First Minister basically said that £15 million would be made available £5 million to the Scottish Government, £5 million to NHS boards and £5 million from local authorities but regardless of whether you think it's a reasonable settlement or not for local government the fact is that local authorities the length and breadth to Scotland regardless of what political parties running the administration in those authorities are facing major challenges and are cutting services and are having to cut services and suddenly where they'll come up with this £5 million to add to that the fact is in five NHS five are currently through the acute budget over spending some place in the tune of three four million and the former health secretary did tell me that that will be pulled back in but last I've got too many points to making six minutes last last year that that NHS five actually over spent in this acute and serviced by a route over eight million pounds and therefore that had to be clawed for some place and that's why we're not seeing a transfer of resources coming from acute into community care and why we've got the big problems there so I think you know the announcement to £15 million but I would want to pick up a like Neil said earlier about today talking about the transfers of powers to London to Edinburgh but we need to go further and we need to look at the transfer of powers from from certainly London to Edinburgh but the transfer of powers to local authorities I genuinely believe and sincerely believe that if we are going to tackle poverty and inequality in Scotland then we will do so through partnership partnership with local government partnership with community planning partners and partnership so that there's an anti-poverty strategy in the Scottish government that goes through every level of government and that anti-poverty strategy is then part of a partnership with local authorities going forward in terms of the early years collaborator for example there's a lot of good work going on out there but we need to be prepared to tackle those areas the highest deprivation and the highest inequality and it's through partnership with the third sector partnership with local government and if you look with some of the local authorities across Scotland you'll see some excellent work going on family centres early intervention targeting resources so that if we're going to tackle poverty we need to tackle the causes of poverty and as a run out of time if I can just mention in terms of schools and education I think we've got to be much more ambitious as a finished community Presiding Officer we've got to be much more ambitious we've got to look at a new approach involving colleges involving employers so that we actually start from the early years and bring a bit of revolution in education because the one thing I would agree with Liz Smith we need to do much better than we're currently doing before I move on I have to give members fair warning that I'm afraid I'll have to cut them dead at six minutes if they can't keep to their time Claire Adamson to be followed by Jenny Marra thank you very much Presiding Officer there's absolutely no doubt that this programme for government will create more and better paid jobs it will create a strong and more sustainable economy it will build a fairer Scotland it will tackle inequality and it will pass significant powers to our people and our communities however I do regret a part of the government's plan from government and I see that that doesn't even get my cabinet secretary's attention but at what I regret is the sentence that says £104 million in 2005 to 2016 to mitigate welfare reforms being imposed by Westminster I regret that sentence because it would have been so much better if the decisions about welfare to have been made here in Scotland where our money could have been used for the benefit of people and not to undo wrongs from elsewhere I was hopeful that the Smith commission might have given us some hope in this direction but I stand with the STUC as being underwhelmed Jackie Baillie I genuinely took hope from the Smith commission when they said they would give the power to this Parliament to set their own benefits Claire Adamson what we need is control of the whole welfare system which is not coming to Scotland by any measure austerity whether it's promised by the Labour Party or delivered by Tories and Lib Dems austerity is a failed policy a chancellor whose state his entire reputation of the UK government on aggressive death deficit reduction regardless of dreadful economic and social cost has categorically failed and we see in some measures borrowing actually increasing and the social scost of austerity Britain is not working P.O. I return to a new scientist article that I've quoted in this parliament before from 2013 which talks about the true cost of cuts and it says the immediate consequences of austerity may give way to more enduring and insidious effects on health is plausible that protected economic hardship will lead to an increase in heart attacks strokes and depression stress hormones are known to trigger it and exacerbate these conditions and it's hard to argue that those worrying about security of their jobs homes families and finances are not experiencing high levels of stress they're going to say the effects of health on the other hand largely go undiscussed in the political arena this article I believe shows that the assumption that when austerity ends and the belt tightening goes away and house prices start to rise and the economy improves that health problems will not exist but people affected by those problems will undergo genetic transformation for some babies in the womb it will happen because of the stress hormones of their mothers and it will be a generational problem that we'll have to face in Scotland what is really worrying about austerity is it's not a wealth it's not about the wealth of our nation it's also detrimental to the health of our nation and that's why I'm so pleased that while I regret the necessity necessity to mitigate for problems from elsewhere I do welcome the measure the government's work programme is has designed to tackle poverty to tackle health and social inequalities in our country can I go on to talk about the community empowerment which is very welcome and I look forward to the people and communities fund which will have an additional 10 million pounds to allocate next year and that will doubling the resource that will be able to deliver power to our communities I also welcome the bill that will end the historic poll tax debt collection and I also welcome the manifesto commitment to establish an independent commission to examine fairer alternatives to the current council tax system and the commission will be established in conjunction with local authorities in Coesla and it will start its work early next year to deliver an alternative and I listened very carefully to Alex Rowley's concerns about the council tax and I'm a bit more sympathetic to hearing it from him and not from the rest of the Labour benches who have of course stood in a manifesto promise of a council tax freeze. It's been affected. The council tax freeze has been attacked in this chamber by a Labour, by Tories and regrettably by the Greek Green party yesterday and while I work on the commitment to seek a fairer system I must defend what has been an essential policy across my region in central Scotland. Alex Salmond at the SME conference talked to the £1,200 average that hard-pressed, hard-working families had saved through the council tax freeze and I feel I have to do a bit of history lesson on this because a council tax was a tax out of control. Addressing by nearly 50 per cent, council tax accounts were only 10.8 per cent of revenues for councils but families were hard-pressed by this and I remind them in Labour Heartland of North Lanarkshire 83 per cent of families live in bandee or below properties and that £1,200 to them was an essential lifeline when they were hard-pressed by the financial downturn and the current. I cannot believe that I am hearing Labour members say that the 52,363 people in North Lanarkshire and bandee properties did not deserve the hard-pressed freeze. That is money to really hard-pressed families. The idea that their middle class is running around towards them rubbing the hands and glee and benefiting is ridiculous. It is poor families, hard-pressed families and struggling families have benefited from the council tax freeze and it is actually lifeline to them over the course of this government. The Government's legislative programme shows that the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon is finally looking at the business of governing our country. 12 bills across a range of issues show much potential but the proof will be as always in what the Government intends to do, how much time and energy it will spend in driving change forward and if it will meet those priorities with resource and budget commitments. On educational attainment, attainment in my own home city of Dundee is not nearly as high as it should be. The Government has said that it will put an attainment adviser in each local authority. Great, but how will this be backed up? Will there be targets for improvement? How will these targets be met? What resource will the attainment adviser have at their disposal? This is the meat of change. Just a few weeks ago in Dundee, early years practitioners who were all trained in read, write and ink the literacy support for primary 1 and 2 were removed from the classroom by the SNP and redeployed into nurseries to meet the Government's 600-hours childcare commitments. That came at the expense of literacy and it is this kind of detail that will truly be the proof of whether the First Minister's programme will be transformative. There is a commitment in the programme, Presiding Officer, to implement the wood commission's recommendations. Although the Government still has not formally responded to the wood commission, I hope that we might expect to see that in the new year because we need a lot of detail on how that will work. I attended a seminar last week at Dundee and Angus College on implementing wood's proposals across our region. Colleges, local businesses and schools are all thinking now about how wood will work. I feel that the Government is falling slightly behind on wood at the moment. They need to respond to the recommendations and show leadership on how they expect wood to be implemented or, I believe, they risk losing momentum on the important issue of youth employment. I hope that their response will be published soon. Presiding Officer, central to wood is the restoration of vocational education, but that must be matched by action and budget. As Liz Smith said, the 140,000 cut in college places robs young people of opportunities. John Swinney's flat cash settlement for colleges this year goes no way to alleviating that situation. I hope that the Deputy First Minister in his summing up this afternoon