 Rwy'n cael Maetor i Frederingsgw wrongfodd ond fel y hyn yn ei gweld fel gyfadd yst bugeiladau ac mae普通olaeth bod Paech Ddaddon yn cwr назывad heddiw y rhai ac elen ar gyferanting y gall callol ar gyferant dadaeth Roddy Llywyddasói Hello. Willie Coffey. Oposf500 gentle A Pl knife mate is no mancydgir iddo chi of her administration. Before turning to today's offering, let us briefly summarise how that relaunch has gone. Last year, 15 new bills were promised, yet of those bills just two have passed. One was the critically important historic pardons bill, which was overdue and enjoyed unanimous support across this chamber. The other was the somewhat more technical bill making changes to property tax, which had no amendments at stage 2, no amendments at stage 3 and was so uncontroversial that even Murdo Fraser was forced to declare, I have very little to say. Of the remainder of the bills promised in last year's programme for government, only three have progressed past stage 1. Seven bills in Parliament's entry haven't even had a deadline set for the completion of stage 1, and seven bills from last year's programme weren't even published until the end of the summer term. It was the proverbial essay crisis. In fact, this programme for government has a total of 13 bills that are a hangover from last year. That is the highest that it has ever been under the SNP, even at the end of the last Parliament or when major events such as the referendum crowded the public debate. Those are the facts on last year's programme. They had great ambitions but remarkably little legislation has happened, not so much a relaunch as a retread. What did we have in the past year instead of that fresh new agenda? We had a fracking ban that wasn't a fracking ban. We had a new teach-first system that excluded teach-first and a new state-owned energy company that so far hasn't produced any energy. We had a railway police merger backed by almost no one, which has now finally been shelved. A new named person scheme that doesn't work, a new economic plan that is so streamlined it has 23 separate strategies. Of course, there was one thing that the Government did manage to publish in the past year, and that was yet another new blueprint for independence courtesy of a growth commission report. All of those failures, all of them, were dwarfed by the real let-down from last year's programme for government, and that was the climb down on the education bill. This time last year, Nicola Sturgeon told us that the education bill would, and I quote, give head teachers significantly new powers, influence, responsibilities. We would formally establish them as leaders of learning and teaching. Our premise is a simple but powerful one, she said. The best people to make decisions about a child's education are the people who know them best, their teachers and parents. Just in case, just in case we are left in any doubt as to the significance of this bill, she said that a new education bill will deliver the biggest and most radical change to how our schools are run, that we have seen in the lifetime of devolution. She called it the centrepiece of our plan. Then what happened? A consultation was launched, and then in June, John Swinney shelved it. Then he said that he might think again. It is an unholy mess, and it is entirely of the SNP's making. At stake is the education of a generation of our children. When Nicola Sturgeon claimed that education was our top priority, we were pretty skeptical, but we said that we would work with the SNP if it meant the right thing for our schools. We are not even asking the SNP to bring forward proposals that they do not agree with. We are just asking them to bring forward the ones that they themselves argued for last year, that they said that they needed radical legislation in order to underpin. Come back to the Parliament the proposals that you drew up on raising attainment, on giving head teachers more powers, on measure they outlined to give parents more say in school improvement and school policies, because we have argued for such empowerment of teachers and parents for years. We have the votes to get them through this Parliament, votes that we will gladly cast to get a better deal for our pupils. I know that your time was protected, but I will gladly take up a question from the First Minister. I have just set out the fact that, by the end of this year, a new head teachers charter will deliver all those powers to head teachers. Can I be clear? Is Ruth Davidson asking that, instead of doing that by the end of this year, we bring forward legislation to delay it by 18 months to two years? Is that really her position? Isn't what's most important is that head teachers have the powers that they need? Ruth Davidson. I love the idea that the First Minister thinks that people of Scotland are mugs enough to believe when she stood here once ago and said, we need a radical bill for the most radical change to our schools to make it better, because under my watch they have gone down in terms of standards. Now she stands here and says that bill will get in the way. The people of Scotland are not mugs. You binned the bill because you couldn't get it through, you listened to vested interests, we're offering you the votes, bring back the bill and we will get the parts of it that we have supported for years past. But do not stand there, First Minister. Do not stand there and say that you care about the children of Scotland so much that you need a radical bill, ditch the bill and then say that the bill didn't matter in the first place. Don't you dare say that. We want to know why the Government thinks that they are right over the next thousand days, a thousand days less to the end of this election will come back to more backtracking and inaction. Because we've heard how much was promised last year but not delivered, forgive us for treating this year's programme for government with a gritter load of salt, because this government has shown that they are very, very good on promises and consultations but a little bit less energetic when it comes to delivery and action. As I turn to this year's bill, let me first say of all which do have our support so that we can get on with the job of scrutinising, improving and actually passing some legislation in this chamber. We welcome the Government's adoption of Fiddin's law to increase the available sentences to the worst forms of animal cruelty, including attacks on police dogs. I pay tribute to my colleague Liam Kerr who has worked tirelessly on this issue, who has mobilised the support of thousands of Scots and has welcomed Fiddin to Parliament before the summer recess. On the wider mental health programme, I know that the sector has voiced some concern over recent years with a mental health strategy that lacked ambition and then a suicide prevention plan, which was disappointingly late, so this is overdue and the Government has some catching up to do, but it will have our full support in ensuring that treatment and support is there for those who need it. We have all acted for constituents waiting too long for vital services. We have all seen a growing understanding in our communities and across society of the importance of mental health, and we now have a chance to give mental health the attention that it deserves. I believe that all parties will support this plan. Similarly, I expect broad support and pledge my parties for measures to combat female genital mutilation and domestic abuse. On welfare, we will engage positively and responsibly, as we did during the passage of the child poverty bill last term. On the economy, it was the Scottish Conservatives who first introduced the policy of a separate enterprise agency for the south of Scotland in our 2016 manifesto. We were pleased when the Scottish Government picked up the ball and ran with it, and we support the legislation that is announced today that underpins it. So, too, the focus on increasing exports, including the establishment of two new Scottish Government hubs inside the British embassies in Dublin and Berlin. On electric vehicles, the new fund is welcome, and it is necessary. Roughly 1 per cent of our vehicles are currently electric, and at the current rate Scotland would not be all electric for another 600 years. We know that the Scottish Government will be receiving £2 billion extra in funding through Barnett consequentials over the next four years, and we await to see a much fuller explanation of how that money is to be spent. In terms of further information, there are measures here that we either cannot support or where we need a much greater level of detail, and so do the Scottish public. Today's programme states that the Electoral Reform Bill will have a consultation on prisoner voting. We believe that those who commit crimes and are sentenced to incarceration do not just surrender their right to liberty but their voting rights, too, and we will stand against any attempts to change that. On EU national voting rights, we support the First Minister's commitment today, which mirrors the commitment set out by the UK Government in December of last year. On the investment bank, we welcome any measure to help small business and will scrutise the legislation in good faith. From what we have seen so far, there is nothing new or bold about rehash plans for an investment bank that broadly already exists in the form of the Scottish investment bank and that the SNP has essentially promised to do before. Last year's programme promised a £36 million growth fund. By the start of last summer, just £2 million had been distributed. The year before, the SNP promised a £500 million fund of loans and investment for businesses, but then it turned out that they were mostly rebadging existing funds. Last week, we found out that not a single penny had been given in loans. There is a pattern with SNP economic policy. Big promises turned into small change, and let's hope that it's not the same with this bank. As to today's red meet to the SNP activists, we on the side of the chamber do not believe that you answer the questions raised by leaving one union by threatening to leave another, worth more than four times more than Scotland in terms of trade and neither do the people of Scotland. What is striking about this overall package is that the SNP legislation seems to be finely tuned in terms of headlines but less honed when it comes to substance—a textbook example of knee jerk backside covering just in timeism. If we take the announcement on mental health, the First Minister has spent today loudly proclaiming, why has it taken until the day we see the worst ever waits on record for children to receive treatment before the Government acts? Or this morning's radio round-up from the First Minister, promising the country she'll invest more in hospitals, but why have we gotten to crisis point before action is contemplated? Why do we see today record numbers of NHS vacancies? Over 3,300 nursing and midwife postslaying empty almost six times the rate of seven years ago. And who was the health minister seven years ago who presided over a 20 per cent cut in nurses training places? Why was it the First Minister the same First Minister who stands here looking for applause for last-ditch attempts to fix problems of her own making? So what we have here is a batch of measures long on spin and short on substance. Let me speak directly to the opposition parties. It is clear with a minority Government that Parliament can act with greater power. There are issues on which even parties that come from the opposite end of the political spectrum can find common cause. Because much of this legislation is so vague an intent, we have a chance to make real changes. The planning bill, for example, I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly what the Government is really trying to achieve here. That's why it's so wide open to amend. It's why opposition parties have been able to make a real impact on the shape of the bill and why and where legislation has failed to keep up with technology, such as in short term lets, we are ready to work with all to get a fair deal for Scottish householders. Or take the safe staffing bill. Safe staffing is, of course, necessary, but it is also a legal nonsense if it is not backed up by policy. I think that the draft published shows how flimsy the thinking is. Opposition parties have the chance not just to improve but to radically alter that legislation. On those issues and others, let's work together to do just that. I can make clear that I will work with Greens and Liberal Democrats and Labour politicians who agree on an issue-by-issue basis to move things forward. Increasingly, we are running out of patience. Since the last election, it has taken the SNP up to 700 days to get a bill passed. We've now got less than 1,000 to the next election, meaning that given the tortuously slow pace, there isn't much time left. The record of past years is not much to look at, and the chances for this year seem little better. If the SNP isn't going to get a