08/06/10
Rogue Landlords
Like many MSPs, I have received complaints from decent householders whose lives are being ruined by a minority of bad tenants. Increasingly this is happening in privately rented homes. Now I accept that many private landlords do their best to make sure their tenants behave responsibly. Unfortunately a small number turn a blind eye to appalling behaviour. As long as the rent money keeps rolling in, often paid through Housing Benefit, they don’t care what happens.
I have been campaigning for the law to be tightened. Some rogue landlords fail to register, yet nothing happens. The Scottish Parliament is considering a proposed Housing Bill and I had hoped this would be addressed. Unfortunately it looks like Alex Salmond and his Ministers are not taking this seriously. Duncan McNeil the MSP who chairs the Committee looking at the Bill has said the Committee is “concerned that there’s been no additional incentive for local authorities to prosecute rogue landlord who don’t register and it doesn’t appear the Bill will address this”.
I am disappointed and I will be pressing for action to protect decent people from bad landlords.
Action on Alcohol
Last week I met with the Chief Constable of Strathclyde. Among the issues discussed was the mayhem caused by those who had consumed excessive amounts of alcohol. He pointed out that in Strathclyde area there had been 14 murders in 10 weeks where alcohol was a significant factor.
We also know that alcohol is damaging health, destroying families and destabilising some communities. I agree with the views of Scottish Ministers that action has to be taken. I’m just sorry that Ministers have not been prepared to sit down and work out a solution which has general agreement.
I disagree with the new Conservative / Liberal Democrat Government on many things. But it looks as if this new Government is edging towards a policy of using taxation to tackle the ridiculously cheap price of some alcohol. Linked to measures stopping supermarkets selling alcohol below cost price, this could be a useful innovation.
We need a legally enforceable, UK wide policy to tackle the price of alcohol. I want to see money raised going to extra doctors, nurses and police officers, not propping up the profits of supermarkets.
The Alcohol Bill considered last week by the Scottish Parliament stimulated a useful debate. We need co-operation with the UK Government and all the political parties to come up with an answer.
Payout to senior civil servants
I chair the Public Audit Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The Committee recently produced yet another report about Transport Scotland. Yet again we uncovered questionable transactions involving senior staff who were leaving their post early. This time it was the Chief Executive of Transport Scotland who had earlier presided over a contentious contract issue. Although he was entitled to retire with a full pension (a very generous one with a large lump sum payment), he was given over £30, 000 extra for no good reason as far as the Committee could see.
It’s a scandal that taxpayers’ money can be used in such a cavalier fashion. Senior civil servants and Ministers need to realise that our money should be used for vital services, not to reward those who are already doing well.
Artists for Mary’s Meals
Mary’s meals is a Scottish based Charity which is helping to build a school kitchen to feed hungry children in Malawi. This is one of a number of projects which the Charity has supported. Local woman, Liz MacKinlay of Kilbarchan, is on the organising committee of Artists for Mary’s Meals. This particular initiative will see Scottish artists sell their paintings and donate a percentage of the sale price to build the kitchen. For those who can’t afford to buy a painting, there’s the chance to enter a £5 prize draw for a print by the popular Scottish artist, Lin Patullo.
The art exhibition runs a week from Saturday June 19th until June 26th. It will be held at the McGregor Fine Art Gallery at 34 West George Street, Glasgow.
27/05/2010
NHS CUTS
The SNP’s decision to underfund the NHS is now having a devastating affect across Scotland and will have a huge impact here in Renfrewshire. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has already announced that hundreds of jobs will go this year. Almost half will be nurses, including some at the RAH.
Every health board in Scotland was asked by the Scottish Government to prepare a workforce planning projection. The scale of resulting job losses that is being proposed in Greater Glasgow and Clyde is unacceptable. Doctors, nurses, midwives and hospital cleaners are in the absolute front line and the cornerstone when it comes to delivering care and services for those in need.
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are trying to avoid responsibility, but the buck stops with them. We need honesty from the SNP about the future of the NHS here in Renfrewshire and across the whole of Scotland.
HOMECOMING A 'DAMP SQUIB' WITH OVERSEAS VISITORS
The SNP had great hopes of the Homecoming Scotland celebrations to attract visitors from abroad and spent £2 million on its promotion. However figures reveal showed that fewer than one in ten people who attended Homecoming branded events in 2009 came from abroad. It has been branded a 'damp squib' with overseas visitors who were supposed to be the main target audience. The Homecoming event failed to set the heather alight with Scotland's traditional overseas markets. Visitors numbers from Europe and the USA were actually down in 2009. Homecoming failed to meet its full potential in overseas markets because the SNP was intent on promoting it at home. No doubt hoping for local political advantage. The truth is it was also ignored by the Scottish public. The celebrations were mismanaged by the SNP who used Homecoming as a platform for their own agenda. The Gathering in Edinburgh left behind a trail of debt which is to be investigated by Audit Scotland. Now Alex Salmond tells us that he wants another Homecoming event in 2014. Let’s hope it is better organised.
CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY JOBS
I am concerned that the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA) will be axing more than 1 in 20 of its workforce including some of its most experienced reporters. SCRA is responsible for the administration of children’s hearings that support youngsters who are in danger or may have committed an offence.
The number of referrals to the children’s hearings system reached an all-time record of just under 43,000 last year.There will be serious anxieties over their ability to protect Scotland’s most vulnerable children – those who offend or are offended against – with fewer reporters.This loss of experienced staff will harm our most vulnerable children. The Scottish Government are embarking on a wholesale reform of the system but at the same time the most experienced reporters are being made redundant. This is madness.The children’s hearings system has a world wide reputation for excellence. It has long been referred to as the jewel in the crown of care for young people. The SNP’s decision to slash SRCA's budget will hit Renfrewshire’s most vulnerable youngsters.
Awards for All
Awards for All Scotland is supported by the Scottish Arts Council, sportscotland and the Big Lottery Fund. They aim to award grants for organisations who take part in art, sport, heritage and community activities, and projects that promote education, the environment and health in the local community.I was delighted that 4 projects in Paisley have recently secured £26,000 in shared funding.
Loud ‘n’ Proud is a youth charity based in Paisley which has for over 7 years established itself at the forefront of the development of young musicians in Scotland. The Foxbar Adults and Children Together Group is a new organisation which will establish a reading club that will be used for parents and their children aged between 7-12 years old. Paisley Juniors Netball Club will use the funding to purchase equipment, organise training, coaching and transport to competition in the Under 15's netball league. And finally the Renfrewshire Walking Network will use its funding to organise an access festival, linking with other community groups to encourage physical activity. I wish them all the best in the future.
For more information on Awards for All Scotland visit:
www.awardsforall.org.uk/scotland
11/05/10
General Election
Labour’s results in Renfrewshire were excellent. Both Douglas Alexander and Jim Sheridan increased their share of the vote and their majorities. In Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the Liberal Democrats slumped from second to fourth, behind the Tories. It was clear they paid a heavy price for voting to cut school transport. In East Renfrewshire, Jim Murphy took over fifty percent of the vote in what used to be one of the safest Tory seats in Scotland.
But despite the solid results in Scotland, the voting from elsewhere in the country has put Labour behind the Tories. The Liberal Democrats have decided to do a deal with the Tories. The consequences for the country will be profound and the Liberal Democrats will have a price to pay in Scotland.
The political landscape in the UK has changed. While no doubt the Tories will give some concessions on taxation, the real impact will be felt from the cuts proposed by the Tories. We also have the danger of early cuts triggering another recession. The Liberal Democrats were opposed to the Tory plans and it will be interesting to see what they do in Government.
The next few years will be a hard slog, fighting to protect public services and those who need out support.
Gordon Brown
So Gordon Brown is no longer Prime Minister. He was one of the architects of the Scottish Parliament, with his longstanding commitment to devolution. He has a passion for fairness and justice both here and abroad. He has been the driving force to write of significant amounts of debt for the world’s poorest countries. He was a successful Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he played a major part, as Prime Minister, in helping to avoid an international depression following the banking crisis.
Since the inconclusive General Election result, he has acted with dignity to ensure that the best interests of the country are protected. Whatever he does in the future, he has certainly made his mark on politics here and abroad. I wish him and his family all the best for the future.
School Bus Farce
Renfrewshire Council has issued its so called safe walking routes for pupils. The process is a farce. The Council did not provide a map of the route to parents. If parents wanted a copy they needed a computer and a printer. And in Johnstone they are using old maps which don’t show the reality of the present layout of the town. The truth is that for a relatively small sum of money, nearly 1, 000 pupils will have to walk almost three miles each way to school. The dreadful weather at the start of last week was a reminder of what our climate is like. These youngsters face arriving at school, soaking wet, having carried a heavy load for fifty minutes or more. Royal Mail doesn’t ask our Posties to do what the Council wants our kids to do. The SNP and the Liberal Democrats have said there is no alternative. This is not true. I am willing to bet the Council will have more than this in its reserves each year and will probably underspend by more. The truth is that the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have swallowed everything the top officials have said. It’s time they showed some political leadership.
Law on school closures
The SNP are changing the rules on school closures. There is a new consultation process and it is being made clear that when any changes to schools are being considered, education must be the key priority. The new guidelines require Education Inspectors to produce a report and parents to have their voices heard. The Minister for Schools said it’s about “putting education at the heart of the decision and giving parents more of voice in the process.” This explains why the SNP and the Liberal Democrats were in such a rush to close South Primary School and every one of the Council’s Nursery Schools.
13 Jun 2010
Speech in the debate on the Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill 10 June 2010
I regret the comments from both the cabinet secretary and Maureen Watt about party politics, because, as far as I can hear, not only today but during the course of the debate, the only people who have tried to introduce party politics into the debate have been members of the SNP, who have consistently refused to listen to and talk and work with members of other parties.
Indeed, for the past two years, I and others have called for a consensual approach and joint party working to try to come up with a solution to the problem. However, the minister and the cabinet secretary have refused to meet and work with the other parties to bring anything constructive forward.
Nicola Sturgeon: Hugh Henry might like to reflect on the last thing that he said, because I have met other parties and have always said that I would work with them on a range of proposals. Does Hugh Henry accept that there is a consensus on minimum pricing, which includes not just the SNP but doctors, nurses, the police, the royal colleges, the chief medical officers and a host of children's charities? There is a consensus—the problem is that Labour is not part of it.