will be able to tell us how the commitment to implement wood will be supported by his budget for colleges, because he knows—and I have told him in this chamber—that over 11,000 people applied to Dundee and Angus College this autumn, but 6,000 of them were unable to get a place. What of the Government's youth guarantee for all those youngsters? The Fair Work Convention is a great opportunity. It has been committed to in this programme by the First Minister. Annabelle Ewing and Nicola Sturgeon should be clear that they will act on its outcomes. Perhaps they should make a vow, because the vows are being delivered. Too many recommendations lie dusty on the shelf. The transformative Christie commission, for instance, very little of that, has been acted on by this Government, despite its warm words at the time. The 30 recommendations in the working together review that was put together by the Scottish Government and the STUC, we still have no commitment from the Scottish Government on how many of those recommendations they will implement. I hope that we can make progress on this soon, and I know that the STUC is watching progress on this very carefully. Presiding Officer, I was very pleased yesterday to see the human trafficking and exploitation bill on the Government's agenda. The human trafficking bill is the first ever human rights bill to come before the Scottish Parliament, so it will be a poignant moment when it is published. It has been estimated by agencies that there were 55 victims of human trafficking in Scotland last year, but we know that agencies know, and the people at the front line of this who work with victims know that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Trafficking victims are in all of our communities, urban and rural. They are brought to this country many on the promise of a better life and are held and exploited. Many are sexually exploited and many are held for forced labour, no or little pay in awful living conditions. If I told the chamber that my office has had reports of teenage girls being trafficked back and forward across Scotland for sexual exploitation, the chamber will know how important this legislation is. I look forward to the publication of the bill. Most importantly, it should contain a legal right for victims to get the protection that they need, and this proposal has the support of over 50,000 people. I wish the First Minister well with her programme for government. Her talk of consensus is good, and it is nice, but she has a majority in this Parliament, and she has a lot of support. She should do something bold to make Scotland a better place, and that will be her legacy. Many thanks. There is much to be welcomed in the programme for government. It contains several bills that, while clearly of wide national interests, will also have a genuine demonstrable impact on individuals, particularly individuals who most need help. I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament pioneered the inaugural annual carers parliament in 2012, and I am pleased to see that its needs remain a priority for this Government. Whilst it is undoubtedly the case that the vast army of unpaid carers save the health and social services a substantial amount of money every year, giving carers a say on top of that financial support and on top of respite care, for example, should be a priority, so I am glad that this will be recognised in legislation. Like many here today, I was fortunate to attend the dinner at the Prestonfield hotel last week, where the clear highlight for me was not, I have to say, the two victory speeches of the First Minister, but Gordon Aitman's speech acknowledging the judges award when he spoke on behalf of the needs of MMD sufferers and others. I am glad that the issue of social care charging has been recognised in a meaningful way by the FM in her speech yesterday and I am hopeful that this Parliament can work on that issue together. I also welcome the continuing commitment to widening the access to higher education and the increase in funding for the impact for access fund. Representing St Andrews University, which I do, I recognise the university's commitment to widening access, but I also recognise that we still have some considerable way to go. On participation, I am pleased that we do have a consensus on extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, and I hope that the necessary legislation can be introduced as quickly as possible to enable young people to vote in 2016. Some legislation in the programme for government will have an impact on those who have no say on the political process, but arguably need our help more than anybody else. I speak of course of the human trafficking bill, which Jenny Marra referred to. The introduction of that bill is, I believe, a significant step in the right direction and one that requires and deserves full support across this chamber. On that basis, I would like to add my commendation and my thanks to Jenny Marra for early involvement in the issue. I recall attending the launch of the EHRC report on human trafficking in Scotland back, I think, in late 2011, when the Labour-peer Baroness Kennedy stressed the potential for Scotland to be a leader in tackling human trafficking. I am pleased that we have got to where we are today. Last month, with Jenny Marra and Christina McKelvie, I was fortunate to attend a summit held in this Parliament, attended by representatives from prosecuting authorities, not only from England of Wales and Northern Ireland, but also the Republic of Ireland, which was a first. Collaboration across borders will more effectively help to combat the scourge that is human trafficking. One thing that came out strongly from that summit was the value of the European arrest warrant, so I am pleased that the argument in respect of that seems to have been won down south, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Tory right. It is, of course, important that this legislation ensures that the victims of trafficking are properly supported through what can be a very stressful judicial system. Accordingly, I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to enhancing the rights of victims, and I hope that that plays a central part in the bill. I also welcome the Government's commitment to tackling another scourge, that of revenge porn, which I like Neil referred to earlier today. 1964 was, of course, a significant year. Just over 50 years ago, the sun emerged as a newspaper from the ashes of the Daily Mirror—the Daily Herald, sorry—in its premurdoch phase. A general election had taken place in October that year, which emerged with a small labour majority, and Teddy Taylor even managed to win Glasgow Cathcart for the Tories. Of course, a piece of legislation called the Successions Scotland Act had been passed a few months before. That, of course, remains the definitive piece of legislation on wills and estates in Scotland. Society in Scotland has changed significantly since then, as was recognised by the Scottish Law Commission in its report on the subject in 2009. Some of its proposals remain significantly controversial, and while I welcome the Government's commitment to legislate on a number of technical aspects, such as closing a number of jurisdictional gaps and in particular clarifying the effect of divorce, disillusion or annulment on the birth of a child on the will, I would hope that, before too long, we will, as a Parliament, take forward legislation to bring our succession law up to date and to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century. Fatal accident inquiries bill is also a positive step forward, hopefully implementing the remaining recommendations of Lord Cullen and modernising the way fatal accident inquiries are held in Scotland. A community justice bill will obviously need careful consideration, building on the need to ensure the balance of outcomes nationally and locally. One issue that did not feature very heavily in yesterday's debate, but which I believe still merits further discussion, is the introduction of Claire's law. I am certain that many of us will watch the progress of a six-month trial in Ayrshire and Aberdeen with some interest. I echo Sandra White's comments that, hopefully, the pilot scheme can lead to something more substantial throughout the rest of the country. The introduction of proposals to protect victims of domestic violence is also to be welcomed. Like human trafficking, it is evidence of a Government and the Parliament prioritising protection of those who need it most. Earlier today, we heard and indeed from Jenny Marra, the Opposition benches talk about the spirit of consensus. I hope that they are able to live up to this and co-operate with the Scottish Government wherever possible, whilst recognising that some of those bills in the programme for government are controversial, not least among the Conservatives in relation to land reform. However, I welcome the debate on that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. I now call Mary Scanlon to be followed by Mark McDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I welcome the First Minister and, indeed, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney to their post? Can I, even more so, welcome the tone adopted by the First Minister so far? It is a pity that it has not quite reached the back benches, but we do live in hope. However, I hope that it will continue, for the sake of this Parliament, as a respectful democratic debating chamber and not a place where Opposition MSPs raise serious issues week after week and are then ridiculed and humiliated on the basis of their party's position in the latest polls, accused of scaremongering, accused of talking down Scotland, accused of talking down the NHS and public services, only to be finished with, well, things are much worse in England and how much out of favour their party is compared to the SNP. That is not the Scotland that we want. I give an example, Presiding Officer, week after week, along with many others, I sat here and listened to Jackie Baillie raising genuine concerns over the veil of leaving. Everything that I have just said is applied there, and far be it from me to say it about a Labour member. However, we have all been there. Even the local newspaper raised concerns, and now that Lord McLean has reported, he is suddenly being listened to. While I hope in future that with his new First Minister there will be a little bit of respect and that we do not know, I certainly do not, and we do not have to bring in Lord McLean or the member said that she is not getting away. ... in order for the democratic views of people to be listened to. I have never liked bullies, and I may start submitting First Minister's questions again, given the business-like professional approach of the First Minister so far. And it is only right to acknowledge the work of all parties on the Smith commission with full agreement and no footnotes of dissent, and indeed the Scottish Conservatives Strathclyde commission, as