move on, then it is up to us to up the pace. While I might not be here in person for a wee while to push her agenda forward, the Scottish Conservative group will redouble efforts to campaign for change. For greater rights, for the families of victims caught up in the justice system, so they are no longer treated as an afterthoughts. We have warm hearts here, but we want a commitment to introducing Michelle's law in full, to use the extra investment that we know is coming to the NHS to support and maintain local services across Scotland, to make the case for real radical action on housing, to support more action on vocational and technical education for those young people who choose not to go to university, and above all, demanding the reality of the Scottish Government's new thinking on economic growth matches today's rhetoric. We know what the Scottish Government's own forecast says, that Scotland faces five years of subdued growth, the longest period since the Second World War. We believe that Scotland should be the most attractive place in the UK to live, work and do business. We have the resources, the people, the industry, everything but the weather. However, this Government has tarnished that ambition with its anti-business agenda. A Scottish growth rate that is lower than the UK every calendar year since 2010 is not something for this Government to trumpet, it is something for it to remedy. So come the budget time, we will campaign against the high-tax agenda of this SNP administration, we will call for its confused and cluttered economic strategy to be redrawn, and we will argue for a renewed focus on our world-class capability in oil and gas, in food and drink, sustainable energy, life sciences and financial services. There is a good news story to tell about the Scottish economy and we intend to make it. So in conclusion, Presiding Officer, the start of a new term is not the time to be overly cynical, but given the sclerosis of this Government's record, it is wise to be skeptical when we see the SNP bearing legislative gifts today, gifts promised, which all too often in the past get lost in the post. This year, the Scottish Conservatives will continue with the job that we were elected to carry out, to hold the SNP Government to account, to oppose vigorously where they go wrong, and to offer constructive opposition where we believe progress can be made. We wish, old and new Government ministers well as they approached their task this year, but they should know that time is not their friend. The Parliament is at its midpoint, there is much still to do and too much time has already been squandered. The country cannot afford for this SNP Government to be distracted, either by noises off nor an unwanted rush to get more constitutional division. Presiding Officer, it is a time for action and deeds. It is a time to stop chasing headlines and to get on with delivery. Richard Leonard is open for the Labour Party. Can I thank the First Minister for an advance copy of her statement? Presiding Officer, it is the job of my party to ask difficult questions of the First Minister and to hold the Government to account. The Parliament and the people who sent us here can rest assured that we will do that, week in and week out. However, let me at the very start of this new parliamentary term strike a genuine note of unity, because I want to begin by expressing the full support of the Scottish Labour Party to the First Minister, full support in the fulfilment of her Government's duty to thoroughly investigate and act upon all allegations of sexual harassment that arise. Let me equally say genuinely to the First Minister that she also has our total backing in ensuring that the Scottish Government fulfills its duty of care to the women involved in all such cases and in providing them with all of the support that they need when they need it. You have our full backing and on that I hope I speak for every member here. Can I also record that we do indeed welcome today's announcement on mental health? It is something which the Labour Party has long campaigned for and the publication just this morning of the latest figures on child and adolescent mental health serve as a timely reminder of how potentially important this announcement this afternoon is. This year alone over 2,500 young people have waited more than 18 weeks for treatment. The review of CAMHS published in June after years of pressure exposed the system simply not fit for purpose. With young people being rejected from treatment because they were not deemed suicidal, the system needs to change and I hope that today is the first step towards doing that. I am bound to say that I also welcome a toughening of the rules around regional selective assistance awards but we look to the day when the living wage is a requirement for all companies bidding for all public procurement contracts too not just those receiving grants. Presiding Officer the First Minister has raised it so let me say clearly these benches oppose a second independence referendum and we urge the First Minister to drop any plans for it once and for all. Brexit throws into sharp relief the challenges of leaving one political and economic union and let us be clear on this as well. Leaving the United Kingdom would mean an unprecedented decade of austerity for the people of Scotland. Not my analysis, Presiding Officer, but the analysis of the SNP's own cuts commission published in May including the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy and in the end the real division we face is not between the people of the four nations of the United Kingdom it is between the rich few and the rest of us that's the divide the First Minister should be focused on not dividing the people of Scotland with another referendum there are some elements from today's programme which are missing in education there is no mention of scrapping primary one standardised assessments there is no mention either of the need to deliver a fair pay deal for Scotland's teachers or to raise the upper limit on the number of home based students entering higher education in health there is no mention of the compelling case for imposing a cap on spiralling agency costs in the national health service the First Minister talks of wealth and wellbeing but is silent on the distribution of wealth and wellbeing the government knows that the inequality gap is getting wider it knows because its own report published last year showed that the richest 1% in Scotland now own more personal wealth than the whole of the poorest 50% put together and the government must know this does not just result in a huge imbalance of wealth it results in a huge imbalance of power and whilst the First Minister and the Scottish Government may choose a vocabulary of radicalism and ambition in reality they have emptied both of their real meaning and worse it is a vocabulary which has been appropriated not for the sake of meaningfully changing the lives of the people of Scotland but for the sake of the political management and the positioning of the Scottish national party 11 years into the SNP office where is the vitality where is the driving force where is the real radical vision in this programme for government over those 11 years in office the SNP's ambition has simply not kept up with the growth in this parliament's powers for our part Labour will welcome the use of those powers and will always push for a more radical agenda so whilst we welcome the commitment to the best start grant before Christmas we will continue to campaign for an upgrading of child benefit for all of the years whilst our children are growing up Presiding officer over the summer recess I have been visiting communities and speaking to people across Scotland I listened to the asylum seekers in Glasgow facing eviction and deportation and met with a resilient community which is standing by them I talked to tenants and residents in alloa struggling with rising rents witnessing a housing crisis demanding new investment to bring about real change I knocked on the doors of elderly people in Asia who told me of their GP services cut backs in spring of this year these were elderly people in the village of Tarbolton in the constituency of the new cabinet secretary for health I met with business owners and trade unions all seeking certainty and firm economic planning and looking looking for a Scottish Government which does not just promise a national investment bank in the future but one which delivers a national industrial strategy now just last week I listened to the fishing industry in Shetland who are concerned this government does not have a plan if we crash out of the European Union next spring I talked to the food 365 workers in Coatbridge where practical welfare action by the local Labour council is making a real difference to the lives of bright kids who just want a chance in life I listened to the communities I listened to the communities who have taken over the land where they live and work from the Mull of Galloway to West Harris and I have met with workers up and down the country who have had enough of their living standards falling year after year young workers exploited exploited in the hospitality industry and workers of all ages getting organised getting unionised because they know the time has come to fight back we are seeing a reinvention of citizenship a new political engagement a democratic renewal but it is not based on national identity but on the universal values of solidarity of equality and a hunger for real and radical change. Presiding Officer in this next parliamentary year we will mark and celebrate the 20th anniversary of the first elections to this parliament it was an event which awakened hope we now want to reawaken that hope once again by showing that we can take a different path one which really is radical and ambitious one which really will bring about real change a pathway which the people of Scotland deserve. Thank you very much and I call Patrick Harvie to open for the green party. Thank you Presiding Officer I thank the government for the advance copy of the statement this year's programme for government takes place in perhaps the most difficult context of any since devolution the brexit crisis continues to play out still with no hint of realism coming from the negotiations and the UK government continuing to treat this parliament with contempt now this mess of course is not of Scotland's making but in the face of it both the Scottish government and parliament have a responsibility not only to defend Scotland's interests against the multiple threats of brexit but also to ensure that the crisis does not prevent an ambitious programme of policy and legislation to address the needs of the people we represent to give some credit where it's due I want to pick out a few positives from the statement electoral reform might not be the biggest headline grabber but I want to flag that up because the commitment to see EU citizens right to vote protected and what's not explicit in the programme but has been made clear in previous statements in parliament and I hope it remains the position the commitment that residents will be the test of voting right not citizenship so non-EU citizens including refugees and asylum seekers should have the right to vote and I picked this out as I say not because it's the biggest headline grabber but because it is strongly consistent with the government that says it wants to take a positive make a positive case for immigration and free movement that is a principle that the Greens very strongly share and I was pleased to hear it I was also pleased to see progress on the young carers grant something the greens pushed for in the 2016 election and since and positive comments as well on the UN convention on the rights of the child but we will look closely at the detail of what's proposed on that will the convention itself be incorporated and become part of domestic law the government is also clearly more open than it has been in the past to commitments to the work that needs done to make sure that we have a public rail operator and a public energy company but we will want to see more detail and a clear commitment to the timing on both of those measures over recent years. The Greens have worked hard to do what we said we would in the last election pushing the government beyond its comfort zone leading the change that Scotland needs and from community rail funding to protecting local services from safeguarding the marine environment to winning the case for a new fairer system of income tax our approach has got results but it's clear that there remain parts of the programme for government where we'll need to step up that pressure for change. The First Minister is committing to increasing capital investment year on year I remind her that in the budget concession from last year they've already committed to increasing the proportion of Scotland's capital spending that goes to low carbon projects so I hope that that remains a consistent principle that won't be deflected