Hugh Henry: The cabinet secretary may well have met people individually. The point that I have made consistently for the past two years is that there should have been a cross-party initiative or working group to meet with experts to come up with something sustainable. I commend ministers for their initiative in stimulating an alcohol debate but, unfortunately, they have refused to engage constructively with others in the Parliament, which I regret.
As others have said, the extent of our problem with alcohol is a matter of record. We now have one of the highest cirrhosis rates in western Europe—it is much higher than the rate in England. Over the past 30 years, UK cirrhosis mortality has risen by over 450 per cent across the population, with a 52 per cent increase in alcoholic liver disease between 1998 and 2002. In Scotland, chronic liver disease mortality more than doubled between 1982 and 2008.
No one can doubt the need for action. Indeed, I agree with Maureen Watt's point about the alcohol-related problems for our NHS and the impact that they have on others. The BMA has said that, in 2008-09, there were 41,922 alcohol-related discharges from general hospitals in Scotland. I know of the problem from personal experience because I remember that when my elderly father—God rest him—fell and broke his hip on Christmas eve, he had to wait nearly three hours for an ambulance. The ambulance staff were apologetic about the length of time that it had taken, which was because of the drunkenness and mayhem that they had had to deal with on Christmas eve. That is the human consequence of the problems that we face.
We face a growing impact, too, from women drinking to excess, and Richard Baker and others have spoken about the law and order problems that excess alcohol consumption causes. In that regard, I and some of my colleagues in the west of Scotland met the chief constable of Strathclyde this week and heard about the 14 murders that were alcohol related. The chief constable was right to point out the mayhem in towns and cities across Scotland every Friday and Saturday night, which we need to address. We need to have a view in this country that that kind of public drunkenness is just unacceptable and will be dealt with. We need to stop being frivolous and making jokes about drunkenness being okay and something to aspire to. We also need action to remove licences where that is appropriate. We need more rigorous testing of alcohol sales, as Richard Simpson, Richard Baker and others have said, to ensure that young people do not have access to alcohol. I support, too, Richard Baker's call for the problem of caffeine-based alcohol drinks to be addressed, because that is a chronic problem.
I agree with the concept of the polluter paying and with social responsibility payments. However, the mayhem on the streets is not necessarily caused by pubs and other small establishments. Many young people drink before they go out. Why should the publicans pay for the problems that are caused by cheap alcohol that is sold by supermarkets? Indeed, if we are talking about the polluter, surely the polluter is the intelligent drunk person with money in their pocket or purse whose drunkenness and loutish behaviour costs the rest of society dearly. They are the people who need to be challenged and penalised for the pollution that they cause. We need more action against public drunkenness and bad behaviour.
I agree that the cost of the alcohol that is sold in supermarkets is an issue. Michael Matheson posed the point that stopping discounting would surely just put more money in the supermarkets' pockets. Well, the way I understand marketing to work is that stopping discounting reduces sales, reducing sales reduces revenue and reducing revenue reduces profits, so stopping discounting does not have the impact that he and the cabinet secretary tried to suggest.
I am also opposed to the idea of giving local authorities the ability to vary the age at which alcohol can be purchased from off-sales within their areas. In my part of Renfrewshire, would it be sensible to say that young people could buy alcohol in Johnstone but not in Linwood? What would that mean in terms of young people buying drink in other communities?
Even if the legal age for off-sales was allowed to be varied between different local authorities, would it be sensible that young people could buy alcohol in Penilee, which is in Glasgow, but not in Ralston, which is in Renfrewshire? What would be the effect in places that lie on the borders between two local authority areas? Those sorts of inconsistencies would arise.
Although others have highlighted the issues with minimum pricing, one issue that has not been addressed in detail is the fact that not only would there be an increase in cross-border and internet sales but, in many communities, the criminal fraternity would then be able to sell cheap alcohol along with tobacco and drugs out of white vans. We should not underestimate the impact of that.
I hope that there is still time for us to come together as a Parliament and have a sensible debate on alcohol. I commend the cabinet secretary and her colleagues for what they have done so far, but it is time for them to face up to the fact that they should listen to the will of Parliament.
Indeed, for the past two years, I and others have called for a consensual approach and joint party working to try to come up with a solution to the problem. However, the minister and the cabinet secretary have refused to meet and work with the other parties to bring anything constructive forward.
Nicola Sturgeon: Hugh Henry might like to reflect on the last thing that he said, because I have met other parties and have always said that I would work with them on a range of proposals. Does Hugh Henry accept that there is a consensus on minimum pricing, which includes not just the SNP but doctors, nurses, the police, the royal colleges, the chief medical officers and a host of children's charities? There is a consensus—the problem is that Labour is not part of it.
Hugh Henry: The cabinet secretary may well have met people individually. The point that I have made consistently for the past two years is that there should have been a cross-party initiative or working group to meet with experts to come up with something sustainable. I commend ministers for their initiative in stimulating an alcohol debate but, unfortunately, they have refused to engage constructively with others in the Parliament, which I regret.
As others have said, the extent of our problem with alcohol is a matter of record. We now have one of the highest cirrhosis rates in western Europe—it is much higher than the rate in England. Over the past 30 years, UK cirrhosis mortality has risen by over 450 per cent across the population, with a 52 per cent increase in alcoholic liver disease between 1998 and 2002. In Scotland, chronic liver disease mortality more than doubled between 1982 and 2008.
No one can doubt the need for action. Indeed, I agree with Maureen Watt's point about the alcohol-related problems for our NHS and the impact that they have on others. The BMA has said that, in 2008-09, there were 41,922 alcohol-related discharges from general hospitals in Scotland. I know of the problem from personal experience because I remember that when my elderly father—God rest him—fell and broke his hip on Christmas eve, he had to wait nearly three hours for an ambulance. The ambulance staff were apologetic about the length of time that it had taken, which was because of the drunkenness and mayhem that they had had to deal with on Christmas eve. That is the human consequence of the problems that we face.
We face a growing impact, too, from women drinking to excess, and Richard Baker and others have spoken about the law and order problems that excess alcohol consumption causes. In that regard, I and some of my colleagues in the west of Scotland met the chief constable of Strathclyde this week and heard about the 14 murders that were alcohol related. The chief constable was right to point out the mayhem in towns and cities across Scotland every Friday and Saturday night, which we need to address. We need to have a view in this country that that kind of public drunkenness is just unacceptable and will be dealt with. We need to stop being frivolous and making jokes about drunkenness being okay and something to aspire to. We also need action to remove licences where that is appropriate. We need more rigorous testing of alcohol sales, as Richard Simpson, Richard Baker and others have said, to ensure that young people do not have access to alcohol. I support, too, Richard Baker's call for the problem of caffeine-based alcohol drinks to be addressed, because that is a chronic problem.
I agree with the concept of the polluter paying and with social responsibility payments. However, the mayhem on the streets is not necessarily caused by pubs and other small establishments. Many young people drink before they go out. Why should the publicans pay for the problems that are caused by cheap alcohol that is sold by supermarkets? Indeed, if we are talking about the polluter, surely the polluter is the intelligent drunk person with money in their pocket or purse whose drunkenness and loutish behaviour costs the rest of society dearly. They are the people who need to be challenged and penalised for the pollution that they cause. We need more action against public drunkenness and bad behaviour.
I agree that the cost of the alcohol that is sold in supermarkets is an issue. Michael Matheson posed the point that stopping discounting would surely just put more money in the supermarkets' pockets. Well, the way I understand marketing to work is that stopping discounting reduces sales, reducing sales reduces revenue and reducing revenue reduces profits, so stopping discounting does not have the impact that he and the cabinet secretary tried to suggest.
I am also opposed to the idea of giving local authorities the ability to vary the age at which alcohol can be purchased from off-sales within their areas. In my part of Renfrewshire, would it be sensible to say that young people could buy alcohol in Johnstone but not in Linwood? What would that mean in terms of young people buying drink in other communities?
Even if the legal age for off-sales was allowed to be varied between different local authorities, would it be sensible that young people could buy alcohol in Penilee, which is in Glasgow, but not in Ralston, which is in Renfrewshire? What would be the effect in places that lie on the borders between two local authority areas? Those sorts of inconsistencies would arise.
Although others have highlighted the issues with minimum pricing, one issue that has not been addressed in detail is the fact that not only would there be an increase in cross-border and internet sales but, in many communities, the criminal fraternity would then be able to sell cheap alcohol along with tobacco and drugs out of white vans. We should not underestimate the impact of that.
I hope that there is still time for us to come together as a Parliament and have a sensible debate on alcohol. I commend the cabinet secretary and her colleagues for what they have done so far, but it is time for them to face up to the fact that they should listen to the will of Parliament.
Speech on the NHS 3rd. June 2010
I start by commending Murdo Fraser for his sterling defence of SNP policy. It is clear that that alliance is alive and well. It certainly augurs well for their political future, although whether it does anything for Murdo remains to be seen.
Those of us who have been members since the early years of the Parliament will recall the numerous complaints that we received in our constituency postbags and at our surgeries about health-related problems. People were concerned about the length of time they had to wait for an appointment to see medical staff and about the quality of care and facilities. Those complaints justified the very real investment in the health service that the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive made to address those problems.
Was the investment justified? It was. Did it work? I think that it did. If members think of the inquiries that we receive from our constituents, I suspect that most of us would say—or would have said until recently—that there has been a significant fall in the number of health-related complaints. That is not so say that such complaints have been eliminated completely or that we will not receive individual complaints about things that cannot be justified, but the general picture is that the volume of such complaints has reduced. However, like many other MSPs, I am beginning to see a recurrence of complaints about waiting times, waiting lists and the level of service and other general concerns about the health service.
Murdo Fraser was right to say that we should measure outcomes and not look only at inputs. Ian McKee ably identified where progress can be made and has been made in the health service over many years. The problem is not that new techniques and methods of health service delivery are resulting in staff no longer being required; it is that advances mean that conditions can now be addressed that previously could not be addressed. Despite the progress that Ian McKee described, demand for our health service has not reduced. People now, rightly, have a higher expectation that the health service can meet their needs and demands. That is what we have to address.
We will always be faced with the perennial problem of whether we should have a bottomless health budget that allows any medical condition to be treated, irrespective of the cost. That is a philosophical and ethical debate and it will, no doubt, continue for many years. Yes, it is right for us to look at outcomes and not only at maintaining health service jobs, but the demands on the health service are sufficient to justify maintaining the number of medical staff at existing levels.