well as my own party leader, who played her part. Ruth Davidson always favoured devolution of air passenger duty, and yes, she stuck her neck out. I am proud to say that it was the Tories who published the most far-reaching, thoroughly thought-through radical plans for further devolution in this Parliament in May this year. Now we have the next step, and I look forward to more to come. I welcome the devolution of power to the islands, as well as the appointment of Derek Mackay, a minister widely respected by councils and particularly island councils across Scotland. I also welcome the work of the island leaders such as Gary Robinson and Malcolm Bell in Shetland, as well as Western Isles and Orkney. But in the short time I have, and if the SNP are too late to be a listening Government, they need to start listening to patients. Patience with mental health issues. This Parliament has not achieved the progress we all hoped for in passing the 2003 bill with nearly 3,000 amendments at stage 2. I would just say, John Finnie, when he was in the SNP, John and I met two managers at the psychiatric hospital in Vernes. All I can say is that when we left, I turned to John and I said, well, if that's how the managers talk to elected members of Parliament, God help the patients. We've got a long way to go, but the SNP, as they've said, are unlikely to listen to lads and landowners. That's their right. I only hope that they'll listen to the gamekeepers. The gamekeepers and the stalkers know what it is to live off the land and live in the country. They know how much their livelihoods, local villages, local schools, the sustainability of small communities depend on the effective management of estates. As a daughter of a farm labourer, I'm hardly going to be number one in the queue supporting the lads. I'm probably far closer to the gamekeepers. While additional funds have been allocated to bed blocking in A&E, that isn't the full answer. Alex Neil knew that. The Government needs to understand why we've got queues at A&E. There's queues and thousands and thousands more people going to A&E because they can't get to see their doctor. So don't just put the money at A&E. Let's try to understand the problems before looking for a solution. On bed blocking, Shona Robison said this morning that when we have health and social care integrated on, we'll be well. It won't. NHS Highland Council, we've been integrated for two years and we've still got bed blocking. Care homes are embargoed due to poor care inspectorate reports. I visited a new care home in Russia last week to be told that they get three inquiries a day for people to go there. So in order to eradicate bed blocking, let's try and understand the main issues. The Government also mentions the living wage. An increase in childcare are significant policies for the programme for government. In the statutory guidance on how the living wage will be taken into account on public contracts. I hope that when we look at their public contracts to councils and to care homes, they will look at what childcare staff, home carers and care homes are paid to provide their policies. I know that Mark McDonald thinks that all the care home providers, nurseries and so on, are languishing in high profits. However, we need to look at how we're funding them first and there's a huge variety of funding before we start criticising them. I've got a lot to get through, so I won't bother with the fact that Mary Scanlon has taken me out of context. Frankly, I could deal with most of her speech as being quite gratuitously out of context throughout, but this is a programme for government, which has social justice running through its core and at its very heart and is built on the principles that we want to establish of seeing fairness and prosperity as two sides of the same coin. In order to redistribute wealth, you need to also create wealth in the first place, and that is something that this Government is acutely aware of. This programme for government builds on progressive policy approaches taken by this Government in other areas, whether it's through the cancellation of right to buy, which has enabled house building by councils yet again after many, many decades in which council houses were sold off at discounts, which made it uneconomical to build new council houses, something that regrettably the Labour Party did absolutely nothing about during the time that they spent in office at both Westminster and in Scotland. They introduced pressured area status, but they did not allow for the removal of the right to buy, which it took an SNP Government to deliver. I want to look also at two other policies, the land and buildings transaction tax, which again has redressed things away from those trying to get on to the property ladder for the very first time because we accept that there has to be a balance between the renting and the purchasing, and also the living wage policy, which I'm pleased to see is being taken further by the Government, and also the additional funding that is being allocated to the poverty alliance to bring forward the accreditation programme there. I welcome the establishment of the commission on local government finance, as recommended by the local government and regeneration committee. I'm pleased to hear again Alec Rowley welcoming it in the chamber today. It didn't seem to be met with quite such a strong welcome from the Labour front bench yesterday who seemed to think that they didn't want to be involved in discussions and constructive discussions about local government finance. I hope that they will revisit that approach. As somebody who is a parent of a child with additional support needs and who has campaigned on the issue, I'm very excited about the prospect of new rights for children with additional support needs in the forthcoming education legislation. I'll be very interested to see what those are, what they entail and how they will be delivered. Although I will not be a member of the committee who will be scrutinising that legislation, it will be a section of that legislation that I will take a keen interest in. I'll be very interested to see what external bodies have to say. Of course, through the Scottish strategy for autism, this Government has shown that it has taken a strong approach in relation to additional support needs and also through the keys for life learning disability strategy, another important piece of work being taken forward by the Scottish Government. So, enshrining some of that work and some of those approaches in rights through legislation I think will be very exciting and it's something that I look forward to seeing happen. I also, in terms of the education agenda, look forward to the work around attainment and literacy. I was struck during Liz Smith's contribution that, on the one hand, recently in this Parliament, she came to this chamber and made a statement, which I don't agree with, that there are failing schools in Scotland. If she is open to having that position, I disagree with it. However, if she holds that position, I don't see how she can hold that position and then take a view against the establishment of attainment officers in local authority. Surely, if she holds the view that there are schools out there that are failing, she should welcome support being put in. I think that that support is necessary, even though I don't agree with her diagnosis. I think that there are still issues in some of our most deprived communities that those attainment officers will need to take a closer look at. I think that leaving the burden solely with directors of education runs the risk of losing some of that potential hands-on approach that could be taken through the appointment of attainment officers. I'll happily let Liz Smith know. That's nice. Thank you for taking the intervention. I didn't say that I was entirely against it. I said that I needed to be persuaded and I was looking for more details about the exact role that they would have in relation to those directors of education. How that attainment improvement would be measured, that's what I said. I'm happy to take that as Liz Smith's position and I hope that she will find herself persuaded. I think that, coupled with the drive on literacy and numeracy, specifically focused on deprived communities, some of those schools will be schools in my constituency. I look forward to again examining more closely the detail, but certainly at the outset, I think that both of those proposals carry substantial merit and are ones that should be welcomed. Last thing that I want to touch on, Presiding Officer, is the legislative proposals that will come forward regarding domestic abuse. I should find a minute. I think that that is something that is extremely welcome. I'm very pleased at the piloting of Claire's Law in Aberdeen. I'll be interested to see how that progresses and hopefully it will then be rolled out across Scotland. Beyond that, I think that we need to take a much stronger focus on domestic abuse in society. It simply cannot be right that, in this day and age, there are still far too many individuals who are falling victim to domestic abuse. One thing that I would put on the record as saying is that, as well as the physical element of domestic abuse, we must also have acknowledgement of the psychological abuse that can take place, which can be just as damaging and can cause great harm to the individuals who find themselves on the receiving end of that psychological abuse. I hope that, when the legislative is brought forward, I understand that psychological abuse may prove to be more difficult to prove than physical abuse. Nonetheless, I think that it would be worth having cognisance of that. My apologies. I can only offer the last two speakers five and a half minutes Neil Bibby, to be followed by Bob Doris. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As members have said, the constitutional debate has dominated our time in the chamber for over the last three years, and what is important now is that we focus on how we help people and our communities that we represent. I welcome much of Nicola Sturgeon's speech yesterday and what was in the legislative programme. I believe that action on issues such as domestic violence and human trafficking that Jenny Marra has raised are particularly welcome. I also welcome Nicola Sturgeon's plea for constructive suggestions from opposition parties on what we can work on together, and I will happily take her up on that offer. That, however, will not stop as challenging the Government to deliver action, and I do believe that there are some clear emissions from the programme that my constituents and communities would want to see. For example, on this side of the chamber, as James Kelly and Malcolm Chisholm have said, we would like to have seen measures to address the serious issues in the private rent sector. Action needed because earlier this month, the Government's private rent sector statistics showed that, in parts of Scotland, average rents have risen by a staggering 40 per cent in four years, well above inflation. I know from speaking to constituents that many people are forced to spend half their monthly pay on private rents, so it will be disappointed to hundreds of thousands of tenants who rent in the private sector that the Government has not chosen to create a system that works better for those tenants. As Alison Johnstone from the Greens highlighted yesterday, the issue of better bus regulation is something that the Government continues to ignore. The Government should be supporting my colleague Ian Gray to ensure that the public are at the heart of our public transport system and efforts are made to stop bus passengers from paying more and getting less. It is on the issue of education that I want to focus on this afternoon. To be fair to the First Minister, she put a considerable emphasis on education in her speech. No one can doubt the importance of education in improving our children's life chances, but equally no one should doubt the huge challenges that are currently in our education system. Like Liz Smith, however, I must dispute the First Minister's assertion made yesterday when she said that every main measure showed that our education is improving. As Liz Smith said, that is simply not true. There have been marginal improvements in a number of areas, so there should be. I think that we would expect that as a minimum, given that this Government has been in power for seven and a half years. However, the reality is that in areas such as numeracy standards are falling. The Scottish Government's statistics published this year showed a marked drop in the proportion of children who are performing well or very well in numeracy at primary school and showed no improvement at S2 level. I would have thought that our children's ability to count would be counted as a main measure of educational achievement, but it is not just numeracy that we need to improve on. On literacy, as my colleague Kezia Dugdale raised at First Minister's questions today, statistics from Save the Children show that one in five children from poor families leave primary school unable to re-dwell a level four times as high as pupils from better-off households. There are, of course, lots of ideas on how we best improve attainment, and we should have a full debate about that, but it is clear that literacy and numeracy and the early years are absolutely key. On the topic of early years, this Government still lags behind the rest of the UK when it comes to childcare for two-year-olds, but, as Labour has said, before we want a childcare system not only with additional availability, but one that is affordable, flexible and of high quality. Part of the proposal for an education bill includes the promotion of Gaelic as someone who has family in the Western Isles. I am a keen supporter of Gaelic and the importance it plays particularly in those communities. As for the education bill more generally, it will be for local government in teaching unions to assess the workability of proposals affecting the education system at a local level that comes forward amid concerns of a workload crisis, particularly among teachers. On higher education, Presiding Officer, I absolutely support the aspiration to widen access. There is also a real need for more children from deprived backgrounds to have the opportunity to go to university. We are 3,500 fewer entrants to university from the most deprived areas now compared to 2007, so I welcome the impact for access fund and the ambition expressed to widening access. Yesterday, the First Minister talked about this in the context of a child born today or, in that case, yesterday. I would hope that we do not have to wait 18 years to see serious progress on widening access. I look forward to seeing the clear milestones that have been promised in relation to that. I hope that the Government will also listen to Labour's call to revisit the decision to cut bursaries for the poorest students. If social justice is meant to be a mainstay of the Scottish Government's agenda, it will revisit that. It will also revisit and look again at its approach to colleges and further education. Part time courses, as has been mentioned today, have been slashed by this Government, and it is vital to getting people back into work and allowing people to gain further qualifications. Of course, we will work with universities, staff and students, and it is important that their views are taken on board in relation to the Higher Education Governance Bill. I know that there is a consultation on that on that end in January, and we have to listen to all the stakeholders in regard to that bill. I call on Bob Doris, after which we will move to closing speeches. In the time that I have here this afternoon, I want to make some comments on the one-year programme for the Government that also, if time allows, talks about what I see within that programme. It has not been really a one-year event but a programme that is reaching towards 2020 and beyond and a vision for Scotland. However, I want to do some of the specific scrutiny of some of the legislation that will be presented to this Parliament. On fatal accident inquiries, I am delighted that the Scottish Government has included the provision to have FAIs into overseas deaths. That is something that I myself and campaigner, Julia Love, one of my constituents, who started a charity, Dana, called for in the Cullin consultation on it, and the Government has agreed to put that in the primary legislation. Three notes of caution—I am sorry, Patricia, I just do not have the time—three notes of caution in relation to that. The Lord Actificat has to have criteria by which to decide to use discretion and power for a fatal accident inquiry, so we have to look at things such as family statements of the bereaved individuals, post mortems perhaps in many, many cases to get the evidence that an FAI is needed and looking at some of the local police reports perhaps. We need to look at the criteria by which the Lord Advocate decides to have a fatal accident inquiry into overseas deaths. On the human trafficking bill, I take credit to members across the chamber who have sought to deliver on that. I just hosted an event in relation to allegations of forced organ harvesting in China. If I do not think that I have to use the word allegations, I could probably have dismissed with that. In relation to the human trafficking of organs of prisoners of conscience, particularly Falun Gong and others, and I am just wondering if the scope within the human trafficking bill in order to beef up and criminalise those that are involved in the trade of illegal organ harvesting to the UK and to Scotland. I know that that is not the main vehicle of the bill, but it might be an opportunity to shine a light on that and see what Scotland and the UK indeed can do. In relation to the community empowerment bill, I am delighted that that is on-going. I would draw attention to what I would like to call the urban right to buy, which I think is vitally important. It will be really quite important to look at what we mean by neglected and disused land or properties. That might very well mean much more compulsory purchase, quite frankly, across the public and private sector. I think that local authorities in particular have to show a planned vision for community assets going forward rather than waiting to become neglected and then pass a liability rather than an asset on to the community. We have to look at that in more detail. I am also delighted that community planning partnerships will get more powers over community justice disposable, £100 million, which will be used for that. However, we have to make sure that all the stakeholders in community planning partnerships, including the communities themselves, are directly involved in that to make sure that they shape what community justice will look like for those who have perpetrated within their communities. I would also like to support the new empowering communities fund. The people community fund was excellent, quite often filtered through housing associations and they do a tremendous job, but it is quite important that local organisations and local individuals can now apply for that expanded fund, which is expanded by £10 million, putting more money into individuals and groups' hands. I think that that is very important. Much to be welcomed in terms of equality in social justice, I am delighted that the Scottish welfare fund will be placed in a statutory footing. The Scottish Government's commitment to how we help the most vulnerable people in society and our extension of our living wage policy will be £200,000 for the poverty alliance to double and beyond the amount of businesses that are delivering on the living wage for their employees. I have a question for the Government on how we promote the very smallest businesses in our communities, the people who work in local shops and businesses, employers who employ one or two people, where a huge percentage of their business costs are paying the living wage. They should have paid the living wage, but how do we help to promote that? James, I am sorry that I do not have time given the time that we have. I have given some ideas on how we can improve the business of government, but the vision thing is that I will have to run through some of the initiatives. Those are not just a cluster of policies that the Scottish Government has. If we look at a young person, we see the family nurse partnerships for mothers before they are with child. We see the radical expansion of childcare from 16 hours to 30 hours, which I am very much welcome. We see free shill meals primary 1 to primary 3. We see a huge literacy and numeracy drive from primary 1 to primary 3. We see attainment officers appointed by Education Scotland into every local authority to drive up attainment across the boards. When young people leave school, we are going to see 30,000 apprenticeships, much more of them taken by women and huge success and outcome rates in relation to that for young people in Scotland. I am very much welcome that as well. We see a new youth employment fund of £16.6 million to deal with issues of segregation in workplaces, including women and disabled people and ethnic minorities, for young people as they enter the employment market. That is vital as well. We get to universities and we see a wider access fund, and we see minimum income guarantees for the poorest students. Sit beside their commitments on equality measures in the living wage, we see so much a common thread of equality and justice running through this entire programme for government. Of course, we could do so much more in the past 10 seconds in relation to the minimum wage and tax credits, particularly for women, national insurance and tax thresholds, to make that an even fairer programme for government, but we need the powers to achieve that. Thank you. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Jeane Urquhart. Six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, the First Minister gave some detail on an overview of her Government's programme for the next year. Her ambition for participation, prosperity and fairness are all easily endorsed by the indie green group members. On democracy, we are delighted that there is a commitment to further encourage the kind of political engagement that became quite overwhelming during the referendum campaign. We endorsed the proposal of the Government for more public discussions to be held around the country to better understand local problems and assist local communities to be in charge of finding solutions and making results possible. That chimes totally with the creation of a commission to find a fair alternative to the council tax, which was never fair nor relevant nor understood and really has come to the end of time. The criticism of the Scottish Government for maintaining the freeze on the council tax is wholly unfounded. The statement was that it would remain frozen until a much fairer tax could be found, and that is very welcome. All of that speaks of being at once more inclusive and prepared to evolve power where communities are ready to take responsibility. Reinventing the island's working group gives more evidence to the local empowerment being taken seriously. With a chance then that there are issues whose time has come. Presiding Officer, the land reform is 400 years overdue. The potential for those ambitions will see a Scotland that has a massive appeal and is full of potential. However, it is important that we recognise that in all of that inclusivity I am wanting to cover the whole of Scotland, not to be remote, to be a Government that is close and fair and willing to work with opposition parties who ever have the best ideas. There are some issues that remain absent from the First Minister's paper. An example is Neil Findlay's bill. That was something that the Government, the lobby and the potential for a lobbying bill, declared that it would take that to its heart and to look at that. I do not know where it is. It has become lost in recent months. As my colleague Alison Johnson mentioned yesterday, in her response, there are some other notable gaps. Climate change is now a reality and a dramatic response to our society for too long ignoring all the obvious signs. The Scottish Government has been revered for the targets that it has set, but the years pass without meeting them. This needs attention and I think we do no good by ignoring it any longer. The big issue that I feel is missing is housing and fuel poverty. To ask the Government to continue a pace and to increase the retrofit and insulation programmes that it has started and that it has benefited so many people, but we need to step this up. Energy efficiency and conservation is as important as energy production. I do believe that the Scottish Parliament could lead by example even in this building. Housing is still key. Certainly in the area that I represent and in urban all over Scotland, people leave for various reasons, but most of them leave because they have nowhere to live. People who want to come to live in an area cannot come because they do not have anywhere to live, so it is an issue that is at the heart of all the other ambitions that the Scottish Government has. All of the statements that were made about business in Scotland I welcome to and I think has given a very good steer to business in Scotland and the help that we have seen for thousands of small businesses. We have to remember that in Scotland we have more small businesses than any other part of the United Kingdom. They make up and collectively employ more people than any of the larger businesses, and they need to be kept on board. I think that this Government has been seen to be fair, to be helpful and to really respect the work that it does. I welcome the fair work convention. I am sorry that the Smith commission, for all that it has declared, but one of its great faults is admitting to give the Scottish Government the right to set a minimum wage. It is fundamental to the kind of development of prosperity that we might have seen in this country, and we might have given up many other things that are in the Smith commission if to have that power to help people in poverty in this country. Thank you very much. I now call in Jim Hume. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, as Willie Rennie and Alison McInnes have said, there is much in this programme that we can broadly agree on, and I welcome the spirit of cross-party co-operation that I hope this Government is serious about. Working constructively is important in achieving common goals, and I welcome the First Minister's announcement of £5 million match-funded to £15 million to tackle the problem of delayed discharges. However, it is equally important to stand up and hold the Government to account to put the size of the problem in context from July to September this year. Over 154,500 bed days were occupied by delayed discharge patients. That is up from £126,500 during the same time last year. In the October 2014 census, 321 patients were delayed over four weeks, despite being clinically ready to leave hospital up from 156 at the same time last year. I really do not have time. I apologise to Bob Doris. Almost three quarters of bed days occupied by delayed discharges were by patients aged 75 and over. The coming at a time when boarding is reported to have soared to 3,000 patients, geriatric beds have been cut by a third since 2010 and emergency admissions for older people at their highest in a decade. With all that in mind, we must look carefully at the Scottish Government's plans to integrate health and social care. While the Scottish Lib Dems support moves to treat more people in their own settings, ministers are only bottlenecking our hospitals by cutting beds without subsequently increasing community care first. A long-lasting policy is needed to tackle this issue in a meaningful way. While I am pleased that the First Minister has earmarked delayed discharges as a priority area for government, there needs to be a specific long-term action plan in place to deal with bed shortages and workforce issues beyond measures contained in the accident and emergency plan that was published last year. Deputy Presiding Officer, as Willie Rennie and Mary Scanlon passionately alluded to, we know that one in four people are likely to suffer from mental health problems at some point in their lives. Figures published recently showed that one in five patients faced waiting of over 18 weeks to start treatment for psychological therapies. That is not good enough. 81.3 per cent of patients were treated within 18 weeks, which falls way below the Scottish Government's heat target for 90 per cent of patients to be treated by 18 weeks by December this year. The RCN Scotland highlighted a 17 per cent fall in the number of staffed mental health beds across Scotland since 2010, and it also found that the NHS in Scotland lost 64 mental health nurses. RCN Scotland, SAMH and other charities have warned about the lack of specialist nurses, beds and support in the community for mental health services. Given that one in four people will experience a mental health problem through their lifetime, our NHS should reflect that. There are problems for our young people who are facing long waits to begin treatment at mental health services. Too many wait months to access treatment. That is indefensible for a young person at such an important time in their lives. There are 883 fewer mental health beds since 2009. The average waiting time is eight months. Scotland deserves better. Eight months is an acceptable waiting time for a young person at such an important time in their lives. We would not expect a child to limp on with a broken leg for that long. Why should we allow a young person to continue with untreated mental health problems? Getting the right combination of public mental health, anti-stigma, timely access to therapy and reliable crisis and emergency care will all be part of tackling delays in our mental health services. I am proud that Lib Dems, as part of the UK coalition Government, have written into law that, for the first time ever, mental health and physical health will receive equal recognition. Scottish Lib Dems will be urging the new health secretary to enshrine parity in law here also between the treatment of mental and physical ill health. That step would put fairness at the heart of the new First Minister's legislative programme. Yesterday, will the First Minister press the First Minister about my bill proposal to ban smoking in cars with children present? A proposal that I launched last spring consulted on last summer, which did not receive just cross-party support, but received all-party support. During that consultation process, it received overwhelming support, with even the tobacco industry stating that adults should not smoke in the enclosed environment of a car with children present. We know from the evidence that as many as 60,000 children are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars, not every year but every week, in Scotland. I realise that the Government has decided to consult on their own tobacco measures, including smoking with children in cars, but the Government's consultation does not finish until early next year. We can act faster. My bill is ready to go now, rather than waiting for the long process of the Government's much wider public health will to progress, and in the spirit, of course, of consensual government that the First Minister has mentioned so much and in her own words, in her own words, with sheared endeavour. Will the Deputy First Minister confirm in his summing up that his Government will support my bill now to protect those vulnerable young lungs still being exposed to such damaging second-hand smoke in cars? We waited about two and a half months longer than we have to wait for a programme for government. We are a vacuum of two and a half months, so I think that most of us were probably expecting something bold, innovative and radical, but it was actually going to be worth the wait. I have to say that, listening carefully to the First Minister's speech yesterday, listening carefully to the debate since then, it was all just a bit flat, it just felt a bit flat. The SNP members, to be fair to them, have done their very best over the course of two days to talk it up, but at the end of the day they have dressed it up as something really a bit more than it actually was. I was very happy to give way to Mr MacMillan. Thank you very much, Gavin, for taking the intervention. Just following on from Gavin's comments, the SNP suggests that voting for 16 and 17-year-olds is actually not worth it, and that's a bit flat. Presiding Officer, I noticed that he didn't challenge the overall part of the programme for government, that overall looking at it was a bit flat, and not really something that I think the country will get hugely excited about. However, to take him on on his point, as Ruth Davidson articulately mentioned in her response to it yesterday, there are elements of it clearly that we will support. 