by the wider increase in their capital budget. The Scottish household survey just out today shows that 61 per cent of adults in 2017 said that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem that's up since the previous year significantly and it's clear that the Government wants to be seen to move in this direction. It's still the case though in Scottish politics that we're not dealing with the denial of the problem but we do need to recognise that the scale of what's being proposed bears no relationship to the scale of the challenge. There is a missed opportunity to commit to a net zero greenhouse gas target but rather than just the debate over that technical question precisely which target to set it's equally important to focus on the questions of how what will we be doing to transform for example our transport system and again today we have statistics just published by the government bus use down by nine and a half per cent cycling down by seven per cent car use is up and two thirds of those journeys are single occupancy. Installing more electric charging points will do nothing to change that and the increase in aviation of course remains entirely fossil fuel powered. The everlasting growth that that industry seeks would leave our other efforts on climate change looking futile and it's not just transport. The wider transition to a post oil age requires an acceptance that most of the world's fossil fuels must remain unburned and Scotland must play its part in that too. There's an overwhelming case for divestment from fossil fuels and instead building an economy which can provide lasting jobs for the future in industries that don't depend on exploiting finite resources. I'm sad to say it remains entirely unclear that the Scottish Government understands the scale of that task. There are some positive measures like the deposit return scheme, banning cotton buds that are made of plastic, fine, all well and good on their own terms but measures like that are firmly based on placing the responsibility on individuals not on transforming the wider economic context within which we all live. The Government's focus on support for business for example as the First Minister made clear some commitments on that today. They remain wedded to the idea of increasing GDP and increasing exports but no word in that section of a speech on ethics, on ensuring that that public taxpayer funding support to the private sector is tied to commitments on the living wage or commitments on ending tax avoidance, on divestment from the arms trade and the fossil fuel industries which the Scottish Government just as the UK Government continues to support. When the SNP took office in its first term of government there were parts of the national performance framework which clearly suggested the beginnings of an understanding that GDP growth alone is the wrong basis for judging the health of our economy. That agenda appears to have stalled. We'll continue to make the case for a change. The First Minister also asks us to welcome the idea of a headteachers charter because she wants to do some of what was going to be in her bill without actually bringing it to Parliament to seek support. The headteachers charter, she says, will put them in control of decisions but will they also have the funds necessary to reverse previous years of decline in teachers and other staff or will headteachers be left in fact in the luch? Made personally responsible for evermore but without the resources and the backup staff that they need to ensure that their schools can achieve what our society needs of them. The Government must accept that in our education system resources, not structural reforms, that should be the priority. There's a number of other issues, Presiding Officer, where the Greens are keen to call on the Government to work with us. My colleague John Finnie's bill on equal protection, the Government has already indicated an intention to support. I hope that that will also be true of Mark Ruskell's work on 20-mile-an-hour speed limits and Alison Johnson's work on the need for a real ban on fox hunting. It's on local government where we have our work cut out to push the Government beyond its comfort zone. The First Minister and the programme for government speak of a strong commitment, a strong partnership between central and local government. If that is the case, there is no reason in the world that we should not be supporting COSLA's call for the power to decide for themselves on issues such as a transient visitor levy, a tourism tax, to raise the revenue that local government needs. There's a huge agenda and a huge opportunity to ensure that we have strong local government, which is normal in so many other European countries, with the financial powers available to them to make sure that they can raise revenue fairly instead of hiking fees and charges or making cuts to valuable services. I don't have time, I'm afraid. There's a bill coming on non-domestic rates—another opportunity to decentralise financial powers. We'll make clear, as we have done since the last budget process, that we'll only be able to begin to discuss the next budget if the Government makes meaningful progress on the reform of local taxation and local fiscal powers. An area that we'll continue to push further for, because we know that, right across Scotland, those powers and those resources are urgently needed. Of course, there are sections of the programme that we can all support, and we and those benches will work constructively to deliver them. I welcome in particular the commitment on the incorporation of the principles of the UN convention on the rights of the child. When I received an advanced copy of the programme, I thought that that couldn't possibly be at all. I must have been missing volume too. It was so light in its content. A particular highlight for me in the contribution from the First Minister was when she said that she was going to liaise this year to consult next year to deliver who knows when. That typified this whole programme for government is so light on substance. I suppose that every Government runs its natural course. Based on this programme, this Government's sell-by-date is well passed. After 11 years in power, this Government is showing all the signs of being at the end, searching around for new ideas. The old ideas are being found out. The performance of public services is on the slide. The ministerial team has changed, but it is still the same old policies. In fact, the former minister for recycling has himself been recycled, but it is the whole Government that needs to be upcycled, repurposed into something fit for the future. Because this Government arrived at St Andrew's house with a single purpose of leaving the United Kingdom, there has been a special air of desperation since that referendum. Since then, they have struggled to discover any real purpose for their remaining time in office, and this programme for government tells us all that we need to know. The First Minister grasped at first on to education. It was her overriding priority, her first objective, but it has only come up with a series of damaging managerial changes, and there is nothing positive or new in this programme for government either. Then there was mental health. The First Minister has told me for three years—I stood on election platforms with her—for three successive elections, and she told me that she really cared about mental health. That this was a priority. Take today's figures, the worst waits for young people. Just 67.8 per cent of children met the 18-week waiting time target. That is down from 71 per cent and from the previous year down from 81 per cent. It is even worse in some parts of the country—Forth Valley, Grampain and the Borders. All of them failed to achieve just 50 per cent—50 per cent—way below the national average, and then they come to Tayside. Tayside is disgraceful—34 per cent meeting the target. How disgraceful is that? No new announcement today. Three years after the First Minister told me that it was her priority can cover up for the failure of this Government on mental health. There is not even one single recognition in her statement today of these terrible waiting times for young people—not even one mention, not even one note of contrition for the failure of this Government. Then, of course, we have Brexit. Brexit is mentioned, of course, but the only real commitment is to consider what to do when the proposals come out. How bold and ambitious is that the First Minister cannot even bring herself to back the one policy that could save us from its damaging effects—the people's vote. With unusual and curious modesty, she says that it is not for the SNP Government to lead the United Kingdom. What happened to the First Minister of 2015, who took the UK general election by storm, wowing the rest of the United Kingdom with her plans to change the whole of the United Kingdom? The hunt for the new purpose goes on. Step forward, Keith Brown, the new deputy leader. He told that oracle of integrity the national. A fresh case for independence is more vital than ever, and that is what we are working on in the national assemblies. The fresh new idea turns out to be the same old idea. It is the same Keith Brown who sold the dodgy Chinese deal to the First Minister. He sold so many bad ideas to the First Minister. Maybe it is not a surprise that he has been told to sell the new case for independence to members of the SNP. As independence first, last and always with the SNP, nothing else matters. Let me put forward in contrast some positive new plans. Instead of the damaging national testing in schools, let us empower teachers to shed the burden of tests and explore how best to utilise their skills and training. Most countries in the world would not dream of starting their young people in formal education at four or five years old. Six or seven is the norm. With global best practice, let us embrace that new approach. Instead of damaging long waits for people who require mental health treatment, let us adopt a new mental health improvement act. It would give parity of esteem between physical and mental health. It would be backed up with a requirement for all public bodies to have a duty to provide mental wellbeing support across the range of their services. It would accelerate improvements to mental health services. Instead of hunting for ways to leave the United Kingdom, let us offer up a new United Kingdom co-operation act that would agree a new dispute resolution procedures with the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Instead of demanding a veto, it would offer the hand of friendship and co-operation to resolve disputes over issues. Let us put down the offer of co-operation with the UK Government so that we can rebuild that relationship that our two Governments have worked so hard to undermine in recent years. We have seen the Westminster Constitution Select Committee endorse the idea of a more modern framework. It sounds like federalism to me. It is the right to ask the Scottish Government to be part of the growing calls for a modernised United Kingdom. Instead of dithering over the people's vote, let us pledge our support for the United Kingdom legislation necessary to agree such a vote. The First Minister should get out of her bunker and lead the charge on the campaign. With the weight of the Government behind her, it would give the campaign further momentum. Her current dithering is undermining the case for the people's vote. Nicola Sturgeon needs to sign up today. Liberal Democrats want a local government funding act that would look at a new land value tax and a tourism infrastructure charge. It would be the necessary reforms that are required to empower local councils to deliver the services that they are responsible for. Just like Holyrood, local councils should have the power to raise the majority of the money that they spend. That would empower them in a way that has been prevented in recent years. If they control the purse strings, they can control their destiny on the areas of responsibility. Those are the fresh new ideas that the Government should have brought forward in the programme, but all is not lost. There is still time to change. The Government should stand up on education, on local government finance, on Brexit, on reforming the United Kingdom and on mental health. Use the power, for goodness sake, use the power of this Parliament for the wellbeing of this country. Thank you very much, Mr Rennie. We turn now to the open part of the debate, and I am going to call Alasdair Allan to be followed by Adam Tomkins. If I may reflect briefly, this is the first time in over seven years that I have had the chance to address the chamber from the back benches. Now, as anyone who has had the privilege of being a minister will realise, that job in many ways restricts the opportunities to speak in Parliament very often. While there may be disappointment ahead for anyone hoping that any new sense of freedom on my part means that I intend to go