Anne McLaughlin said that it is wrong to spread unnecessary fear and alarm among staff about their jobs, but I think that she missed a fundamental point about the concerns of health service staff. By and large, health service staff are dedicated to the health service—they are dedicated to their patients and want the best for them. When health service staff express fear and concern, they are talking not only about their own jobs but about the impact that colleagues' job losses have on their ability to deliver the service that they believe they should deliver for patients. Staff are concerned. I am sure that Anne McLaughlin has heard the same comments from medical staff that I have heard. People are worried about their ability to do their job if the cuts impact in the way that is being suggested.
As Ross Finnie rightly said, the debate should not be about only budgets and figures. He said that there was barely a reference to patients in the motion but, understandably, any debate on the NHS is predicated on the amount of money that is available and the number of staff who are required to do the work of our health service.
However, Ross Finnie was right in saying that it is the human story that is important in a debate such as this. I will conclude by raising some of the complaints that I am now hearing in increasing number in my constituency work—and I have no doubt that the situation is replicated elsewhere. All the complaints that I will raise relate to podiatry services, which can at times be dismissed as not being vital but which are critical to the quality of life of many people in our communities, particular the elderly. The first case is that of an elderly
gentleman who had received chiropody treatment at the Royal Alexandria hospital in Paisley. Recently, he had need to contact the podiatry service again but, when he did so, he was told that he would have to wait at least six weeks for an appointment. After telling staff that the nature of his problem meant that he could not wait that length of time, he was told, "You will have to go private then." Is that the answer that we now want to give to elderly people if they can no longer get the service to which they had been accustomed—just go private? Ministers need to reflect on that.
I was contacted by another constituent with diabetes. We all know the significance of the problem that diabetes causes and will continue to cause in Scotland. My constituent used to have his toenails cut every three months, as his mobility was made difficult if the nails were left to curl. He has not had a home visit since October of last year. His carer has tried time and again to make an appointment for him, but she was told, "Well, you can just cut his nails." Are we trying to shift the responsibility on to carers?
The third and final example involves a woman whose mobility was restricted as the result of a broken ankle. She contacted the podiatry service in Paisley only to be told that no home visits were available and given no appointment for a later date. That is the human impact that the cuts are having even before we start to see the consequences of a loss in staff numbers. That is something that the Parliament needs to address.
Those of us who have been members since the early years of the Parliament will recall the numerous complaints that we received in our constituency postbags and at our surgeries about health-related problems. People were concerned about the length of time they had to wait for an appointment to see medical staff and about the quality of care and facilities. Those complaints justified the very real investment in the health service that the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive made to address those problems.
Was the investment justified? It was. Did it work? I think that it did. If members think of the inquiries that we receive from our constituents, I suspect that most of us would say—or would have said until recently—that there has been a significant fall in the number of health-related complaints. That is not so say that such complaints have been eliminated completely or that we will not receive individual complaints about things that cannot be justified, but the general picture is that the volume of such complaints has reduced. However, like many other MSPs, I am beginning to see a recurrence of complaints about waiting times, waiting lists and the level of service and other general concerns about the health service.
Murdo Fraser was right to say that we should measure outcomes and not look only at inputs. Ian McKee ably identified where progress can be made and has been made in the health service over many years. The problem is not that new techniques and methods of health service delivery are resulting in staff no longer being required; it is that advances mean that conditions can now be addressed that previously could not be addressed. Despite the progress that Ian McKee described, demand for our health service has not reduced. People now, rightly, have a higher expectation that the health service can meet their needs and demands. That is what we have to address.
We will always be faced with the perennial problem of whether we should have a bottomless health budget that allows any medical condition to be treated, irrespective of the cost. That is a philosophical and ethical debate and it will, no doubt, continue for many years. Yes, it is right for us to look at outcomes and not only at maintaining health service jobs, but the demands on the health service are sufficient to justify maintaining the number of medical staff at existing levels.
Anne McLaughlin said that it is wrong to spread unnecessary fear and alarm among staff about their jobs, but I think that she missed a fundamental point about the concerns of health service staff. By and large, health service staff are dedicated to the health service—they are dedicated to their patients and want the best for them. When health service staff express fear and concern, they are talking not only about their own jobs but about the impact that colleagues' job losses have on their ability to deliver the service that they believe they should deliver for patients. Staff are concerned. I am sure that Anne McLaughlin has heard the same comments from medical staff that I have heard. People are worried about their ability to do their job if the cuts impact in the way that is being suggested.
As Ross Finnie rightly said, the debate should not be about only budgets and figures. He said that there was barely a reference to patients in the motion but, understandably, any debate on the NHS is predicated on the amount of money that is available and the number of staff who are required to do the work of our health service.
However, Ross Finnie was right in saying that it is the human story that is important in a debate such as this. I will conclude by raising some of the complaints that I am now hearing in increasing number in my constituency work—and I have no doubt that the situation is replicated elsewhere. All the complaints that I will raise relate to podiatry services, which can at times be dismissed as not being vital but which are critical to the quality of life of many people in our communities, particular the elderly. The first case is that of an elderly
gentleman who had received chiropody treatment at the Royal Alexandria hospital in Paisley. Recently, he had need to contact the podiatry service again but, when he did so, he was told that he would have to wait at least six weeks for an appointment. After telling staff that the nature of his problem meant that he could not wait that length of time, he was told, "You will have to go private then." Is that the answer that we now want to give to elderly people if they can no longer get the service to which they had been accustomed—just go private? Ministers need to reflect on that.
I was contacted by another constituent with diabetes. We all know the significance of the problem that diabetes causes and will continue to cause in Scotland. My constituent used to have his toenails cut every three months, as his mobility was made difficult if the nails were left to curl. He has not had a home visit since October of last year. His carer has tried time and again to make an appointment for him, but she was told, "Well, you can just cut his nails." Are we trying to shift the responsibility on to carers?
The third and final example involves a woman whose mobility was restricted as the result of a broken ankle. She contacted the podiatry service in Paisley only to be told that no home visits were available and given no appointment for a later date. That is the human impact that the cuts are having even before we start to see the consequences of a loss in staff numbers. That is something that the Parliament needs to address.
Speech on Protection for Workers 20 May 2010
It is hard to imagine that in 21st century Scotland workers are still being assaulted simply for doing their job. Unlike MSPs who, in this Parliament building, have security measures built in almost at every step, the ordinary worker is often left vulnerable to attack and assault. Of course, the recent stabbing of Stephen Timms MP is a reminder that, outside the confines of Parliament, politicians can also be vulnerable.
I recognise that some people in the legal profession would say that the law already takes seriously the issue of assault. Equally, however, I point to the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which all parties in the Parliament, except the Conservatives, supported, because legislation was required. The act recognised that something more than the existing law was worthy of support to demonstrate to the violent minority that attacks on emergency workers are unacceptable. It also demonstrated to emergency workers that members of the Parliament were prepared to act to give vulnerable workers that bit extra in legal protection.
We were told at the time that the 2005 act was not necessary and yet, by the second year of its existence, 200 charges were proved under it in Scottish courts. If further legislation was not necessary or useful, why were those cases taken to court under that legislation?
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): Is the answer not fairly obvious: that the act replaced the previous common- law aggravation? To that extent, there was a transfer of the figures to the new category of offence.
Hugh Henry: No. It is still the case that prosecutions can be made under the common law. The act is an addition, which is there to be considered as appropriate. I know that the Liberal Democrats accepted that argument and voted for the act at the time.
The new Administration, which was elected in 2007, reflected on the need for such legislation to protect workers who serve the public. The Official Report of the Justice Committee meeting of 15 January 2008 shows that Shona Robison said:
"Okay. Enough time has passed since the legislation came into force to allow us to consider its success and the potential benefits of extending its scope to cover other staff. That is an important point.
I will share some information on the success that has been achieved so far. According to the most recent figures, 1,256 charges have been laid under the 2005 act, of which 1,008 have led to prosecution and, thus far, 594 convictions. A further 218 cases are on-going. Seventy-five per cent of cases that have led to prosecution have resulted in convictions, which is a very high number indeed. I suggest that that shows the success of the act."—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 15 January 2008; c 469.]
As a result of that analysis, ministers extended the 2005 act. They decided to cover other health workers who work in the community, not necessarily always in emergency circumstances. I applaud ministers for taking that decision not to rely on the common law but to use the additional strength that is delivered by the act. Ministers were right at that point to reject the arguments of those who said that existing legislation was enough and that no new powers were needed.
I turn to other workers who serve the public and in doing so render themselves vulnerable to assault. Are they any less worthy of our support? Do the services that they provide mean that they deserve any less protection from the law than those who are covered by the 2005 act?
When a bus driver or a train driver is assaulted, the passengers are put at risk. When services are withdrawn because of violent incidents, whole communities are affected. Those who rely on public transport can be left isolated and vulnerable as a result.
When a postal worker is assaulted and the mail is stolen, scattered or not delivered, there can be significant implications. Families who rely on authorisation for financial payments can be left struggling, businesses can be affected and deadlines can be missed.
When a shop worker has to bear the brunt of an enraged customer's anger, that worker often has no back-up or support readily available. If local stores have to close for security reasons, as has happened, whole communities bear the brunt as a consequence. Often, it is poorer communities and more vulnerable people who are worst affected, because they have no alternatives.
If a shop worker does the right thing and carries out the will of the Parliament in relation to alcohol or tobacco sales, should they not expect the Parliament's support if they are assaulted as a result?
Are child care workers, elderly care workers and social workers any less important than the nurses or midwives who work in the community? It is right to give added protection to a nurse who serves patients in the community, but why not give protection to the child care worker who deals with sensitive cases of child abuse allegations or those who are there to help the frail elderly and are assaulted by whomsoever when doing so? Should they not be given that added legal backing if they are assaulted when carrying out their duties?
The number of assaults against many of those workers is staggeringly high. In 2007-08, the total number of physical assaults against public sector workers was 32,263. That number included 9,121 assaults on local government workers, which represents an increase of 3,000 on the previous year's figures. In 2007, the British retail crime survey report detailed a 50 per cent increase in physical assaults against shop workers compared to 2006. A Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers survey showed that nearly a third of shops reported at least one physical assault against staff in 2007.