16 and 17-year-old votes for elections is something that she clearly pledged yesterday, and yes, that's something that we do support. However, I don't think that it was huge news in terms of a programme for government that came out yesterday. We also clearly articulated that we were in favour of Claire's law against something that Ruth Davidson had pressed the First Minister on at FMQs. We support the Bill to Combat Human Trafficking, and we support, again, the measures to try and combat domestic abuse. So there's, of course, a number of areas in there that we would positively endorse. A couple of bills, I suspect, we'll probably happily support without massive enthusiasm, and, of course, one or two in particular, we would clearly argue against land reform being one, which, I think, was articulated pretty strongly by Murdo Fraser. Let us look at some of the key issues that, I think, really need to be tackled, because the point has been made by a number of speakers, but it is really important that we start to think about the powers that we have, and we start to utilise the powers that we do have. Yes, we all know that the SNP wants independence, but there is still a time to go until March or April of 2016 for the next election. There is an enormous amount of work to be done with the powers that we have, but there's a lot that could be done with the powers that we have, whether that is in health, education, justice or the economy. My party has focused pretty heavily on its response in education, an area that we are passionate about, an area that we published a collection of essays about just a couple of weeks ago, and I think that it's here where the Government really could do more. I'll start with the issue that was raised again by Liz Smith about the discrimination against those born in certain months of the year. I think that it's a serious issue. I think that it's one that has been argued very intelligently by Liz Smith, by Reform Scotland and others, too. Everybody in the chamber must agree that at age three and age four are critical times in any person's life—a time when you're absorbing information, a time when development is happening day by day, and a time of your life that must have an impact, probably for the rest of your life. So, somebody getting six terms of preschool education, all other things being equal, must have a greater prospect than somebody having five terms of preschool education, and again, somebody having five terms of preschool education must have a greater prospect than somebody having only four terms of preschool education. The difference between six terms and four terms at that age must have an impact. In just a moment, while there are probably a number of ways of dealing with it, I think that first of the Government should acknowledge it as an issue and let's try to work together to get something to do to resolve it, because it's been argued intelligently, and I think that it is a potentially major issue. I think that it's fueling my cloud. As the mother of a November child, I am acutely aware 24 years ago that the development of a child at that stage is hugely different between a two and a half-year-old and a three-year-old, so going to nursery at the age of three is when you get the most benefit out of your four terms and getting six terms would not give you the benefit that you're looking for. We might have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm convinced that somebody getting six terms of preschool education is not automatically, but on the balance of probability in a better position than somebody getting four terms. We'll just have to disagree on that point. On other educational points, it's important that more action is taken for colleges, because it's not just full-time courses that matter. Of course full-time courses matter, but part-time courses matter too. A number of members have very articulately pointed out the sheer number of people that rely on part-time courses. There is a huge constituency of our economy and our electorate that cannot do full-time courses. They have to rely on part-time courses as a way of improving their life, as a way of improving their prospects. It's quite wrong to only include four full-time places to the detriment of part-time places. Deputy Presiding Officer, we welcome the additional nursery hours. I think that all parts of the chamber do, but I just caution by saying this. It's really important that this is delivered by the Government, because when they came into power in 2007, they had the 600-hours pledge. It was in a document entitled First Steps. It was one of the first things they said they were going to do, but it took seven years for us to get to that position. While we welcome the announcement, it's critical that it actually happens on the ground. The other area that we wanted to touch on was the Government's response in terms of the economy. Once again, lip service has given a huge amount in the document talking about the economy, but when you turn to the pages looking for business, looking for the economy, it's pretty thin indeed. The small business bonus has been re-announced. Now we welcome this commitment. It was our policy too right at the very start. We work with the Government to make sure that it actually happened, but it's not a fresh initiative. There was very little fresh in there. The one thing that was actually a new announcement, and I'm glad that John Swinney is responding on behalf of the Government this, because the big idea announced yesterday said with a straight face was that we were going to bring in the Scottish Business Development Bank. When it was first announced in March of 2013, we welcomed the Scottish Business Development Bank. When it was re-announced in September 2013, we welcomed again the Scottish Business Development Bank. When it was scrapped in March of this year, we were saddened by the fact that it was scrapped, and we called the Government to task on it. When it was re-announced in August as part of the independence package and we were told that it could only happen if we were independent, we welcomed the announcement of it but obviously didn't want independence, so we were told that it couldn't happen. I welcome the Scottish Business Development Bank and say that I hope that it is fourth time lucky on behalf of our party. We hope that the Government delivers this time around. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer, thank you very much. I welcome the opportunity to close this afternoon's debate on behalf of the Labour Party. Can I start off with a consensual note? I congratulate the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon and also the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, on welcoming them to their positions and wishing them well. We heard much rhetoric yesterday from Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister. The key to whether that rhetoric will become a reality is whether the Government understands the situation that is happening on the ground in Scotland's communities. Therefore, if the Government understands it, it may then be able to bring forward the policies that are able to deliver change. Many members have noted this if they look at the education sector and the issues that we face with access, particularly as a result of the 140,000 college places that have been axed since 2007. There is a real challenge there on health. You only need to travel from Beir's Den to Shettleston, where, for every mile you travel, the life expectancy decreases by a year. Those show real issues that have to be tackled in the communities as you move towards Shettleston. On low pay, we have 400,000 people who are not on the living wage, including 64 per cent who are women. There are substantial issues that the Government has to deal with. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Will he join with me in urging councillors such as North Lanarkshire Council now to finally settle the many thousands of equal pay claims that so far they have totally resisted and spent a fortune in their lawyers' fees fighting against? In terms of tackling low pay, what we want to see is leadership from the SNP Government. The ranks of the SNP group have voted against the living wage five times in the process of this Parliament. You have shunned the opportunity to give a pair eyes to the 64 per cent of women who are on the living wage five times you have voted that down. Let me talk about the programme and welcome some aspects of the programme. First of all, let me acknowledge the Government bringing forward the human trafficking legislation, which Jenny Marra has done so much work to support. The fatal accident inquiry bill that was piloted was brought forward by Patricia Ferguson. I regret that we saw no sight in the statement of progress in terms of the lobbying legislation that Neil Findlay sponsored. I think that that is to the detriment of the Parliament if we do not have legislation like that that brings about more transparency. I want to welcome the statement from Nicola Sturgeon in terms of extending the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds. That has been welcomed across the broke board. On land reform, we heard from Clare Baker welcoming the legislation and we heard from Murdo Fraser expressing some concerns. Labour has been at the forefront of calling for the reinstigation of the land reform review group. We look forward next week to the publishing of the policy intent from that review group, including examination of the 62 proposals. I think that the objectives of land reform and extending the ownership of more land into communities is very much a worthwhile one. If the Government sets out its stall proper, I think that it is something that we can work together with them on. In relation to the council tax consultation review, I want to make a couple of points. I think that, first of all, in terms of the timescale, it is 10 weeks today since the referendum, so the Smith commission announced 10 weeks tomorrow that it is taking 10 weeks to get through that enormous amount of work and produce a substantial report today. You then wonder why is it in terms of the council tax consultation that has not been set up until early in the new year, and it is not going to report until next autumn—almost a full year from now. That strikes me that it is not just a case of kicking the issue into the long grass, but it is almost a case that it has been lobbed all the way into the woods. Surely you must be concerned about that, Mr MacDonald? Mark McDonald? The important thing with the commission is to ensure that it gets things right, and that is the important aspect of it. I wonder if Mr Kelly heard his colleague Gallagrowley welcoming the establishment of the commission. Will he commit to the Labour Party fully engaging with that commission? It seemed yesterday that the front bench of the Labour