quite so far as to embrace my inner Kenneth Gibson, I look forward to a chance to address a wider variety of issues. Today, the First Minister has laid out an ambitious vision for Scotland in this year's programme for government. I want to say something on it from the perspective of Scotland's island communities, some of which I represent. In recent years, we have seen the appointment of an islands minister, the islands deal, the islands bill and legislation on areas as diverse as the reform of the crown estate and the island proofing of wider policies. Those have been very welcome measures, and certain issues will always feature at the top of the island's political agenda. The success of RET ferry fares and the doubling of the ferries budget since the SNP came to office has meant that there is now an ever-increasing demand for ferry services from both islanders and tourists. Housing remains a complex problem in the islands, though happily the recent offer from the Scottish Government of some £25 million for affordable houses in the western aisles holds out the prospect of the largest house building programme there in half a century. Meanwhile, the multiple uncertainties of Brexit hold their own obvious risks for both crofting and fishing communities. Perhaps most urgently of all, we need to remind the rest of Scotland that there are good jobs regularly advertised in the islands, that this is an outstanding place to live and that new people are needed. The First Minister's very welcome announcements about rural broadband link many of those distinctive issues together for Scotland's island communities. In mentioning that, I hope that even the most atrophied Opposition heart will be able to acknowledge how far things have come. Only four years ago, my constituency had no superfast broadband at all, and what is more, there was no prospect whatsoever of that being supplied commercially. Today, after millions of pounds of investment by the Scottish Government, some 75 per cent of homes and businesses in the western aisles now have access to superfast broadband. Before someone intervenes in that, I am very conscious that this is of course no comfort at all to the other 25 per cent of islanders who have not yet benefited in this way. I can think of many communities and individuals who are in regular touch with me about this frustrating issue, and I will not try your patience, Presiding Officer, by naming them. However, I can think of people in Uigh, in Lewis, in many parts of South East and on the west side of North East, as well as on the west coast of Harris, among many others who are keen to see where they now fit into the roll-out plan. That is why the commitment from the First Minister to 100 per cent coverage by 2021 and to a new contract within the coming year for further work is very encouraging. We should all now work together to ensure the success of the R100 contract and to maximise the active involvement of communities and planning ahead to ensure that all islanders, indeed people across Scotland, enjoy the kind of connectivity that most Scots increasingly now take for granted. Presiding Officer, it has been said before that the roll-out of broadband today in our own times in rural Scotland and particularly in Highlands and Islands can prove to be as transformative as the roll-out of telephone lines were in that part of Scotland in the 1940s and 1950s. There is a new imperative—an imperative, I think, that we should think about. That is that we are quickly coming to the point where families are as likely to move to a place without broadband as they would have been in past times to move to a place without telephones. I believe, in conclusion, that the programme for government is a commitment to a Scotland where all communities are included, not least our island communities, where all communities benefit economically and where distinctive and differing needs are respected. I welcome the priority that the Government has given to ensuring that island broadband plays its role in doing all those things for ensuring that our island communities are part of Scotland's economic success in the future. I commend the programme for government as a way to achieve it. The summer recess is, of course, an opportunity for us to spend some quality time in the constituencies or regions that we represent. Naturally, I spent mine in Glasgow. From all of the meetings and conversations that I had over the summer, two messages stand out. First, that, under the SNP, Scotland's economy is struggling and that the nationalists are out of ideas and, indeed, even lack the commitment to drive economic growth in the first place. Secondly, that voters are sick and tired of their politicians using Brexit for their own short-term political ends. Indeed, rather than getting on with the job of negotiating the best possible deal in the interests of the country, both of those themes are wearily familiar, aren't they, in what we heard from the First Minister this afternoon? She couldn't even mention Brexit without banging the drum yet again for independence. However, I want to start with the economy, and I'm going to make no apology for focusing those remarks on Glasgow, just as Alasdair Allan focused many of his remarks on the area of Scotland that he represents here. Stewardship of the economy is one of the primary responsibilities of government, of any level of government. We all know that, under the SNP, Glasgow's economy is struggling. Business start-up rates, business survival rates, the female employment rate and levels of economic activity all compare poorly when contrasted with cities in the north of England such as Manchester. It's a gloomy picture, not least on the once iconic Sockeill Street, one of the most important commercial streets anywhere in Scotland, one of Glasgow's major retail arteries, and it is no exaggeration, Presiding Officer, to say that it is dying, dying on the SNP's watch. Hit by two major fires earlier this year, the SNP stood idly by, even as businesses went under and even as residents were locked out of their properties for weeks on end. The SNP's chronic mismanagement of Glasgow's city deal is only making matters worse. The First Minister made great play in her statement this afternoon of the importance of infrastructure investment, but in Glasgow, infrastructure investment that was supposed to boost economic growth is having exactly the opposite effect as Sockeill Street is turned into a building site, shoppers and consumers given every reason to stay away and no reason to return. Some businesses on that street are reporting takings this summer at one-third of the level that they enjoyed 12 months ago. When Glasgow thrives, Scotland thrives. Glasgow is Scotland's economic powerhouse, and Sockeill Street is a major driver of Glasgow's economy not only in retail, but in food and leisure and, of course, in the night-time economy, too. So what engagement has the SNP had with businesses in and around Sockeill Street to ensure that city deal infrastructure investment is being directed appropriately? Ask just this question in the House of Commons in July. The SNP leader of Glasgow City Council, Susan Aitken, said, and I quote, that we don't yet have in the Glasgow region a clear interaction with the business community. Doesn't that just sum it up, Presiding Officer? The nationalist leader of Scotland's biggest city, a city that 18,000 businesses call home, proudly boasting that her SNP administration has no clear interaction with the business community. No programme for government can hope to grow the Scottish economy while the nationalist leader of Scotland's major city turns her back on business. Perhaps Mr Doris would like to apologise for his leader's remarks. I apologise to any voter that has got to listen to you, Mr Tomkins, because you are completely ill informed that the Glasgow region deal is worth putting on record, Mr Tomkins, that the projects in the deal were signed not by Councillor Susan Aitken but by a previous Labour administration. However, the biggest problem that our committee found in our city region deal inquiry was that the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council are trying to form inclusive growth projects to bring all of society together with the city region deal, something specifically rejected by the UK Government. Adam Tomkins? I'm not quite sure what the question was, but I certainly didn't hear an apology for the abject refusal of the SNP leadership in the city that both Mr Doris and I represent for refusing to engage at all with the business community. I want to turn to Brexit. This time last year, we stood with the SNP in insisting that Brexit must be delivered compatibly with our devolution settlement. We agreed with the SNP that the withdrawal bill, as it was then before the House of Commons, failed to do this in needed amendment, and in time, of course, that amendment came, although the Scottish Government stood alone among the Administrations of the United Kingdom in refusing to accept this. Twelve months on, we are still on the benches of the view that Brexit must be delivered compatibly with devolution, but the SNP, I see, has now changed its mind about this. Respecting the devolution settlement means respecting that which is devolved and respecting that which is reserved, and among the matters reserved to Westminster is international trade. Yet, far from respecting this aspect of the devolution settlement, Scottish ministers propose to ignore it entirely. All new proposed trade deals should be subject to not one but five separate Scottish Government vetoes, according to the SNP. A veto at preparation stage, another if the negotiating mandate changes, a third at negotiation stage, another at ratification and a final veto when the trade agreement is signed. Five vetoes for Scottish ministers on a reserved matter. That is not respecting the devolution settlement. It is taking a wrecking ball to the Scotland Act. It is a naked nationalist power grab, and it will be robustly opposed. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Gillian Martin. Starting back after recess is always a useful point in time to take stock on the year just gone, indeed comparing last year's programme for government and looking at what was actually passed by this Parliament. This time last year the spin was ferocious, bold and ambitious was the mantra splashed across the headlines, and the contrast is telling because this year feels much more like damage control, whether it is testing primary 1 pupils, the British Transport Police, the tourist tax or John Swinney's flagship education bill. This summer has been punctuated by U-turns, knock-backs to council leaders and convoluted explanations for government climb downs. The summer headlines should not have been a surprise, because last year's programme for government was meant to be bold but has been defined by what it ditched rather than what it delivered. This government needs to return to clarity and purpose. For too much of the last year, it was a case of carry-on regardless, resulting in halts and U-turns. However, there was, of course, one U-turn, which I very much welcome over the summer, and that was on the British Transport Police. Again, I would like to repeat my commendation to the new cabinet secretary for listening. His predecessors in transages in the face of experts, staff, officers and academics—not to say opposition politicians and unions—was in a sense impressive. However, it was misguided and damaging. The dogmatic pursuit of full integration left him in a difficult position, especially as Police Scotland has now stated at the most recent SPA board meeting that such an objective of full integration would not be possible for years. That is a direct quote from those board papers. We need to find a way forward for the devolution of transport policing. The cabinet secretary needs to follow up his announcement with clarity that full integration is off the table. It is only by seeking dialogue and consensus and listening to officers, unions and exports that the minister will receive our backing for his plans. However, he also needs to end the uncertainty that the refusal to reject full integration remains for staff and the people who use the service. However, I would like to turn to some of the details that are set out in the programme for government. I very much welcome the announcement for a focus on victims, whether it is giving evidence or other the impacts of pursuing issues through the criminal justice system. All too often, our justice system re-traumatises victims. I think that addressing those issues is important. Likewise, I welcome the announcement that the Government will be bringing forward a biometric data bill that follows up the very useful and instructive work carried out by John Scott QC. Likewise, on the disclosure bill and defamation bill, I think that it has been very clear in the last year and the evidence that the Justice Committee has taken and elsewhere that there is a need for reform. We will look