Contrast that with the simultaneous reduction in the number of assaults perpetrated against health workers. According to figures produced by Unison in 2007-08, the number of assaults on health workers fell by more than 1,000 from the previous year. It could be suggested that the decline can be attributed to the threat of tougher penalties contained in the 2005 act. The increase in the number of convictions under that act, which I mentioned earlier, has underpinned the tough message that has arguably led to the reductions in assaults.
The success of the act has been recognised not only by ministers of the present Administration but by the trade union movement. The Scottish Trades Union Congress has spoken out clearly about the need for further legislation. I am grateful for the support received from a range of unions: Unite, which represents bus drivers; the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, which represents train drivers but also speaks up for other staff in the train industry and for the travelling public; USDAW, which has been relentless in its campaign for freedom from fear for shop workers and is determined to protect its members; the Communication Workers Union, which worries about postal workers being assaulted in the course of their duties; Unison, which represents care workers, who often work in extremely isolated and vulnerable situations; and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the building workers union, whose members often have to carry out emergency repairs and can be assaulted as a result. The unions are determined to do what is right for their members, which is why many union members have taken the opportunity to come to the Scottish Parliament today to demonstrate their support for more legislation.
We sometimes get hung up on statistics, which do not tell the human side of the story. When union officials and shop stewards speak to me about the need for legislation to protect workers, they are talking about protecting ordinary people who have a sense of duty to those whom they serve, and who are not asking for much. A member of USDAW, who works in a store in Portobello, approached someone whom they suspected of shoplifting but never got a chance to speak to the person before being knocked to the ground and rendered unconscious. The worker, who had simply been doing their job, suffered concussion and was off work as a result.
Bus drivers have been assaulted while trying to protect passengers from violent and aggressive passengers. The drivers were trying to protect not the bus or their cash but members of the travelling public. Do such people not deserve additional support? Train drivers and other railway staff constantly have to worry about being approached as they travel through the train. They sometimes have to step in to protect passengers, and there have been a number of cases in which railway staff were assaulted as they sought to protect other people.
Postal workers have been knocked down simply because a person was enraged by the non-arrival of a letter. That is unacceptable. Care workers have to go into frightening situations in which they must deal with people who are enraged by decisions that they have taken. They, too, deserve our support.
There is a compelling imperative to apply the logic of the Parliament's decisions equally and fairly. The Parliament decided that workers who serve the public deserve a level of protection over and above the law as it was in 2005, which is why it passed the 2005 act, whose success has been acknowledged by Shona Robison and which was subsequently extended by ministers.
The time is right to draw on the benefit of our experience and take the next step, by ensuring that all workers who are assaulted while they are serving the public receive the same level of support as we give to emergency workers. That is the least that we can do for the people who work to serve us.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that further measures need to be taken to deter violence against shop workers and other workers delivering a service to the public; notes with concern the finding of the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2008-09 that, of those adults who had jobs involving contact with the general public, 35% had experienced either verbal abuse or physical abuse; recognises that
there has been a 78% increase in violence and abuse against Scottish shop workers over the last three years, according to Retailers Against Crime; welcomes the Freedom from Fear campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), which seeks to make shops and shopping areas safer for staff and customers; acknowledges the efforts of the trade union movement as a whole to highlight the continuing problems of violence for those workers with direct contact with the public; recognises that there have been year-on-year increases in prosecutions under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, and believes that the Parliament and the Scottish Government should take further action to ensure that workers can carry out their duties without facing violence or intimidation.
I recognise that some people in the legal profession would say that the law already takes seriously the issue of assault. Equally, however, I point to the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which all parties in the Parliament, except the Conservatives, supported, because legislation was required. The act recognised that something more than the existing law was worthy of support to demonstrate to the violent minority that attacks on emergency workers are unacceptable. It also demonstrated to emergency workers that members of the Parliament were prepared to act to give vulnerable workers that bit extra in legal protection.
We were told at the time that the 2005 act was not necessary and yet, by the second year of its existence, 200 charges were proved under it in Scottish courts. If further legislation was not necessary or useful, why were those cases taken to court under that legislation?
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): Is the answer not fairly obvious: that the act replaced the previous common- law aggravation? To that extent, there was a transfer of the figures to the new category of offence.
Hugh Henry: No. It is still the case that prosecutions can be made under the common law. The act is an addition, which is there to be considered as appropriate. I know that the Liberal Democrats accepted that argument and voted for the act at the time.
The new Administration, which was elected in 2007, reflected on the need for such legislation to protect workers who serve the public. The Official Report of the Justice Committee meeting of 15 January 2008 shows that Shona Robison said:
"Okay. Enough time has passed since the legislation came into force to allow us to consider its success and the potential benefits of extending its scope to cover other staff. That is an important point.
I will share some information on the success that has been achieved so far. According to the most recent figures, 1,256 charges have been laid under the 2005 act, of which 1,008 have led to prosecution and, thus far, 594 convictions. A further 218 cases are on-going. Seventy-five per cent of cases that have led to prosecution have resulted in convictions, which is a very high number indeed. I suggest that that shows the success of the act."—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 15 January 2008; c 469.]
As a result of that analysis, ministers extended the 2005 act. They decided to cover other health workers who work in the community, not necessarily always in emergency circumstances. I applaud ministers for taking that decision not to rely on the common law but to use the additional strength that is delivered by the act. Ministers were right at that point to reject the arguments of those who said that existing legislation was enough and that no new powers were needed.
I turn to other workers who serve the public and in doing so render themselves vulnerable to assault. Are they any less worthy of our support? Do the services that they provide mean that they deserve any less protection from the law than those who are covered by the 2005 act?
When a bus driver or a train driver is assaulted, the passengers are put at risk. When services are withdrawn because of violent incidents, whole communities are affected. Those who rely on public transport can be left isolated and vulnerable as a result.
When a postal worker is assaulted and the mail is stolen, scattered or not delivered, there can be significant implications. Families who rely on authorisation for financial payments can be left struggling, businesses can be affected and deadlines can be missed.
When a shop worker has to bear the brunt of an enraged customer's anger, that worker often has no back-up or support readily available. If local stores have to close for security reasons, as has happened, whole communities bear the brunt as a consequence. Often, it is poorer communities and more vulnerable people who are worst affected, because they have no alternatives.
If a shop worker does the right thing and carries out the will of the Parliament in relation to alcohol or tobacco sales, should they not expect the Parliament's support if they are assaulted as a result?
Are child care workers, elderly care workers and social workers any less important than the nurses or midwives who work in the community? It is right to give added protection to a nurse who serves patients in the community, but why not give protection to the child care worker who deals with sensitive cases of child abuse allegations or those who are there to help the frail elderly and are assaulted by whomsoever when doing so? Should they not be given that added legal backing if they are assaulted when carrying out their duties?
The number of assaults against many of those workers is staggeringly high. In 2007-08, the total number of physical assaults against public sector workers was 32,263. That number included 9,121 assaults on local government workers, which represents an increase of 3,000 on the previous year's figures. In 2007, the British retail crime survey report detailed a 50 per cent increase in physical assaults against shop workers compared to 2006. A Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers survey showed that nearly a third of shops reported at least one physical assault against staff in 2007.
Contrast that with the simultaneous reduction in the number of assaults perpetrated against health workers. According to figures produced by Unison in 2007-08, the number of assaults on health workers fell by more than 1,000 from the previous year. It could be suggested that the decline can be attributed to the threat of tougher penalties contained in the 2005 act. The increase in the number of convictions under that act, which I mentioned earlier, has underpinned the tough message that has arguably led to the reductions in assaults.
The success of the act has been recognised not only by ministers of the present Administration but by the trade union movement. The Scottish Trades Union Congress has spoken out clearly about the need for further legislation. I am grateful for the support received from a range of unions: Unite, which represents bus drivers; the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, which represents train drivers but also speaks up for other staff in the train industry and for the travelling public; USDAW, which has been relentless in its campaign for freedom from fear for shop workers and is determined to protect its members; the Communication Workers Union, which worries about postal workers being assaulted in the course of their duties; Unison, which represents care workers, who often work in extremely isolated and vulnerable situations; and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the building workers union, whose members often have to carry out emergency repairs and can be assaulted as a result. The unions are determined to do what is right for their members, which is why many union members have taken the opportunity to come to the Scottish Parliament today to demonstrate their support for more legislation.
We sometimes get hung up on statistics, which do not tell the human side of the story. When union officials and shop stewards speak to me about the need for legislation to protect workers, they are talking about protecting ordinary people who have a sense of duty to those whom they serve, and who are not asking for much. A member of USDAW, who works in a store in Portobello, approached someone whom they suspected of shoplifting but never got a chance to speak to the person before being knocked to the ground and rendered unconscious. The worker, who had simply been doing their job, suffered concussion and was off work as a result.
Bus drivers have been assaulted while trying to protect passengers from violent and aggressive passengers. The drivers were trying to protect not the bus or their cash but members of the travelling public. Do such people not deserve additional support? Train drivers and other railway staff constantly have to worry about being approached as they travel through the train. They sometimes have to step in to protect passengers, and there have been a number of cases in which railway staff were assaulted as they sought to protect other people.
Postal workers have been knocked down simply because a person was enraged by the non-arrival of a letter. That is unacceptable. Care workers have to go into frightening situations in which they must deal with people who are enraged by decisions that they have taken. They, too, deserve our support.
There is a compelling imperative to apply the logic of the Parliament's decisions equally and fairly. The Parliament decided that workers who serve the public deserve a level of protection over and above the law as it was in 2005, which is why it passed the 2005 act, whose success has been acknowledged by Shona Robison and which was subsequently extended by ministers.
The time is right to draw on the benefit of our experience and take the next step, by ensuring that all workers who are assaulted while they are serving the public receive the same level of support as we give to emergency workers. That is the least that we can do for the people who work to serve us.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that further measures need to be taken to deter violence against shop workers and other workers delivering a service to the public; notes with concern the finding of the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2008-09 that, of those adults who had jobs involving contact with the general public, 35% had experienced either verbal abuse or physical abuse; recognises that
there has been a 78% increase in violence and abuse against Scottish shop workers over the last three years, according to Retailers Against Crime; welcomes the Freedom from Fear campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), which seeks to make shops and shopping areas safer for staff and customers; acknowledges the efforts of the trade union movement as a whole to highlight the continuing problems of violence for those workers with direct contact with the public; recognises that there have been year-on-year increases in prosecutions under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, and believes that the Parliament and the Scottish Government should take further action to ensure that workers can carry out their duties without facing violence or intimidation.