Party was equivocating on that. James Kelly? We welcome the opportunity to engage with the commission, and we also welcome the opportunity to look at the funding of local government. The reality is that, when the cuts have come down from Westminster, local government has been penalised. Thousands of local council workers have been piled on to the dough as a result of cuts passed down by this SNP Government. We welcome the opportunity to look at how local councils are funded, because currently they can only raise 20 per cent in their own local area. That therefore restricts their flexibility in mitigating the cuts and the pain that is handed down by this SNP Government. In terms of health, I very much welcome Jackie Baillie's suggestion that what we need is a review of the NHS. It is clear that, when you look at the NHS, the NHS is in crisis. We are failing to meet wait-and-time targets, including the A and E targets of four hours and the cancer wait-and-time targets. Only last night I got an email from a constituent who turned up at a hospital to have a cancer tumour removed, only to find that they could not take them because they were not enough beds. It does not fill me with any pleasure to have to tell the chamber that. That is a real regret. I am sure that everyone agrees with that. That is an example of the crisis situations that the NHS is facing. What is needed is a proper review of what is happening in the NHS, which then would allow us to move forward and make progress on the issues. In terms of the afternoon that we started, we had a contribution from Mr Neil. I was very disappointed. There was little on it on housing. In fact, he spent more time reading out all the new areas in his portfolio. He got so excited and carried away with that that he did not concentrate on the issues that matter to people. There is no doubt that housing is on crisis in Scotland. The statistics earlier on this week show that there is a 22 per cent reduction in social housing. That comes at a time when there are 155,000 people on housing waiting lists. Over 4,000 children will be homeless as we move towards Christmas. That is an absolute scandal in modern Scotland. That is also compounded by the fact that we see a growth in the private rented sector because people cannot get on to the housing ladder. Figures out this week show that private rents in Scotland are running at £537 a month and are rising faster than the rest of the UK, and yet we have heard no action from Nicola Sturgeon in terms of her statement in relation to how that would be tackled. The Labour Party proposed earlier in the year to cap rent increases and to extend tenancy, which would help tenants in the private rented sector. Again, that was voted down by the SNP benches. We now have a consultation that is running, but we have no sign yet of legislation, and the result of that is that the people that suffer are those who are living in these private rented accommodations and having to endure extortion that rent rises and sometimes living in squalid accommodation. That is unacceptable and it is time that the Government acted on it. On education, I note the points in the new bill in relation to an attainment advisor. I think that there are real problems around access and attainment. In the poorest districts of Glasgow, kids only have a one in ten chance of reaching university. I think that the opportunity to extend access is constrained by some of the education cuts at both Liz Smith and Ken Macintosh. The situation that Ken Macintosh has moved on since the start of yesterday's debate is that we now have the report of the Smith commission. That has been a promise made and a promise delivered. As Lord Smith himself said, this will make the Parliament more powerful, more accountable and more autonomous. I would urge the Scottish Government to try and be as radical and social justice as the Smith commission has been on more powers for the Scottish Parliament. The constitutional discussion is now over. We have a legislative programme in place. We have the Smith commission with more powers and the job of all of us is to take action to bridge the inequality gap, get greater access in education, avert the crisis in the NHS and tackle low pay in order that we can make progress to a better Scotland. It is time for this Government to step up and to go on with the job that the public are paying you to do. John Swinney, to wind up the debate, Mr Swinney, you have until 5 o'clock. Thank you, Mr Kelly and colleagues for their words about my appointment as the Deputy First Minister of Scotland. Members may have noticed that there was a bit of surprise on my face when it became apparent that, at about 4 o'clock, we were moving to the wind-up speeches. As the Parliament would expect of a finance minister, I began to make a calculation of how long I would have to speak. I did not quite think that it was going to be as long as the 17 minutes that lie ahead of me. However, I was passed a little note at the time by one of my friends in the Conservative party, Liz Smith, who said that my speaking time was as a result of the privilege of being Deputy First Minister. Achieving thought, thank you very much for that, Ms Smith. Liz Smith went on a note to say, but we will intervene several times. On a day when promises made by politicians are under great scrutiny, I do hope that that is a promise that the Conservatives will keep. Let me intervene straight away, Mr Swinney. Was your concern about taking extra time to speak because you did not really have terribly much to say about the Government's privilege? We will see. We will see if I managed to fill the time irrespective of Conservative interventions. We will just see how we got on with that. I was also a little bit perplexed by the comments of—we are not perplexed, I was delighted with what Roger Campbell said. He described 1964 as a significant year. I thought that he was about to say that it was the year in which the Deputy First Minister was born onto this earth, but no, it was actually the last time a succession bill was put to the Parliament affecting Scotland, so it was an interesting mix-up in the speech that he was making. Can I address a few points that colleagues have made as part of my opening remarks? Malcolm Chisholm raised a number of specific points that I would like to address. First of all, I want to assure Mr Chisholm, as I hope Mr Ewing assured the chamber on Tuesday, particularly in response to the questions from Alison Johnstone and a number of colleagues. The Government regrets very much what has happened at Palamas. It has not been for the lack of public sector investment in supporting the development of wave technology, far from it. Palamas has found themselves in a situation where they face difficulties with their sustainability. I give the chamber the commitment that Mr Ewing gave to Parliament on Tuesday that we will do everything that we can to establish wave energy Scotland to take forward and to ensure that the achievements that have been made by Palamas, of which there have been many in the years of their investment, are able to be sustained and to bring benefit to the wider renewable energy debate within Scotland. Mr Chisholm also asked about the progress on private rented tenancies. There is a consultation on reform of those tenancies and the Minister for Housing will bring forward legislation before the end of this parliamentary session to address those issues. Mr Chisholm also asked Patrick Harvie. I am grateful. The verbal commitment that I believe has been given is that the legislation would have time to pass during this session, not just that it would be introduced during this session. I will be speaking tonight at a public meeting with NUS and Shelter Scotland about this very issue. If I am asked, am I confident that the Government will introduce this legislation in time for it to pass during this session, what should I tell them? I think that Mr Harvie would be able to say that that would be his belief that the Government will do so, and that is what the Government will endeavour to do in the remainder of this parliamentary session. Mr Chisholm also asked about changes in the law in respect of stocking, and in the light of a recent court case the Government is considering possible changes to the law concerning the use of non-harrisment orders. Other colleagues have raised the issue around the question of Mr Finlay's bill on lobbying. The Government's position is set out at paragraph 226 of the programme for government document, which gives the commitment by the Government through Parliament's standing orders that we would initiate legislation before the end of the parliamentary session, but we want to await the outcome of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee inquiry into lobbying before we determine the best way forward. I think that, at a time when the Government is being prodded to ensure that we properly respect the deliberations of parliamentary committees, it is only reasonable that the Government fulfills that commitment in the way that I have expressed it. The final specific point that Mr Chisholm raised that I want to address is on community empowerment. Mr Chisholm gave us an example of one case in his constituency, the Grant and Improvement Society, if I picked him up correctly, which was a case about access to a public building. One of the issues that has become apparent to me is that we have prepared the community empowerment bill, which is a bill designed to remove barriers to communities, acquire public sector assets and be able to use those assets in a completely different way to secure better outcomes in communities. One of the obstacles might be the rules that I preside over in the Scottish Public Finance Manual, which require public assets to be disposed off at market value. We have now changed the public finance manual to make it more practical and tangible for public servants to be able to consider whether a better and more effective use of a public building may in fact be to come to an agreement with a local organisation, a community organisation, which could deliver different outcomes and better outcomes for people in a community rather than the public first getting market value for a particular facility. That has been a reform that we have undertaken to make it easier for community organisations to thrive. Let me now turn to the issue of health, which has been—of course. I thank the First Minister for giving way. The Scottish Government recently concluded its consultation on dogs and microchipping, and many of us in the chamber expected a dogs bill to come forward in the legislative programme, giving some of the horrific tax in my home city of Dundee and across this country. Did the Government consider a dogs bill in this programme, and can we expect one to come forward? The issues that arise out of a consultation in relation to those issues have to be considered properly and fully. That consideration has not come to a conclusion yet, but the