at the details of those proposals and we will make constructive engagements and seek to make sure that those bills deliver on the promise that they set out. However, there is, of course, business to be carried over from last year. There is the bill from last year that sought to look at parole, electronic tagging and disclosure, the management of offenders' bill. It is fair to say that there has been disappointment in the bill and its lack of ambition. You can see that lack of ambition no more clearly than the fact that the First Minister had to re-announce the fact that the Government would be looking at the transparency around parole. That could have been addressed in the management of offenders' bill. It is already looking at the parole board. Likewise, the First Minister announced that there will be an examination of remand. Again, that could have been covered for the bill if it was not for the careless language and the very title of that bill. That title is something that has caused issues. The word term offender was something that the Scottish Government had stated that it was no longer going to use. That is because that word stigmatises those who are going through the criminal justice system, stigma that can undermine the attempts to break criminal behaviours and the chaotic lifestyles that lead to them. When we look at the management of offenders' bill, I think that we see what this Government needs to improve. It must seek greater clarity and greater sense of purpose if it is going to improve its assessment this time next year. I also like to mention hate crime. We welcome the mention in the First Minister's statement that there will be a new bill on hate crime. I urge the Scottish Government to come forward with further detail, both in terms of the timing and scope of what it seeks to achieve with this. Lord Bracadale's recommendations, which were published last year, are an excellent example of the clarity and purpose that I have spoken of in my speech. Discrimination is appalling in all its forms, and hate crime continues to have long lasting, hurtful and damaging effects for many people in Scotland. I understand that the new cabinet secretary wants to make this one of his top priorities, so we will closely scrutinise what has brought forward in the bill and look forward to seeing the detail. Where it takes on the recommendations of Lord Bracadale's review, we will support it. I would like to close by saying something on consensus and to make those comments across this place. The cabinet secretary will have done as I have over the summer and spoken to experts and people working in the fields of criminal justice across Scotland. One thread and one topic conversation has come up time and time again, and that is the determination to preserve the political and social consensus of this Parliament when it comes to the criminal justice system that we have enjoyed in recent years. That consensus states that crime should fall, that violent crime can be prevented, that reconvictions are falling, but that imprisonment and short sentences in particular are not always the most effective way of reducing crime because of the impact that it has and the fact that it can lead to re-offending. I would just gently say this across the chamber that there seems to be a change in mood, that some parties seem to be wanting to break that consensus for party political gains. My party will hold this Government to account. We will tell you when we disagree, we will offer new ideas and we will criticise plans when they are not coherent or are not properly got through. We need a justice system that works and that can only be done on the basis of consensus. Before I call Gillian Martin, can I say, we are really pushed for time and if all requested speakers for today are to make the full contributions, we will have to be very, very strict and tight. Gillian Martin followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Test of any Government's programme is the investment that puts into infrastructure. Real, tangible and visible building work is a result of which the economy can be stimulated, services can be improved, communities can thrive and everyday lives can be made better. Infrastructure spend continues to be the backbone of successive programmes for Government from this Government. Last Wednesday I welcomed the Deputy First Minister to Inverury in my constituency where he was able to see how one of the latest projects in the Scottish schools for the future programme is coming along. The Inverury community campus will provide state-of-the-art educational environment for the pupils of Inverury academy and St Andrew's school. It will bring secondary school pupils together with pupils with additional support needs in a campus that is purpose-built for all their educational, social and pastoral needs. In the two years that I have been in MSP for Aberdeenshire East, I have seen the completion of three new school buildings—my former secondary school Elin academy, market health primary in Tarrif and Ulyside school in Inverury. By 2020, it will be four. In my constituency, broadband has been a major ask. Although this area is reserved to Westminster, the decision by the Scottish Government to intervene has been necessary to ensure that vast swathes of rural Scotland are not left behind. Without the intervention of the Scottish Government, most of my constituency would never have access to superfast broadband. Before the Scottish Government commitment, the percentage of premises that is connected to fibre broadband in Aberdeenshire through commercial deployment, as predicted in 2012, was just a quarter. Now, after this Government's intervention today, it stands at over 91 per cent, and by 2021, we will have 100 per cent access. With the new contract, it won't just be the most remote to get access last. Investment in transport infrastructure is crucial to the economic growth of any country, and in decades before an SNP Government, my area of the North East has been badly served in that respect by successive Governments. A bypass that would connect the north and south of Aberdeenshire and keep traffic out of Aberdeen city is mooted in the late 1950s. You would have thought that the importance of the oil and gas industry to the Scottish and UK economy would have made infrastructure spend like this in the north-east a priority of Thatcher's Government, but it did not. In a post-devolution situation, we all expected heaven and earth to be moved to make it a reality, but it took this SNP Government to take hold of the project and deliver it. All my colleagues will know that the late Brian Adam MSP was instrumental in campaigning for it to happen. The difference that the AWPR will make to my constituents will be enormous. It will genuinely change our everyday lives. There will be less congestion, safer journeys and quicker commutes. Communities around Aberdeen will be vastly better connected to the city and to the rest of Scotland, and the economic impact will be substantial. The transport infrastructure spend does not end there. The first stage of the dualling of the rail track between Aberdeen and Inverrory is complete, with the dice Aberdeen stretch now open, and I gave it a test on my way down to Parliament. Next year, we will see a new station at Contour and a doubling of service between Inverrory and Aberdeen after the investment in a new line. A new railway line, two new schools, and the building of the country's largest health centre, 100 per cent broadband coverage during the A96 could in Inverrory be an even more attractive place to live. New opportunities for infrastructure investment are opened with the Government's announcement of the Scottish National Investment Bank. Along with my north-east colleagues, I will continue to make the economic, environmental and social case for new rail lines to areas that currently do not have a rail option. In my specific case, a line from dice to Ellen is something that I feel would be a real benefit and my constituents agree. Of course, being in a very rural constituency, we recognise that cars are always going to be necessary for a great many of us who live away from public transport routes. It is vital that we provide the infrastructure needed for the use of electric vehicles to be a realistic option. The announcement of the 1,500 new electric vehicle charging points certainly makes my personal goal of a jump from hybrid vehicle to fully electric in the next few years a real possibility. However, I cannot sit down without mentioning the announcement that has made me hapes today. At the end of May, in discussion with our back benchers, the Government was asking for ideas on what could be in the programme for government, and we asked for financial assistance in an area very close to many of our hearts. That was more spend on early intervention for mental health for young people at school level. I am delighted to hear that the First Minister has taken our views on board and committed this Government to putting councillors in every secondary school. I think that this is one of the most significant educational and health developments of this Government. On behalf of the many parents, teachers and teenagers who have spoken to me about this, I want to say thank you for listening to their views. Realisable ambition and concrete delivery on manifesto commitments and has the flexibility to adapt new policy. This Government is ambitious for Scotland and it is one that is tackling the many challenges that we face and listens to the country. Year on year, this Government is delivering for the whole of Scotland. I see that in my area every day. I see it in bricks and mortar. I see it in new broadband cabinets, in road crews, in cranes lifting bridge supports into place, in newly laid rail track and in every journey I take around my constituency of Aberdeenshire East. The programme for government debate is always both exciting and interesting. It is also one of those debates that many people look forward to. There is anticipation and the expectation of the SNP Government continuing to deliver for the people of Scotland. The fact that the Opposition parties today have yet again moaned and grown with the little semblance of any gratitude towards the Scottish Government tells the tale of Opposition parties that are bereft of ideas and vision for this country. Instead of moaning and groaning, they should be thanking the Scottish Government for the many achievements and the record of delivery that it has consistently delivered. They should be thanking the Scottish Government for the major infrastructure projects— Can we quiet him down now, please? Not yourself, Mr McMillan. You carry on. Thank you very much. They should be thanking the Scottish Government for the major infrastructure projects that it has delivered and is delivering such as the completion of the M8, the building of the Queensford crossing, the building of the AWPR and also the work that started on the drilling of the A9 to name just four examples. Now you can listen a bit more. These are projects that previous Scottish executives and the Scottish office before this Parliament did not deliver because of the lack of foresight, vision and desire of the politicians in charge over those decades. They should be thanking the Scottish Government for its record of building over 72,000 affordable homes, including most recently at Bay Street and Sleamyear Avenue in Port Glasgow in my constituency. They should be thanking the Scottish Government for keeping commercial shipbuilding alive in the lower Clyde with its continued support and awarding of contracts to Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow. They should be thanking the Scottish Government for investment in the attainment challenge this year of £120 million with £9.3 million going directly to schools in Inverclyde over the past three years, and not forgetting the additional investment in the schools for future programme, including paying for half of the newly built Sympasic's primary school in Greenock in my constituency. They should be thanking the Scottish Government for the continued investment of over £13 billion into NHS as well as the £7.3 million invested in the new Orchardview hospital, which is the Inverclyde adult and older persons continuing care hospital. That would yet another long drawn-out saga to replace the not fit-for-purpose Ravenscraig hospital. There are many more examples, but time does, unfortunately, prevent me from continuing on those in that particular line. However, on the issue of mental health, the announcement today of additional finance and resources to help with the early intervention in our schools and colleges is something that I am sure every member of this Parliament should be welcoming. Investing in additional school nursing to create around 350 councils in school education across the nation, as well as ensuring that every secondary school has counselling services that is something to be welcomed and supported. Investing in additional 250 school