Speecn on Veterans ( Criminal Justice System ) 22 April 2010
Angela Constance is to be commended for giving the Parliament the opportunity to debate an issue that has been overlooked for far too long. I do not have any direct experience of the negative side—of the criminal implications or of breakdown, which often face people who come from a veterans or services background—but I do have experience of the positive things that can be done to help people who have come through those circumstances.
Angela Constance referred to Erskine. I grew up in the grounds of what was then termed Erskine hospital. My father was a disabled ex-serviceman and obtained one of the cottages there. I lived in what I now realise was a wonderful environment. It was a close-knit community and a very supportive environment, where families flourished and were allowed to get on with their lives.
I saw some positive signs in Erskine hospital—it would now be regarded as a care home—concerning people whose family relationships had broken down. Sometimes people turned to taking a good drink, as it was described at the time—excessive alcohol consumption—and they ended up coming into Erskine hospital. They were supported and helped there.
I saw things that I did not understand as a child—the horrors that wars cause. My father spent nearly four years in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. When I was younger, he frequently suffered from malaria, and he relived all the horrors that he had experienced, through nightmares. In those days, there was no talk of post-traumatic stress or psychological support for those who had been through horrendous situations. However, my father benefited from a loving and supportive family and a close-knit community.
In those days, we lived in a totally different world. Even those who were not fortunate enough to benefit from places such as Erskine generally lived in communities where the family was still strong and important, where the community was close and tight knit, and where people looked after their own. Unfortunately, that is often no longer the case. We lived at a time when, although drink might have been a problem, drugs were not, unlike today. Unfortunately, too many young ex-service personnel now succumb to problems with drugs.
I saw the nightmare and stresses that war can cause, and I began to realise the implications for those who try to get on with their lives with no support. As other members have said, we are duty bound to consider our debt and our responsibility to those who have put so much on the line for us.
The key to all this is not to deal with veterans when they get to prison; the key is early intervention to ensure that, when they come out of the armed forces—as Sarah Boyack and James Kelly said—a decent house is available for them, as well as social work and psychological support services. I commend ministers for taking a close interest in matters such as medical facilities.
There is a problem that, fortunately, we are now recognising more and more. It pays us all in the long run to deal with such problems early, in a mature, conscientious fashion, not just from a financial perspective but because we owe it to those who have given so much for us.
Angela Constance referred to Erskine. I grew up in the grounds of what was then termed Erskine hospital. My father was a disabled ex-serviceman and obtained one of the cottages there. I lived in what I now realise was a wonderful environment. It was a close-knit community and a very supportive environment, where families flourished and were allowed to get on with their lives.
I saw some positive signs in Erskine hospital—it would now be regarded as a care home—concerning people whose family relationships had broken down. Sometimes people turned to taking a good drink, as it was described at the time—excessive alcohol consumption—and they ended up coming into Erskine hospital. They were supported and helped there.
I saw things that I did not understand as a child—the horrors that wars cause. My father spent nearly four years in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. When I was younger, he frequently suffered from malaria, and he relived all the horrors that he had experienced, through nightmares. In those days, there was no talk of post-traumatic stress or psychological support for those who had been through horrendous situations. However, my father benefited from a loving and supportive family and a close-knit community.
In those days, we lived in a totally different world. Even those who were not fortunate enough to benefit from places such as Erskine generally lived in communities where the family was still strong and important, where the community was close and tight knit, and where people looked after their own. Unfortunately, that is often no longer the case. We lived at a time when, although drink might have been a problem, drugs were not, unlike today. Unfortunately, too many young ex-service personnel now succumb to problems with drugs.
I saw the nightmare and stresses that war can cause, and I began to realise the implications for those who try to get on with their lives with no support. As other members have said, we are duty bound to consider our debt and our responsibility to those who have put so much on the line for us.
The key to all this is not to deal with veterans when they get to prison; the key is early intervention to ensure that, when they come out of the armed forces—as Sarah Boyack and James Kelly said—a decent house is available for them, as well as social work and psychological support services. I commend ministers for taking a close interest in matters such as medical facilities.
There is a problem that, fortunately, we are now recognising more and more. It pays us all in the long run to deal with such problems early, in a mature, conscientious fashion, not just from a financial perspective but because we owe it to those who have given so much for us.
Speech introducing the debate on the Freedom from Fear campaign 14 April 2010
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is shocked and horrified that there has been a 78% increase in violence and abuse against Scottish shop workers over the last three years, according to Retailers Against Crime; believes that further measures need to be taken to deter violence against shop workers and other workers delivering a service to the public; welcomes the Freedom from Fear campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), which seeks to make shops and shopping areas safer for staff and customers; recognises that the sale of age-restricted products, especially alcohol, is a frequent flashpoint for verbal abuse, threats and violence against shop workers; further recognises the difficulties that shop workers, including in Paisley South, have in policing age-restricted sales and how that can leave them vulnerable, isolated and under threat of prosecution when mistakes are made; considers that there would be benefit in high-profile campaigns that support the Think 25 policy and highlight to youngsters that it is an offence to attempt to buy alcohol under age, and would welcome a partnership approach to the development of strategies to prevent under-age sales rather than sting operations, which seek to prosecute shop workers.
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab): Like many others, I take for granted the fact that there should be no abuse or violence at work. People think that should be the norm in a civilised society, but unfortunately that is still not the case for many workers across Scotland, particularly shop workers.
Over the past few years, like many other members of the Scottish Parliament, I have received regular reports of violence against bus workers, train drivers, postal workers, social care staff and, of course, shop workers. Indeed, I have received such reports about many other workers in different occupations in Scotland. That is the main reason for my proposed workers (aggravated offences) Scotland bill. I am grateful to MSPs not only from the Labour Party but from other parties who have supported my proposal, and I look forward to taking the bill on to its next stage. I am also grateful for broad-based support from trade unions in not only highlighting the problems that their members experience but offering practical support in moving forward what is, for them, a very important bill.
Tonight, I will focus on one issue: violence against and abuse of shop workers. In 2002, USDAW, the shop workers union, launched its freedom from fear campaign to highlight the violence and abuse that shop workers throughout the United Kingdom face.
Since then, USDAW has organised annual respect for shop workers events, including events in Scotland. I have been pleased to help to highlight the issue by hosting events here in the Scottish Parliament. One feature of the campaign is that events have secured support from MSPs from all political parties. I know that USDAW is grateful for that broad-based support.
Unfortunately, the problem does not go away. I acknowledge that, since USDAW launched its campaign, there has been a decline in the number of reported incidents, but everything is relative. In 2009, there were still more than 13,000 physical attacks and hundreds of thousands of reported cases of regular verbal abuse across the United Kingdom. That is unacceptable—no worker should have to face such incidents in the course of their employment.
I pay tribute to USDAW for the work that it has done in taking such a determined stance against a problem that is totally unacceptable. John Hannett, the general secretary of USDAW, has led from the front and put his union fully behind the campaign to make a difference. I thank David Williams, the political officer of USDAW, for the work that he has done. He has been a true friend to those in Scotland who have campaigned on the issue. John Scott may not share my view, but I wish David Williams well in his campaign to be elected as the next member of Parliament for Crewe and Nantwich and look forward to him being at Westminster. Here in Scotland, Lawrence Wason and Stewart Forrest have been vigorous in their work to promote awareness of the problem and to bring it to the attention of the wider public.
That the Parliament is shocked and horrified that there has been a 78% increase in violence and abuse against Scottish shop workers over the last three years, according to Retailers Against Crime; believes that further measures need to be taken to deter violence against shop workers and other workers delivering a service to the public; welcomes the Freedom from Fear campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), which seeks to make shops and shopping areas safer for staff and customers; recognises that the sale of age-restricted products, especially alcohol, is a frequent flashpoint for verbal abuse, threats and violence against shop workers; further recognises the difficulties that shop workers, including in Paisley South, have in policing age-restricted sales and how that can leave them vulnerable, isolated and under threat of prosecution when mistakes are made; considers that there would be benefit in high-profile campaigns that support the Think 25 policy and highlight to youngsters that it is an offence to attempt to buy alcohol under age, and would welcome a partnership approach to the development of strategies to prevent under-age sales rather than sting operations, which seek to prosecute shop workers.
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab): Like many others, I take for granted the fact that there should be no abuse or violence at work. People think that should be the norm in a civilised society, but unfortunately that is still not the case for many workers across Scotland, particularly shop workers.
Over the past few years, like many other members of the Scottish Parliament, I have received regular reports of violence against bus workers, train drivers, postal workers, social care staff and, of course, shop workers. Indeed, I have received such reports about many other workers in different occupations in Scotland. That is the main reason for my proposed workers (aggravated offences) Scotland bill. I am grateful to MSPs not only from the Labour Party but from other parties who have supported my proposal, and I look forward to taking the bill on to its next stage. I am also grateful for broad-based support from trade unions in not only highlighting the problems that their members experience but offering practical support in moving forward what is, for them, a very important bill.
Tonight, I will focus on one issue: violence against and abuse of shop workers. In 2002, USDAW, the shop workers union, launched its freedom from fear campaign to highlight the violence and abuse that shop workers throughout the United Kingdom face.
Since then, USDAW has organised annual respect for shop workers events, including events in Scotland. I have been pleased to help to highlight the issue by hosting events here in the Scottish Parliament. One feature of the campaign is that events have secured support from MSPs from all political parties. I know that USDAW is grateful for that broad-based support.
Unfortunately, the problem does not go away. I acknowledge that, since USDAW launched its campaign, there has been a decline in the number of reported incidents, but everything is relative. In 2009, there were still more than 13,000 physical attacks and hundreds of thousands of reported cases of regular verbal abuse across the United Kingdom. That is unacceptable—no worker should have to face such incidents in the course of their employment.
I pay tribute to USDAW for the work that it has done in taking such a determined stance against a problem that is totally unacceptable. John Hannett, the general secretary of USDAW, has led from the front and put his union fully behind the campaign to make a difference. I thank David Williams, the political officer of USDAW, for the work that he has done. He has been a true friend to those in Scotland who have campaigned on the issue. John Scott may not share my view, but I wish David Williams well in his campaign to be elected as the next member of Parliament for Crewe and Nantwich and look forward to him being at Westminster. Here in Scotland, Lawrence Wason and Stewart Forrest have been vigorous in their work to promote awareness of the problem and to bring it to the attention of the wider public.