Government will update Parliament on its thinking in due course. On the issues of health, let me make a couple of points on the issues that Mary Scanlon raised in the debate. Mary Scanlon made, as I would fully acknowledge, heartfelt comments in relation to the instances and the terrible situation around C.Diff in the Vale of Leven hospital. I followed the argument put forward by Mary Scanlon. Ms Scanlon suggested that the Government did not wake up to this issue until Lord McLean reported. I do not think that that is a in any way a fair characterisation of what the Government has done. When instances of C.Diff became apparent in the Vale of Leven hospital, the Government started a programme that, over time, has reduced the incidence of C.Diff by more than 75 per cent. Of course, the health secretary made clear to Parliament on Tuesday that the recommendations and the report of Lord McLean have given the Government substantive thinking to take forward to address some of those questions. Of course, we have made clear that the recommendation that Lord McLean made about the closure of wards if the inspector believes that to be justified is one that the Government has accepted and has taken forward. In the wider debate about the improvement in quality in our hospitals, the hospital standardised mortality rate has fallen by 16 per cent, which is a testament to the patient safety programmes that have been taken forward by the national health service. Ms Scanlon also made the point that there were issues about access to accident emergency services. Of course, the Government is trying to encourage only this week that the Government launched in concert with the national health service media campaigns to encourage members of the public during the winter period when accident emergency departments get busier than they are at other times in the year to think carefully about whether a visit to an accident emergency department is required or whether there could be other alternatives taken forward. To strengthen access to GP appointments, the Government has put in place new resources to support primary care sector and particular GP practices, and those resources will become apparent as we proceed through this and the next financial year. If I could now turn to a couple of issues on local government that have been raised, and first of all, I think that I am in danger of perhaps ruining Mr Rowley's reputation, but commend Alec Rowley on yet another thoughtful and substantive speech to Parliament. Mr Rowley has advanced the argument. I said to him in the parliamentary committee when I appeared in front of the local government committee yesterday that I couldn't share with him at that stage in the day the announcements that were going to be made on the review of local government finance, but I hoped that he and the committee would not be disappointed by what the First Minister announced yesterday afternoon. The purpose of the review of local government finance is designed to be inclusive. It is designed to—we have said that it will be taken—it is a recommendation first of the local government committee, and I think that Mr Stewart and his colleagues for the recommendation. We have decided to take it forward in collaboration with our local authority partners to ensure that COSLA are firmly involved in the establishment of the local authority review of finance, and they clearly have an immensely significant interest in all of that, and to make sure that there can be wide participation of all political parties in that process, and that will be the open and inclusive way in which the Government takes us forward. I will give way to Mr Cairn. I thank the Deputy First Minister for giving way. Can I just ask why, from now until the conclusion of the review, it is going to be nearly a year? Surely, if those issues are so important, I accept that they have got to be considered properly, but why does it have to take a year? If Mr Kelly goes back to looking, for example, at the Burt review, which must have taken place about 2005-2006, somewhere around about then, my recollection was that it was off perhaps even a longer timescale. I can assure Mr Kelly that I have spent a large part of my life looking at local government finance—perhaps too much of my life looking at local government finance—and that there are tremendously complex issues that have to be risked with. I listened to his point about the fact that the Smith commission had done its work in a matter of weeks. I do not think that there is a queue of people outside of Parliament recommending the timescale of the Smith commission as the most ideal consultative process to be undertaken, but, having said that, we need to give proper consideration to all those issues. I hope that members of all political parties will be willing to take part in the process. I thought that the most disgraceful comment of the afternoon was Mr Macintosh's characterisation of my approach to negotiation with local authorities. He used the word blackmail, which I thought was unworthy of him and unworthy of the negotiated settlements. I stress that the negotiated settlements that I have always managed to agree with the leadership of local government, and I am delighted that, once again, we have an agreed negotiated local authority settlement. It is, of course, in stark contrast to the settlements that were put in place by my predecessors, which I do not remember ever being negotiated, and they certainly never had much settlement about them as a consequence. Of course, Mr Macintosh. I do not think that Mr Swinney was asking council colleagues to swim with the fishes, but I think that he gave them two options. One, sign up, agree the council tax fees, and get a more generous deal, or do not sign up, and get a very less generous deal. I would say that that was a negotiated settlement in my book. Mr Rowley made a point that is very relevant to the local government debate, but it is also relevant to the health debate that I have just referred to, which is on the whole question of—if Mr Chisholm would allow me to develop this point, and then I will give way to him—was on the relationship between the public sector reform work that we are undertaking on health and social care integration and the tackling of the issues that we face around delayed discharges. The point that I made to the local government committee yesterday, which Mr Rowley would have heard, is that ensuring sensible, co-ordinated collaborative arrangements to meeting the needs of individuals in our society is utterly central to the resolution of the health and social care challenge that we face. I said yesterday, and my health secretary and my social justice secretary are both concentrating on ensuring that the Government works collaboratively with our health boards and our local authorities to work together to resolve those issues, but they will only be resolved in a spirit of partnership in the fashion that Mr Rowley characterised. I will give way to Mr Rowley. I will give way. It was just a thought that was triggered by his words, Negotiated Settlement. The Smith commission was a negotiated settlement. Why did he sign it yesterday and rubbish it today? I will come on to say a little bit more about if I have time, because I am running out of time. I better get on to the Smith commission now, since I do not want to disappoint anyone with what I say. I went into the Smith commission with explaining to the public that I accepted that the Smith commission would not deliver independence for Scotland. By my very act of going in the door, I compromised on the... Is Mr Finlay remotely interested in hearing this, or has he just come in here for the usual five o'clock pub brawl that he is involved in? I went into the Smith commission, recognising that the Smith commission would not be able to deliver Scottish independence, so we compromised to go in the room from the very beginning. What we tried to do was encourage a process of the Smith commission listening to the views of people outside of the Smith commission, and they did. Jackie Baillie is absolutely right. They did listen. They listened carefully and then ignored the Scottish trade union congress on the issue of devolving, equality legislation, or devolving the minimum wage, or devolving the ability to resolve many of the issues in our welfare system that SCVO asked for by devolving the welfare system. The Smith commission listened, but it did not take heed of the issues that were concerning many groups within our society. What I said this morning was absolutely crystal clear. I welcomed, as the First Minister welcomed at question time at lunchtime today, the additional powers. Why would that be a surprise to anybody? I voted for the Scotland Act in 1998 as a member of the House of Commons. It did not deliver independence, it delivered more power for Scotland. I voted for the LCM process that brought the Scotland Act in 2012 into being, because I believe that we should accept more powers into the Parliament. But do not insult the intelligence of groups around the country that want more powers by saying that somehow the Smith commission fulfills all of the ambitions of the people of Scotland, because clearly it did not do that in what it announced this morning. We participated in the Smith commission in good faith to secure the best outcome for the people of Scotland that we could. We have achieved as much as we could, but in the words of one of the contributors to the debate today, there is a process of constitutional debate that is being undertaken in Scotland today that affects the social and economic choices that we can make as a country. This Government wants to be able to take the boldest social and economic choices that we can, and we can only do that with the full powers of independence. That concludes the debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government 2014-15. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions. Members should be aware that a revised section A setting out a revision to today's business has been issued and copies are available at the back of the chamber. It includes two additional parliamentary bureau motions on commitment, mentorship and substitution on committees. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motions, numbers on 1689 and 1178 on committee membership and 11690 and 1179 on substitution on committees. Formally moved. The questions on these most have been put decision time to which we now come. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 11689, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On committee membership, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 11690, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On substitutions on committees, are we all agreed? Members should be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? The next question is at 7on 179 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on substitutions and committees be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.