nurses across the country will help to provide the response to mild and moderate emotional and mental health difficulties that are experienced by young people. Investing in 80 additional counsellors in further and higher education over the next four years will also greatly help our young people as they progress through their educational journey. Expanding the range of perinatal support available to women will be greatly beneficial to society. Almost 20 per cent of women will experience mental health during their pregnancy. For that, that is yet another example of doing the right thing. There have been many concerns raised about the delivery of child and adolescent mental health services. I am sure that the proposals in the programme for government will assist many people across the country. In addition to the extra counsellors, parents will have a much clearer understanding of the kind of help that is available to them and where and how they can access it. Children and young people will have a much wider range of help available to them, schools will be better supported to deal with well-being concerns and will also be able to direct children to counselling services. Developing services for community and mental wellbeing for five to 24-year-olds and their parents to provide direct and immediate access to counselling sessions. The new support and investment will have a hugely beneficial effect on the mental health of our young people. I think that it is fitting that this announcement is made in this year of young people. It shows the commitment once again that the Scottish Government has for the future generations of our nation. I also want to touch on one other area now, which concerns the vision and the direction that the Scottish Government has in comparison to the rudderless and chaotic nonsense that is coming from Whitehall. When Jackson Carlaw stands up to try to lay the blame of his own party's total incompetence and then has the brass neck to try to blame the SNP and get us to try to support his party. Which party is it that wants us to support? Which faction of it? Jackson Carlaw has probably just now won the annual Herald brass neck of the year award when that comes out later on in the year. The Tory civil war that has been taking place for months now is proof of the old phrase that we say in Inverclyde, never trust a Tory. There is Theresa May's checkers plan, which was slammed just as the last person was leaving the building. She has got one side of her party scrambling to cobble together some semblance of an narrative on the EU. She has got the other side who actually want to eat the UK to actually go back to the Victorian era, with delusions that Britain is still a world power. This is in contrast to the united and growing SNP, which has now overtaken the Tories to become the second largest party in the UK. This programme for government is much to be welcomed. It builds on the social and business focus that the SNP Scottish Government has delivered. From the additional £2 million to tackle holiday hunger among children and the carers allowance supplemented to the first months that I spoke earlier, there is much to be welcomed. I commend the programme for government to the chamber. I call Jamie Greene to be followed by Joan McAlpine. I should remind Mr McNeillan that the Edinburgh festival has finished, and that comedy speech would have been up for a great award. The First Minister did a 40-minute speech, and it only took her two minutes and 20 seconds to say her favourite word. Guess what it is—independence—the driver of every policy, every strategy and every programme that admits from her government, and she knows it. Now, to be fair, there are some good ideas in here. There are some welcome ideas, and we and these benches have been happy to support some of those. Let's look at legislation that we've passed that we've worked on together. The sexual offences pardon's bill, the island's bill, the social security bill, meaningful pieces of legislation. We've worked in the past and will work with this Government on sensible legislation and on tackling important things such as FGM, family law, domestic abuse and consumer protection. We will approach those with that same constructive attitude. The First Minister said in the Holyrood magazine last week that we must keep focused on moving forward with our domestic agenda. Warm words, First Minister, but words and actions are two very different things. This year's programme for government will have the highest number of bills carried forward from previous years. Over the past two years, a raft of bills have simply failed to materialise. In 2016, the air passenger duty bill makes another cameo appearance in this year's commitment, but there's no commitment to see it through. We don't know when or how it will be delivered. What about last year's programme for government? We moved it through only two pieces of legislation out of 15. Where is criminal responsibility, warm homes or tissue donation? The management of offenders. Important pieces of legislation that are still stuck in the machinations of this Parliament. What about the flagship education bill, lying in tatters, shelved and criticised not just politically but by the sector itself? We saw the entire machinery of Parliament halted for nearly a month while MSPs were forced to debate, scrutinise and pass legislation that wasn't even within the competence of this Parliament. It's no huge surprise that there is a backlog of legislation that we are supposed to get through in the next two years. This programme for government will be like every other from the First Minister. Full of jargon, action plans with no action, working groups, strategies and even the announcement of a new public body, a host of new bills that are left to collect dust on the tables of civil servants. Key pledges ignored, announced and then ignored again, like tackling drug driving, like Derek Mackay's £36 million digital growth fund, which has seen just £2 million allocated to it. What about the £500 million growth fund, which has seen only 5 per cent of that sum invested? The Scottish Government's another flagship project, R100, was supposed to be completed by 2021, which is now the end of 2021. Today, we learned that contracts might be awarded sometime in the next year, leaving so little time to reach Scotland's hardest to reach properties. Every year, the Government produces glossy 100-page programmes, but it is the everyday issues that matter to people. Just yesterday, I got an email from a constituent and soul quotes. She queued for 45 minutes outside her GP surgery in the Rhine, trying to get an appointment. That is not a one-off, Presiding Officer. That is systemic, long-term mismanagement of our NHS workforce planning. It is a shambles and it is shameful, Presiding Officer. The unfortunate reality is that no matter what the Government says today, no matter what the First Minister promises, the reality will not change. This Government will still be letting people down in Scotland today, tomorrow and the days that follow. People will still be being told that they need to wait 17 months to see a specialist consultant. Why? Because there are record vacancies for them. Those farmers will still be offered loans instead of the funding that is due to them. Why? Because of a botched IT project, which is still not working. Commuters will still be left stranded because their ferry is cancelled. Why? Because there are no ferry vessels available and the new ones will learn a year late. There will still be young Scots being denied a place at the Scottish University of their choice. Why? Because fee-paying students are preferred and pursued by universities. People will still hear the engaged tone at the end of the line, trying to even get an appointment to see their GP. Why is that? Have a guess. Where in today's jargon-filled promises of working groups and strategies is there any hint or any clue as to how the Government is going to address these fundamental issues? The problem is that we have heard it all before. There was mention of an infrastructure project, the A9, the Queensford crossing and even the M8, the AWPR. However, those are already policies that we knew about. There is nothing new in here. No ideas, nothing radical. How on earth does the Scottish Government think that if it wishes to eliminate diesel and petrol cars, it is going to do so by just introducing 1,500 charging points to meet the needs of 6 million people? Is that really going to generate the modal shift that we need? Presiding Officer, the big elephant in the room that I want to touch on today is this. The First Minister announced £7 billion of additional spend. If I stood up in this chamber and announced billions of pounds of spend, the first thing that would be asked of me is how are you going to pay for it. Is it more taxes, is it more borrowing or is it spending cuts elsewhere? Which is it? I think that the public have a right to know. It is not coming from economic growth because the only EU country with GDP growth slower than Scotland is Greece. The finance secretary should stand up tomorrow and enlighten us. Is this the First Minister? No, Mr Greene is just closing. Is this the First Minister that puts the interests of Scotland first or the interests of her party? Judge her by her record, she says. I couldn't agree more. I call Joan McAlpine to be followed by Colin Smyth. I want to congratulate the First Minister on this programme for government, not only for the 12 bills that outlines and the new commitments that it contains, but because it builds on last year's ambitious programme for government, one of the most radical anywhere in the world. What a contrast with that other government in Westminster, which has been so consumed by Brexit bickering, that it often appears to have abandoned the business of domestic governance entirely? As Paul Johnson, director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, observed yesterday, quote, south of the border, the whole political class is fixated on dealing with the fallout from the Brexit referendum is taking up all available attention. This programme for government, by contrast, shows the Scottish Government as a vision for the future where the UK Government's vision often appears to stop at Dover. Of the 191 divisions held in the commons in the year following the 2017 Queen's speech, 80 to 42 per cent were on the EU withdrawal bill alone. We witnessed a tale of two Governments, the UK Government, crippled by internal division, and Scotland's Government getting on with the job of improving the lives of our citizens. Just some examples from the last year include £120 million for the pupil equity fund, becoming the first country in the world to implement minimum pricing for alcohol, a comprehensive plan to eradicate child poverty, the £1 billion deal with councils to double early learning and childcare, the world-leading domestic abuse bill, a plan for the national investment bank backed by £2 billion, a historic social security bill with dignity and respect at its heart, and connecting 900,000 homes to fibre broadband, which Alistair Allan eloquently illustrated the transformative effect of Scottish Government policies on his constituency in his illustration of how broadband had changed the lives of people just in the past five years. The Scottish Government has been busy. That was the last year alone, and this year's programme keeps up the pace. I particularly welcome the focus in the 2018-19 programme for government on mental health generally and the provision for children and young people in particular. The focus on prevention and early intervention is absolutely correct, and the £60 million for 350 school councillors and 250 additional school nurses is particularly welcome, and so too is the announcement of 80 councillors across further and higher education. On top of that, the 5 to 25 community wellbeing service means that every young person will have access to the counselling and advice that they need wherever they live. The programme's other major focus is the economy and a commitment to invest in our infrastructure, an area in which, as the First Minister pointed out, the UK lags behind the G7. The pledged increase to capital investment by £1.5 billion by 2526 is exactly the sort of transformational approach that is so absent in Westminster, which let us not forget still holds the majority of fiscal powers over Scotland and its economy. Sadly, of course, measures like this are another example of the Scottish Government being forced to clean up Westminster's mess. We know that a no-deal Brexit will wipe £12.7 billion a year from Scotland's economy by 2030 and cost each man, woman and child £2,300 a year. That research comes not just from the Scottish Government but also reflects the UK Government's own figures, as well as independent analysis. Investment in infrastructure is a single most effective way to tackle recession, and Mr Swinney used it very effectively during the last recession after the banking collapse in 2008. With a Brexit recession looming, investment in infrastructure is an essential intervention. Tearing us out of this single market and the customs union against our will means that more than ever we need to support Scotland's businesses in their exporting ambitions, and this programme, with its export growth plan, sees £20 million invested in a range of measures, including support for the 150 businesses to increase overseas activities. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Scottish Government's paper on trade, which was published at the end of last week. It emphasises the urgent need for the Scottish Government and this Parliament to obtain an enhanced role in the development of future trade policies. We must be able to influence the preparation, negotiation, agreement, ratification and implementation of future trade deals if we are to protect our devolved public services, ensure the highest standards of environmental and consumer protection in Scotland, and help our export businesses. Finally, I want to welcome the news that the first of our new social security payments in Scotland will begin this month, earlier than planned, and that the first best start grants for low-income mothers and babies will be paid before Christmas. In some ways, this is the greatest contrast in this tale of two Governments. Theresa May, the Prime Minister, who is assuming office, promised to help those who were just about managing, has consistently cut in work benefits. In April this year, her Government cut £2.5 billion from 11 million families across the UK as a result of the cash freeze on working-age benefits, the two-child limit, the roll-out of universal credit and the cuts that include family support. While it is true that the UK Government has been bogged down by Brexit, it has not allowed itself to be distracted from its absolute priority, which often seems to be punishing the poor. This programme for government is both aspirational and compassionate. It will deliver for all the people of Scotland, and I commend it to this chamber. The First Minister is open to today's debate describing the programme of government as building on the progress of last year. There is no doubt that this was a case of more of the same. More cuts to our vital public services, more excuses for not using the full powers of this Parliament to implement real change. No more so is the timidness of this Government clearer than in the measures for Scotland's broken transport system. We have a railway system where fares are rising above wages, where passengers stand on a platform not knowing if their train will even stop, where new trains are already running late before they have even been built. We have a bus network slowly being dismantled by the SNP route by route, where passenger numbers continue to fall, but bus fares rise and rise and rise by 47 per cent over the past 10 years. The programme of government document published today pledges stability for bus services. On the very day that the Scottish Government's own transport figures were published, it showed a 9.5 per cent decline in bus passengers in the past five years alone. It is not stability that we need on our buses, but it is real change to reverse the decline under this Government. That will not be delivered by the timid transport bill before Parliament. That bill fails to recognise that public transport has become detached from public service and public ownership. It reinforces a broken system where profits, not passengers, are put first. It proposes a franchising model cut and pasted from the UK Tory Government that will not allow the public sector to bid for those franchises. Whenever I challenge the Scottish Government to back public ownership of a railways, it refuses. The serious support of a public sector— Mr Yousaf, could you please stop shouting across the corridor, carry on please, Mr Smith? Whenever I challenge the Scottish Government, including Mr Yousaf, to back public ownership of a railways, it refuses to back that plan. The serious support is a public sector bid for the ScotRail franchise. In fact, the First Minister repeated that pledge today in her statement. It is not full public ownership, but it is a start. Why is it that the First Minister and the Scottish Government and the programme of government say that public sector bids for franchises are good enough for a railways, but they are not good enough for our buses? Why are the SNP so determined to let their big bus company owning donors cherry-pick the profitable bus services to run, but they leave local councils to pick up the bill for loss-making services—the bill that they simply cannot afford? I will indeed, yes. Stuart Stevenson I wonder if Mr Smith would mark the report card for publicly-owned network rail. It is about how you manage things rather than who owns things that perhaps makes the difference, because I do not think that many would give iMarch to a network rail. Colin Smyth There is another statement from an SNP politician who is again refusing to back full public ownership. We should bring a rail and attract together under public ownership, not keep them apart. Here in Edinburgh, we have the successful Lothian buses model, the best bus operator in Scotland, where the levels of satisfaction are the highest in the industry and where the publicly-owned company recently returned £5.5 million to the public bus. Why in the same city do we have a government city that will not allow that successful model to happen anywhere else in Scotland? It is often said that the SNP pretend to be left but act right, but when it comes to transport, this programme of government shows that it does not even pretend. When the Scottish Government brings forward the transport bill, Labour will set out our alternative of wheel change. We will put forward amendments to that bill to deliver radical re-regulation of our buses and proper municipal ownership, where the public sector can run services and not be banned from doing so. Our amendments will also mean that, when changes in bus routes are proposed by bus companies, it will require proper consultation with passengers and agreement by transport agencies. Our re-regulation proposals will also put a stop to rip-off fares ending the postcode lottery that exists, in particular when it comes to concessory travel for young people and driving forward multi-operator tickets. Imagine the boost in bus passenger numbers if free bus travel was extended to, for example, young people starting with modern apprenticeships. Labour's amendments will also hope the race to the bottom in the way staff are treated by proposing measures to work towards a collective bargaining model that drives up not down workers' terms and conditions on our buses. The Government will then be left with a very clear choice to work with Labour to end the dismantling of lifeline bus routes or drive through their timid transport bill with the help of the Tories and continue to preside over not stability on our bus network, but its continued decline. It is not just in a transport system that I hope the Government will work with Labour to strengthen proposals in the timid programme of government in areas that I shadow. As someone who has campaigned for 10 years for more support for the south of Scotland economy, I welcomed the long overdue legislation to establish the south of Scotland enterprise agency, ironically, a decade after the Scottish Government abolished local enterprise agencies in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. That legislation must ensure that the membership of the agency is rooted in the south of Scotland with powers to deliver real change both in enterprise and skills and with a budget to deliver that change. It must be backed with investment and a Borderlands growth deal in this year's budget. First Minister also pledged in her statement to eradicate holiday hunger, but the sad reality is that children across Scotland go to bed hungry at night all year round. Disappointingly, I see no mention in the programme of government to a Good Food Nations Bill and a commitment to introduce a legally binding right to food. Finally, I want to touch briefly on the issue of animal welfare. The proposal to create an animal welfare commission is a helpful step. Action to strengthen licensing and regulation of animal sanctuaries and breeding is long overdue. The adoption of fin law is welcome, but I hope that that will be backed with an increase in maximum sentences to five years for animal cruelty as campaigned for by animal welfare charities such as battered dogs home. However, where is the commitment to a proper ban on hunting? Where is the pledge to end live animal exports? As Richard Leonard said earlier, where is the real radical vision in this programme for government? It was more of the same and that is a real missed opportunity. Thank you very much. I start by very much welcoming the First Minister's programme for Government, which was presented here this afternoon. I pick up some areas of particular interest to myself. I start by recommending the Scottish Government infrastructure strategy with regard to housing. Let's place that in some context. There are 76,500 affordable homes built by this Government since 2007. Over 52,700 of those are council or housing association homes. The current target is, of course, 50,000 within the lifetime of this Parliament, 35,000 minimum for social rent. That has been a step change with a huge and critically multi-year budgeted financial commitment by the Scottish Government, around £1.7 billion over a three-year period. It is in that context that I welcome the commitment by the Scottish Government to increase the annual infrastructure budget by 1 per cent of GDP by 2025. That could mean an additional £1.5 billion each year by then, but an extra £7 billion over the period running up until 2025. I know, Presiding Officer, that there were many calls for that expenditure. I think that Alice Allan gave a powerful reason to better connect his constituency in relation to broadband infrastructure, but I think that it is important to maintain the strong high-level and multi-year budgets for housing. The significant confidence that that is given to the current affordable housing budgets and the multi-year budgets has given the local authority in Glasgow where I represent constituents and to the housing associations in my constituency. I can see the difference in how they carry themselves and how they act, with work about to commensure. Already undertaking work commenced in Hamilton hill, in my constituency, in Milton, in Ruck Hill, in Coda, in Somerston, in Postal Park, in Springburn, in Germiston, and there are probably others who have missed out. There is a huge infrastructure development in the communities that I represent. My call, of course, is that we find a way of maintaining that momentum because of the level of need that is out there, but it is very welcome that action has been taken and the new infrastructure investment is a real opportunity to go even further in the good work that has been done. That would be something that I would ask the Government to consider. In relation to mental health, I think that it is fair to say that that has been a challenging brief for the Scottish Government. I therefore very much welcome the announcements around 350 school councillors and 250 school nurses so that every school can have a proper robust school counselling facility and 80 additional councillors for further and higher education. I also welcome the task force on children and young people's mental health report, not published yet of course by Dr Denise Coyer who is chairing that out in the autumn, but the First Minister has decided to take action before the full report is out, and that is to be welcome as well. It is not just the counselling service, of course, but also the Scottish Government announcement of the development of a community mental wellbeing service for five to 24-year-olds, among a variety of other things. However, I would like to set that investment beside the £750 million attainment challenge over the lifetime of this Parliament, and in this year alone the £120 million pupil equity fund to be spent tackling the poverty-related attainment gap. There is clearly a correlation between the mental health and wellbeing and the nurturing of our young people and their educational attainment. There is clearly a direct link there. It is also in that context that I mentioned that I work very closely with Home Start Glasgow North West in my constituency who focuses more on pre-fives. I document the Scottish Government's work on pre-fives, whether it is the baby box, whether it is the recent announcement about additional mental health support for new mums, whether it is family nurse partnerships, whether it is the significant step change in childcare, whether it is the early roll-out of the best start grant. There are lots of good news stories to tell, but there is a feeling that the five plus age group is getting that key attainment support. I know that our Government is about early intervention, and we always have an early intervention. I mentioned some of those things. I know that Home Start is thinking about how the pupil equity fund can be used imaginatively to support pre-fives before they even get into primary. Once you have set beside the superb progress that we are going to make in mental health and secondary schools, when you look at the PEF monies in primary and secondary schools and you look at some of the other early intervention stuff that has been done, there is perhaps a real opportunity to think about widening outpeff to pre-schools, not in nurseries necessarily, but organisations such as Home Start themselves who could carry forward some key initiatives in that area. The time that I have left, Presiding Officer, I want to welcome the family law bill. In fact, the previous minister, Annabelle Ewing, in relation to this who I raised concerns in relation to family contact centres, which are unregulated. There is no particular quality control in relation to the performance, the service that they provide, mums and dads. I have to say some do superb jobs, but my experience is some just simply do not. Their recommendations hold powerful sway over sheriffs and courts, and I think that it is an area that the Government has to look at as part of the family law bill. I congratulate our new minister, Ash Denham, to her new role in that area. I know that it is an area that she has a high degree of knowledge and interest in, and I look forward to working in partnership in relation to that, but I do think that progress has to be made. Just three things that I have picked out from an exciting programme for government where I think that we can deliver for Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Mike Russell, who will be the last speaker in the debate today. Maurice Golden. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to declare an interest with respect to my work in the waste sector. Tackling climate change is rightly embedded at the heart of the decision-making processes that influences all areas of policy. We welcome the Scottish Government's ambition, but we are concerned at the lack of progress in a number of key areas. My comments today should be taken in that light as constructive criticism to help build a sustainable future. That sustainable future is at risk from this SNP Government's lack of action. On waste, the only thing that the SNP are on track to do is miss their own household recycling target. Why are they content to let Wales lead the UK on such an important issue? Their environmental transport policy is in disarray. Just 1 per cent of journeys are made by bike, far short of their target of 1 in 10. In fact, the reverse has occurred, with almost 1 in 10 cyclists switching to cars. Their attempts at speeding up electric car adoption have also hit the brakes. The flagship loan scheme has been seen fewer than 100 applications per year since its inception. I welcome the additional investment in this area, but it must be transformational. With targets missed and everything from woodland creation to air pollution to peatland restoration, the SNP's environmental record looks increasingly poor. Of course, we must be ambitious if we are to realise Scotland's full potential, but all too often we see this SNP Government cynically setting targets with no real idea how to meet them. For example, the SNP goal to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicles, there is no clear delivery path, their uptake incentive is stuttering and motorists and businesses will be under unnecessary pressure to adopt. What about the SNP's 2021 ban on sending food waste to landfill? Their proposed scenario is ridiculous. With seemingly no idea what to do with food waste once the ban kicks in, they are now saying that if they cannot bury it, they will burn it. In a written response, the environmental secretary confirmed to me last week a far cry from last year when she said that Scotland was pushing ahead against historic approaches with innovative and creative solutions. It is overseeing a 600 per cent increase in incineration capacity, the sort of innovative and creative solution that the environmental secretary had in mind. Well, here is a better solution. Create an infrastructure map utilising the bioresource mapping that I initiated over two years ago to derive maximum value from all our bio waste via solutions that are actually innovative. For example, converting vegetable waste to a high value component in paint manufacturing and utilising anaerobic digestion as a backstop processing option. The more the SNP's environmental strategy is scrutinised, the more it falls apart. The circular economy investment fund and £18 million funding pot has given out less than £400,000 so far. If it is not used by December next year, match funding will be lost. I say all of this, not to Hector but to say that where the SNP Government falls short, we stand ready to help drive Scotland towards a sustainable future. Be under no illusion, Parliament can act without them. In last year's programme for government, we heard about the SNP's commitment to energy efficiency, but just eight months later, the warm words had evaporated. It was then down to us, the Scottish Conservatives, not the SNP, to lead Parliament in bringing forward the energy efficiency target by 10 years. There is potential to see Parliament act as one, embedding the circular economy across government departments, committing significant infrastructure funding to energy efficiency, finding alternatives to incineration, establishing urban transportation hubs, providing every school with air monitors and more. The opportunities are there, we just need to seize it. Before I close, I must turn to the subject of animal welfare. I welcome the intent to establish an animal welfare commission and look forward to seeing the detail around this. After leading the campaign to ban electric shock callers, I believe that we need to ensure that the guidance is transferred to an actual ban. I hope that the animal welfare commission will review this at its earliest opportunity. There is support in this Parliament for taking action, on strengthening animal welfare and on delivering for the environment. I urge the SNP not to ignore that support but to harness it. Michael Russell is the last speaker in this debate today. As the First Minister said in opening her statement, the context of this debate is Brexit, but, as she said, the programme will be impacted by Brexit, but it will not be defined by it. Nonetheless, Brexit is already a drag on our economy. It is already causing great uncertainty, it is already damaging our international reputation. In terms of this programme, it will also be a challenge to the legislative programme of this Parliament. We do not know precisely how many Westminster Brexit-related bills will be brought to us. We are only presently discovering how much secondary legislation they will be. It is perhaps sobering to think that that secondary legislation, required in case of a no-deal outcome, regrettably, I will say more about next week, but the cut-off date for the SSIs that are considered during this period will actually be 25 January, less than five months from today. We will all have to work hard in order to pass and take forward that burden of secondary legislation, but I shouldn't blind us to the politics of the situation, and the politics of the situation are very clear. It was noticeable that Ruth Davidson did not mention Brexit in what she said. It was virtually a throwaway line, because the fault for the situation, even though they laugh about it, the fault for the situation is the Tories. Brexit is now almost exclusively a Tory project. In essence, it is a Tory leadership content, which we are the observers of. Brexit does not have majority support, according to the polls, in any party, but the Tory party. Brexit is only favoured only by a majority in the south of England and the Midlands. In Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London and even the north of England, there is now a majority against Brexit. The Scottish Tories should recognise that, but such is their slavish devotion to their Westminster party. They have abandoned every principle, every position that they took on Brexit just two years ago. Perhaps that explains why the Tories spend so much time trying to force the SNP to give up on their principles. They have abandoned all of theirs, but the reality of the Tory position is that this is a fight within the Tory party that is damaging the Scotland and the rest of the UK. More than two years on from the European Union referendum, with only six months to go until the day that the UK Government attends to leave the EU, the terms of withdrawal, the future relationship are unknown. That is the Tories' fault. As each day passes, more and more evidence demonstrates that leaving the EU will have a profound and damaging effect on our economic prosperity, that is the Tory fault. The best thing that we can do is to be absolutely clear about that and what would serve our interests. First of all, we remain clear that Scotland's interests, the interests of the Government delivering this programme, the interests of the people of Scotland would be best served by continued membership of the EU in line with the overwhelming wishes of the people of Scotland. We are also pragmatists. In December 2016, we were the first administration in the UK to set out in Scotland's place in Europe a detailed policy blueprint that would minimise the damage of withdrawal. We set out how, short of remaining in the EU, continued membership of the single market and the customs union is the best solution for Scotland and the UK as a whole. We are determined to maintain a Scotland that is fair, prosperous, open and tolerant. However, we will go on insisting that Scotland is treated properly in this process. During this recess, the UK Government's no-deal technical notices presented an extraordinary picture of what Brexit could mean in practice for businesses and the people of Scotland. We have a duty to prepare for all possible scenarios, but we cannot disguise the outcomes of some of them. The process of Brexit also has profound implications and threats for this Parliament. We have already seen those threats in recent events. The UK Government proceeded with the withdrawal act, despite this Parliament refusing legislative consent. The act gave ministers the power to change the powers of this Parliament without our consent. During the passage of the withdrawal act, we saw that this Parliament was against that happening and still it happened. In July, the Supreme Court in the UK Government mounted an argument that would have extended the reservation of international relations, so the threats are clear and obvious. Centralisation in Whitehall and Westminster, extending readings of reservations, claims based on the widest reading of international responsibilities and, of course, the so-called defence of the so-called UK single market. We will protect this Parliament and the devolution settlement that the people of Scotland voted for in 1997 from such threats. There is a need, however, to continue to change devolution. We will be surprised if I say that the best way forward would be independence, but there is a need to strengthen the current arrangements for the conduct of inter-governmental relations across the UK. Indeed, that has been recognised by the joint ministerial committee and the UK Government, though they are doing precious little about it. Let me help them along a bit. The experience of Brexit has shown that there are strong arguments for extending the devolution settlement, not limiting it. In areas of acute concern for Scotland, including immigration, protection of employment and other rights, the development of future UK trade arrangements, there is a need for change. We will argue for it in this year and in future years. Much has changed since 1974, and that has not been recognised by the Conservatives. We set out a comprehensive assessment of the constitutional implications of withdrawal in Scotland's place in Europe. We made proposals, for example, the granting of legal personality to allow us to secure international arrangements. There is now an urgent need to return to a serious consideration of the constitutional implications of Brexit, the powers that this Parliament needs to protect in advance, the interests of the people of Scotland, whatever our eventual constitutional position. The programme for government is, indeed, impacted by Brexit but not defined by it, but the work of this Parliament over the next year will undoubtedly feel the effect of the Tory's Brexit, the Tory's internal dispute, which is damaging all of us. Thank you very much. The debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government 2018-2019 will continue tomorrow. I remind members that, if they have spoken in the debate, they should be in for the closing speeches of