Speech in the Scottish Parliament on Double Jeapordy 24 March 2010
When I began to reflect on the debate, I started with the instinctive view that I would not be happy with anything that gave the state the "unfettered" right, as the cabinet secretary described it, to prosecute and persecute people. It is important that we build into our system safeguards that protect the individual from abuse by the state. It is not right that the police have the right, time and again, to come after someone simply because they cannot get the case right in the first place, nor is it right for prosecutors to come back time and again because they failed, for whatever reason, to get the verdict that they thought was right.
Also after reflection, however, I concluded that it cannot be right for victims and their families to see someone who is palpably and clearly guilty get off scot free when they have, as Bill Aitken and others have suggested, admitted their guilt for whatever reason, or new evidence has emerged that demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that they should have been convicted of a serious offence. The balance should shift in favour of victims and their families—and, indeed, the public—so that when it can be clearly demonstrated that evidence now exists in the case of someone who, for whatever reason, was previously acquitted or found not guilty, it should be considered whether to prosecute that person again.
Such an approach cannot be unfettered, as a number of members have suggested. It would not be right simply to have every possible case brought forward. I am not sure that I wish, in this debate, to go into the full list of circumstances that would justify that. Today, we should be debating whether it is right in principle to change the present practice. Then, through the process of consultation that has been outlined by the cabinet secretary, we should give ourselves and others the opportunity to reflect and consider how best the approach can be adopted carefully. We should proceed cautiously and carefully. The last thing that we wish to do is to rush headlong into addressing an injustice in such a way that creates another one in the process. If there is new evidence to demonstrate a case beyond all reasonable doubt—through improvements in DNA techniques, for instance—it should be considered. As I said, I do not wish to go through an exhaustive list of circumstances, but I instinctively agree with Stewart Maxwell that, where serious sexual offences have been committed against children, we cannot close our ears to the cries for justice. I do not think that the Liberal Democrats' proposal to restrict the policy to very specific circumstances is the right one.
We have long-established principles in this country that the law should not be retrospective, but the case has been made that, if someone has previously been convicted, then we have changed the law and the evidence is found to be there, there is an argument for looking at it. I hope that that will be considered sensitively in the consultation process.
Publicity is a difficult issue. Trials can be tainted by publicity. The problem is that the publicity surrounding a first conviction, or rather the lack of a conviction, would almost demonstrate—if we consider the argument against the proposal—that no cases could ever be brought back before the courts. There will inevitably be publicity. Judges will have to consider that carefully, but they are experienced in doing so at present, and publicity in itself should not rule out the opportunity to hold another trial.
Robert Brown: Would Mr Henry nevertheless accept the importance of having no prejudicial publicity emerging from the consideration of a request for retrial? That could foul up the fairness of the retrial.
Hugh Henry: I agree with that point, but the same applies to the first trial. The judge must make it clear to the press and other parties that injudicious comments could prejudice a fair trial, so people should be very careful. Unfortunately, we now live in the kind of society where prurient and sensational headlines and stories appear, and, although they might well sell papers, they do not help the judicial system. The judge will have to take some responsibility for that.
Margo MacDonald: I suggest that that point is now wider than it might have been in the past. We are not talking merely about newspaper files and reproductions of past stories; we are talking about the internet, which is an unfettered opinion outlet. We must therefore consider seriously how public opinion will be influenced.
Hugh Henry: I do not doubt that that is the case, but the same applies to all trials. Such is the scope of the internet that people can read comments that have been made elsewhere about trials taking place in this country. Indeed, if we were to take the argument to its logical conclusion, the scope of the internet would allow very few trials to proceed. Care needs to be taken, and I am sure that it will be.
On the question of who should make the decision and how it should be made, I am attracted to the suggestion that the Lord Advocate should determine issues of serious significance and that a judge should make the final decision. My mind is open on the matter and I hope that more evidence on that will emerge as a result of the consultation.
I support the principles that the cabinet secretary outlined in what I thought was a measured speech. It is right that the Parliament takes steps to change something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.
Also after reflection, however, I concluded that it cannot be right for victims and their families to see someone who is palpably and clearly guilty get off scot free when they have, as Bill Aitken and others have suggested, admitted their guilt for whatever reason, or new evidence has emerged that demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that they should have been convicted of a serious offence. The balance should shift in favour of victims and their families—and, indeed, the public—so that when it can be clearly demonstrated that evidence now exists in the case of someone who, for whatever reason, was previously acquitted or found not guilty, it should be considered whether to prosecute that person again.
Such an approach cannot be unfettered, as a number of members have suggested. It would not be right simply to have every possible case brought forward. I am not sure that I wish, in this debate, to go into the full list of circumstances that would justify that. Today, we should be debating whether it is right in principle to change the present practice. Then, through the process of consultation that has been outlined by the cabinet secretary, we should give ourselves and others the opportunity to reflect and consider how best the approach can be adopted carefully. We should proceed cautiously and carefully. The last thing that we wish to do is to rush headlong into addressing an injustice in such a way that creates another one in the process. If there is new evidence to demonstrate a case beyond all reasonable doubt—through improvements in DNA techniques, for instance—it should be considered. As I said, I do not wish to go through an exhaustive list of circumstances, but I instinctively agree with Stewart Maxwell that, where serious sexual offences have been committed against children, we cannot close our ears to the cries for justice. I do not think that the Liberal Democrats' proposal to restrict the policy to very specific circumstances is the right one.
We have long-established principles in this country that the law should not be retrospective, but the case has been made that, if someone has previously been convicted, then we have changed the law and the evidence is found to be there, there is an argument for looking at it. I hope that that will be considered sensitively in the consultation process.
Publicity is a difficult issue. Trials can be tainted by publicity. The problem is that the publicity surrounding a first conviction, or rather the lack of a conviction, would almost demonstrate—if we consider the argument against the proposal—that no cases could ever be brought back before the courts. There will inevitably be publicity. Judges will have to consider that carefully, but they are experienced in doing so at present, and publicity in itself should not rule out the opportunity to hold another trial.
Robert Brown: Would Mr Henry nevertheless accept the importance of having no prejudicial publicity emerging from the consideration of a request for retrial? That could foul up the fairness of the retrial.
Hugh Henry: I agree with that point, but the same applies to the first trial. The judge must make it clear to the press and other parties that injudicious comments could prejudice a fair trial, so people should be very careful. Unfortunately, we now live in the kind of society where prurient and sensational headlines and stories appear, and, although they might well sell papers, they do not help the judicial system. The judge will have to take some responsibility for that.
Margo MacDonald: I suggest that that point is now wider than it might have been in the past. We are not talking merely about newspaper files and reproductions of past stories; we are talking about the internet, which is an unfettered opinion outlet. We must therefore consider seriously how public opinion will be influenced.
Hugh Henry: I do not doubt that that is the case, but the same applies to all trials. Such is the scope of the internet that people can read comments that have been made elsewhere about trials taking place in this country. Indeed, if we were to take the argument to its logical conclusion, the scope of the internet would allow very few trials to proceed. Care needs to be taken, and I am sure that it will be.
On the question of who should make the decision and how it should be made, I am attracted to the suggestion that the Lord Advocate should determine issues of serious significance and that a judge should make the final decision. My mind is open on the matter and I hope that more evidence on that will emerge as a result of the consultation.
I support the principles that the cabinet secretary outlined in what I thought was a measured speech. It is right that the Parliament takes steps to change something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.
Speech in the Scottish Parliament in the debate about Buses 18 March 2010
How many times over the years have we heard about good ideas, products and innovations that have been developed in Scotland but which have not, unfortunately, come to anything or have been taken on and developed by others elsewhere, who have then benefited from them? It is clear that we are discussing a product that has been designed, developed and delivered in Scotland and which can make a difference not only here but elsewhere. It would be a tragedy if we let that go for whatever reason—as a result of neglect, carelessness or wringing our hands because we think that there is nothing that we can do.
Some of the debate is predicated on the question whether there is a need for investment in buses. Alison McInnes was right to talk about the significant investment that many major bus companies in this country are making. I pay tribute to them. I recently met representatives of Arriva in our area, who explained to me exactly what the company has been doing to develop local bus services. We need to recognise the exceptionally difficult climate in which bus operators are operating. Their margins have been cut, and passenger numbers in some areas are down because of the recession and changed employment patterns. If we are going to ensure the survival of those companies and their investment, it is incumbent on us to do something about that.
Despite the investment by good bus companies, too many buses—certainly across Scotland's central belt—still leave a lot to be desired. We have buses that are not fit for purpose and that, frankly, verge on the dangerous, as well as buses that emit noxious gases at an unacceptably high level. Buses are often not just uncomfortable but unreliable. That is the issue that we should address if, as Charlie Gordon described, we are to have a bus industry and a bus service that are not only fit for purpose but attractive, so that we bring passengers back on to the buses.
Alexander Dennis Ltd produces a cutting-edge product. There is no doubt about the technology and the contribution that it can make. The cabinet secretary was absolutely right to pay tribute not just to the company and its management, but to the workforce for the sacrifices—I use that word advisedly—that it has made. It is a dedicated and skilled workforce that was determined to keep the product and to keep the jobs in the local community. I wonder whether the company would have survived without the sacrifice and commitment of the workforce. I pay tribute to the workers and to their trade union for everything that they have done to give the company an opportunity for the future.
We should ask what we as a Parliament, with our appointed Government ministers, can do to make a difference. John Swinney said that it is a matter for local government. That is correct up to a point, in that it is a matter for local government if that is how we choose to play it. However, it can be a matter for the Parliament and its Government ministers if we and they choose to do something about it.
John Swinney: I hope that Mr Henry will come on to the fact that the Government has made available resources specifically to ensure an uptake of low-carbon buses, through the reconfiguration of the BSOG and through the particular grant that we have made available to Strathclyde partnership for transport.
Hugh Henry: I acknowledge that but, in a sense, it proves my point that the matter is not just one for local government—Government ministers can do something. The question is whether what they have done is sufficient. However, I pay tribute to ministers for what has been done.
One thing that can make a difference is a spend-to-save initiative, which I saw when I was leader of a council. By putting in money up front and encouraging expenditure by various departments, we ensured that they did something more efficiently and effectively and saved money. Some of the measures to which the cabinet secretary referred are in that direction. We can spend to save through Government initiatives that save jobs, reduce running costs and protect our environment.
The question is whether we can unite around not only the motion but the principle of ensuring that Alexander Dennis Ltd and its dedicated workforce have a fighting chance for the future. We should and can do that, for the best.
Some of the debate is predicated on the question whether there is a need for investment in buses. Alison McInnes was right to talk about the significant investment that many major bus companies in this country are making. I pay tribute to them. I recently met representatives of Arriva in our area, who explained to me exactly what the company has been doing to develop local bus services. We need to recognise the exceptionally difficult climate in which bus operators are operating. Their margins have been cut, and passenger numbers in some areas are down because of the recession and changed employment patterns. If we are going to ensure the survival of those companies and their investment, it is incumbent on us to do something about that.
Despite the investment by good bus companies, too many buses—certainly across Scotland's central belt—still leave a lot to be desired. We have buses that are not fit for purpose and that, frankly, verge on the dangerous, as well as buses that emit noxious gases at an unacceptably high level. Buses are often not just uncomfortable but unreliable. That is the issue that we should address if, as Charlie Gordon described, we are to have a bus industry and a bus service that are not only fit for purpose but attractive, so that we bring passengers back on to the buses.
Alexander Dennis Ltd produces a cutting-edge product. There is no doubt about the technology and the contribution that it can make. The cabinet secretary was absolutely right to pay tribute not just to the company and its management, but to the workforce for the sacrifices—I use that word advisedly—that it has made. It is a dedicated and skilled workforce that was determined to keep the product and to keep the jobs in the local community. I wonder whether the company would have survived without the sacrifice and commitment of the workforce. I pay tribute to the workers and to their trade union for everything that they have done to give the company an opportunity for the future.
We should ask what we as a Parliament, with our appointed Government ministers, can do to make a difference. John Swinney said that it is a matter for local government. That is correct up to a point, in that it is a matter for local government if that is how we choose to play it. However, it can be a matter for the Parliament and its Government ministers if we and they choose to do something about it.
John Swinney: I hope that Mr Henry will come on to the fact that the Government has made available resources specifically to ensure an uptake of low-carbon buses, through the reconfiguration of the BSOG and through the particular grant that we have made available to Strathclyde partnership for transport.
Hugh Henry: I acknowledge that but, in a sense, it proves my point that the matter is not just one for local government—Government ministers can do something. The question is whether what they have done is sufficient. However, I pay tribute to ministers for what has been done.
One thing that can make a difference is a spend-to-save initiative, which I saw when I was leader of a council. By putting in money up front and encouraging expenditure by various departments, we ensured that they did something more efficiently and effectively and saved money. Some of the measures to which the cabinet secretary referred are in that direction. We can spend to save through Government initiatives that save jobs, reduce running costs and protect our environment.
The question is whether we can unite around not only the motion but the principle of ensuring that Alexander Dennis Ltd and its dedicated workforce have a fighting chance for the future. We should and can do that, for the best.
Speech on Serious and Organised Crime 11 March 2010
I agree with much of what the cabinet secretary said this afternoon. Indeed, like most members in the chamber, I can endorse much of what he has said since his appointment on issues of serious and organised crime.
When he says, as he did this afternoon, that he is sending out a warning that those who are involved in crime are not untouchable and that their ill-gotten gains will be taken from them, I fully support him. I also fully support the statements made in many Government documents, including that which specifically says:
"Fraud against government reduces the money available to fund services like schools, hospitals and police on the street."
I was, therefore, surprised that when I asked the cabinet secretary whether he would support my call for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be used against a convicted fraudster, he said that he could not comment on a specific case as a cabinet minister.
Then, strangely enough, he went on to list specific examples to illustrate his support for the use of the proceeds of crime. Of course, his speech was written before I asked the question, so the cabinet secretary was clearly prepared to endorse specific action against some people. I cannot understand why he is so reluctant to be specific in his support for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be used against the individual I asked about. I hope that a letter of comfort from a cabinet secretary colleague would not temper his zeal in ensuring that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is properly applied.
I share the views that many members have articulated about the complexity and the significance of the threat facing our society from serious and organised crime. Some of the legislation that has been mentioned has been significant and has had a profound and positive impact. However, like any other legislation, we need to be able to develop it as required. We need to learn from our practice and experience and, where improvements can be made, we need to be prepared to make them. That is why I believe that the time is right to ensure that the impact of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the recovery of assets are strengthened. Where there are weaknesses, we should address them radically. We should not hesitate.
In ensuring that we are able to tackle serious and organised crime, it is not enough just to change the legislation if required. We need to be able to invest to ensure that those criminals are tackled. I commend the additional money that the cabinet secretary has mentioned will be invested. We expect that such a problem will continually demand more resources. It is not enough to say that we are spending more than we did a couple of years ago; that should be taken for granted. The question is whether we are prepared centrally to invest what is required. I hope that the cost of some of the advances that the cabinet secretary mentioned, such as the investment in forensic techniques, is being met from central resources and that we are not using money from recovered assets and the proceeds of crime to fund what should be centrally funded from Government and police board resources. We know that many criminals have access to the best accountants, lawyers and equipment. If we are serious in our determination to match them and beat them, we must ensure that the SCDEA and our police forces equally have access to the best resources. We should not hesitate to provide such investment.
We have been blessed with many talented individuals. Graeme Pearson has been mentioned; I knew Gordon Meldrum, the current director of the SCDEA, in his previous post in the police; and there is also Johnny Gwynne. Those are talented, experienced and dedicated officers who are determined to make a difference and that determination should not be thwarted by any internal wrangling in police forces or arguments about the deployment or secondment of resources. The SCDEA needs the full support of every agency and politician in this country to ensure that it does its job to best effect.
I support what has been said about the need to disrupt the organised criminals and about the need to divert resources. I commend the work that has been done through choices for life, the education programme for primary 7 children throughout Scotland. However, one of the last things that I did before I moved from the justice portfolio was ask for an examination of the impact of that programme. Significant amounts of money have been invested in it and it is possibly right to continue with it, but is it having an impact? Are children at that age being deterred from criminality in their teenage years? There should be some tracking to see whether that investment and effort are having the desired effect. I make no criticism—it is a wonderful programme and I have attended its meetings—but we need to examine whether our investment and what we are doing are having the desired effect.
When he says, as he did this afternoon, that he is sending out a warning that those who are involved in crime are not untouchable and that their ill-gotten gains will be taken from them, I fully support him. I also fully support the statements made in many Government documents, including that which specifically says:
"Fraud against government reduces the money available to fund services like schools, hospitals and police on the street."
I was, therefore, surprised that when I asked the cabinet secretary whether he would support my call for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be used against a convicted fraudster, he said that he could not comment on a specific case as a cabinet minister.
Then, strangely enough, he went on to list specific examples to illustrate his support for the use of the proceeds of crime. Of course, his speech was written before I asked the question, so the cabinet secretary was clearly prepared to endorse specific action against some people. I cannot understand why he is so reluctant to be specific in his support for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be used against the individual I asked about. I hope that a letter of comfort from a cabinet secretary colleague would not temper his zeal in ensuring that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is properly applied.
I share the views that many members have articulated about the complexity and the significance of the threat facing our society from serious and organised crime. Some of the legislation that has been mentioned has been significant and has had a profound and positive impact. However, like any other legislation, we need to be able to develop it as required. We need to learn from our practice and experience and, where improvements can be made, we need to be prepared to make them. That is why I believe that the time is right to ensure that the impact of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the recovery of assets are strengthened. Where there are weaknesses, we should address them radically. We should not hesitate.
In ensuring that we are able to tackle serious and organised crime, it is not enough just to change the legislation if required. We need to be able to invest to ensure that those criminals are tackled. I commend the additional money that the cabinet secretary has mentioned will be invested. We expect that such a problem will continually demand more resources. It is not enough to say that we are spending more than we did a couple of years ago; that should be taken for granted. The question is whether we are prepared centrally to invest what is required. I hope that the cost of some of the advances that the cabinet secretary mentioned, such as the investment in forensic techniques, is being met from central resources and that we are not using money from recovered assets and the proceeds of crime to fund what should be centrally funded from Government and police board resources. We know that many criminals have access to the best accountants, lawyers and equipment. If we are serious in our determination to match them and beat them, we must ensure that the SCDEA and our police forces equally have access to the best resources. We should not hesitate to provide such investment.
We have been blessed with many talented individuals. Graeme Pearson has been mentioned; I knew Gordon Meldrum, the current director of the SCDEA, in his previous post in the police; and there is also Johnny Gwynne. Those are talented, experienced and dedicated officers who are determined to make a difference and that determination should not be thwarted by any internal wrangling in police forces or arguments about the deployment or secondment of resources. The SCDEA needs the full support of every agency and politician in this country to ensure that it does its job to best effect.
I support what has been said about the need to disrupt the organised criminals and about the need to divert resources. I commend the work that has been done through choices for life, the education programme for primary 7 children throughout Scotland. However, one of the last things that I did before I moved from the justice portfolio was ask for an examination of the impact of that programme. Significant amounts of money have been invested in it and it is possibly right to continue with it, but is it having an impact? Are children at that age being deterred from criminality in their teenage years? There should be some tracking to see whether that investment and effort are having the desired effect. I make no criticism—it is a wonderful programme and I have attended its meetings—but we need to examine whether our investment and what we are doing are having the desired effect.
Speech on the Newspaper Industry 28 January 2010
Karen Whitefield and Cathie Craigie mentioned the double edge of local newspapers, which can certainly be difficult outlets for many politicians. As a public representative for many years, I have been on the receiving end of withering criticism from local and national papers, but that is healthy—it is a fundamental of the democratic process.
Politicians should not seek to use only the outlets that are favourable to them; they need to recognise that local papers play a vital role in keeping the public informed and giving access to information, as Iain Smith and others have said.
Anything that damages that function should be opposed. The change has the potential to be a financial dagger to the heart of many of Scotland's newspapers. The people who will be the beneficiaries will be those in power at the local or national level. The danger is that no one will be left to scrutinise and criticise the decisions that are being made. I will come back to that point.
Ian McKee asked who reads newspapers. I have spoken to my local newspapers on the subject—The Gazette, a weekly newspaper, and the Paisley Daily Express, a campaigning daily newspaper. Anne Dalrymple, the editor of the Paisley Daily Express told me that, over the course of a year, over 60 per cent of local people read her paper—a significant number. Indeed, in any one week, something like 55 per cent of local adults read the Paisley Daily Express.
What would the loss of revenue mean to such local papers? Scottish and Universal Newspapers has estimated that its group could lose up to £1 million. That is equivalent to the annual revenue of the Paisley Daily Express—a staggering and significant amount. Amanda Ramsden, the editor of The Gazette and the Barrhead News said:
"I can say categorically the plans for changing the law to allow Public Information Notices to be advertised electronically in place of newspapers would be a devastating blow to our titles."
The debate is not only about what newspapers and politicians are saying but, as Cathie Craigie indicated, the duty and responsibility that politicians have to the people whom we represent. What are members of the public saying on the subject? To its credit, the Paisley Daily Express took time to go out on the streets and ask.
A woman from Glenburn in my constituency is quoted as saying: "I get all my information from the Express, I read it every day. They've already stopped advertising councillors surgeries in the papers so I had to go down to the library to ask the staff there how I could find out about contacting my councillor".
Renfrewshire Council has stopped advertising councillor surgeries; its councillors are now hiding from their public, which is a disgrace. The paper also quoted Paisley worker Carolan Forbes, who had not heard about the Government plans. She said:
"I think it sounds like a very bad idea ... not everyone has access to the internet or uses the internet."
Gordon Barr from Paisley told the paper that he uses the internet easily but that his parents would struggle if the Government's plans went ahead. He said:
"My parents are both well into their 70s and they don't use the internet at all."
Ian McKee: Mr Henry rightly mentions the importance of consultation. Does he feel that it is wrong for the Scottish Government to consult on whether to end the automatic right for public information notices to be put in the press, when it was asked to do so by COSLA, which represents all local authorities?
Hugh Henry: It is a farce to consult on an issue to which there is such overwhelming opposition.
Another of my constituents, who lives in the west end of Paisley, is quoted in the paper as saying:
"We feel it's the thin end for the wedge. They could push through all sorts of planning things without anyone knowing."
That is the critical issue. As well as the financial blow to local newspapers, a huge democratic issue is involved. Those in power, whether councillors or Government ministers, will take decisions and no one will know what is happening. In essence, the Government case is based on cost savings; little consideration has been given to what many believe should be a fundamental part of the democratic process, which is that the information that legislation requires to be communicated to the public should be targeted to give maximum visibility on a cost-effective basis.
Yesterday, I spoke to a journalist who told me of decisions that are being taken "under the radar". In other words, decisions are being pushed through and no one knows about them. If it were not for local newspapers, how would my constituents, whose children are having their school transport removed, know about the decision? The council did not tell them in advance of its decision. Local newspapers were the only ones to highlight the issue.
Without local newspapers, how could my constituents campaign to save libraries that the council is attempting to close in Elderslie and Johnstone? Those local papers are the only means that people in our communities have of reading about what is going on in the council and of expressing their outrage. The suggestion challenges democracy, which will be under threat if the proposal goes ahead. We need healthy, campaigning and functional newspapers.
Politicians should not seek to use only the outlets that are favourable to them; they need to recognise that local papers play a vital role in keeping the public informed and giving access to information, as Iain Smith and others have said.
Anything that damages that function should be opposed. The change has the potential to be a financial dagger to the heart of many of Scotland's newspapers. The people who will be the beneficiaries will be those in power at the local or national level. The danger is that no one will be left to scrutinise and criticise the decisions that are being made. I will come back to that point.
Ian McKee asked who reads newspapers. I have spoken to my local newspapers on the subject—The Gazette, a weekly newspaper, and the Paisley Daily Express, a campaigning daily newspaper. Anne Dalrymple, the editor of the Paisley Daily Express told me that, over the course of a year, over 60 per cent of local people read her paper—a significant number. Indeed, in any one week, something like 55 per cent of local adults read the Paisley Daily Express.
What would the loss of revenue mean to such local papers? Scottish and Universal Newspapers has estimated that its group could lose up to £1 million. That is equivalent to the annual revenue of the Paisley Daily Express—a staggering and significant amount. Amanda Ramsden, the editor of The Gazette and the Barrhead News said:
"I can say categorically the plans for changing the law to allow Public Information Notices to be advertised electronically in place of newspapers would be a devastating blow to our titles."
The debate is not only about what newspapers and politicians are saying but, as Cathie Craigie indicated, the duty and responsibility that politicians have to the people whom we represent. What are members of the public saying on the subject? To its credit, the Paisley Daily Express took time to go out on the streets and ask.
A woman from Glenburn in my constituency is quoted as saying: "I get all my information from the Express, I read it every day. They've already stopped advertising councillors surgeries in the papers so I had to go down to the library to ask the staff there how I could find out about contacting my councillor".
Renfrewshire Council has stopped advertising councillor surgeries; its councillors are now hiding from their public, which is a disgrace. The paper also quoted Paisley worker Carolan Forbes, who had not heard about the Government plans. She said:
"I think it sounds like a very bad idea ... not everyone has access to the internet or uses the internet."
Gordon Barr from Paisley told the paper that he uses the internet easily but that his parents would struggle if the Government's plans went ahead. He said:
"My parents are both well into their 70s and they don't use the internet at all."
Ian McKee: Mr Henry rightly mentions the importance of consultation. Does he feel that it is wrong for the Scottish Government to consult on whether to end the automatic right for public information notices to be put in the press, when it was asked to do so by COSLA, which represents all local authorities?
Hugh Henry: It is a farce to consult on an issue to which there is such overwhelming opposition.
Another of my constituents, who lives in the west end of Paisley, is quoted in the paper as saying:
"We feel it's the thin end for the wedge. They could push through all sorts of planning things without anyone knowing."
That is the critical issue. As well as the financial blow to local newspapers, a huge democratic issue is involved. Those in power, whether councillors or Government ministers, will take decisions and no one will know what is happening. In essence, the Government case is based on cost savings; little consideration has been given to what many believe should be a fundamental part of the democratic process, which is that the information that legislation requires to be communicated to the public should be targeted to give maximum visibility on a cost-effective basis.
Yesterday, I spoke to a journalist who told me of decisions that are being taken "under the radar". In other words, decisions are being pushed through and no one knows about them. If it were not for local newspapers, how would my constituents, whose children are having their school transport removed, know about the decision? The council did not tell them in advance of its decision. Local newspapers were the only ones to highlight the issue.
Without local newspapers, how could my constituents campaign to save libraries that the council is attempting to close in Elderslie and Johnstone? Those local papers are the only means that people in our communities have of reading about what is going on in the council and of expressing their outrage. The suggestion challenges democracy, which will be under threat if the proposal goes ahead. We need healthy, campaigning and functional newspapers.
Speech on the Literacy Commission 14th. January 2010
Like others, I welcome the commission's work and its valuable contribution to the development and enhancement of literacy in Scotland and pay tribute to my Labour Party colleagues who commissioned the report.
I know that everyone in the chamber appreciates the significance of literacy—or, perhaps more accurately, the significance of illiteracy. A National Literacy Trust paper by George Dugdale and Christina Clark that eloquently sets out some of the issues refers to a 2002 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which indicated that
"Reading for pleasure has been revealed as the most important indicator of the future success of a child ... and improvements in literacy, at any point in life, can have a profound effect on an individual."
I am sure that we all agree with that analysis.
In their report, George Dugdale and Christina Clark outline the profile of a literate community. In such a community, individuals are far more likely to participate in its work, are more likely to trust its people and are more likely to perceive it to be safer. Such positive aspects can serve only to enhance the quality of life in any community.
The report also sets out the profile of a literate nation. Such a nation is more likely to vote, the significance of which cannot be overstated; is less likely to smoke and drink—and we are aware of the profound significance of such factors; has better mental health; and has a better skilled and more flexible workforce. Some of those issues highlight why tackling the problem of illiteracy should be the number 1 educational priority of this and indeed any Administration. The fact is that every child who leaves primary school should be able to read, write and count.
However, any literacy policy needs to address three key factors: gender; parental input, which Karen Whitefield mentioned and to which I will return; and socioeconomic factors. On gender, we should not dismiss lightly the differences between boys and girls as far as literacy is concerned. We know that boys at any age are less likely to read.
However, although we need to find ways of engaging them more, we should also recognise that boys' books are pitched at a lower level than are books for girls of the same age. With that in mind, I encourage the cabinet secretary to engage with Learning and Teaching Scotland to review the advice that is given on practice so that it reflects available expert opinion.
There is another issue around literacy that we need to encourage, and on which I hope that the Government will also engage with Learning and Teaching Scotland. We need to encourage better and more significant links with the United Kingdom and the rest of the world, so that we articulate our success with some of the initiatives that have been outlined this morning, and so that we learn from best practice elsewhere in the world. We could do some more work on that.
Karen Whitefield mentioned some of the parental input initiatives. Over the years, the contribution made by some of the good sure start projects—I am not saying that every sure start project has been a success—has clearly shown the benefits of more parents getting involved with children at a young age. That has a lasting impact on the child, and indeed continues when that child becomes a parent. As a teacher working in a deprived area, over the years I saw generations of families that were failing because the parents were unable to articulate to their children, and when those children became parents they were unable to help their own children to develop. We were cementing in disadvantage in certain parts of the country, which was tragic for those families, the community and the country.
We need to consider socioeconomic issues. The Dugdale and Clark research looks specifically at impacts on the individual. The profile of a person with poor literacy shows that they are more likely to live in a non-working household; they are less likely to have children, and if they do their children are less likely to be successful; they are more likely to live in overcrowded housing; and they are less likely to vote. If we tackle the problem of illiteracy, such families and individuals are less likely to rely on state benefits and more likely to become home owners. They are more likely to be able to engage productively in the workforce and to be able to use the new technology that is increasingly available in every workplace. We know about the negative results of socioeconomic disadvantage and the positive ways in which literacy can address them. We ignore that at our peril.
Socioeconomic issues demand different types of teaching in different areas. Language development will be different in different communities. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. Teaching children who traditionally have a small vocabulary needs teacher-intensive phonics and vocabulary building, whereas children who come from more affluent households can go with more child-directed work and develop as a result. I say to the cabinet secretary that we should encourage and allow local authorities to allow individual schools to take the approach that is best suited to the children they teach. We can all sign up to that crusade.
I understand Christina McKelvie's point that we should not be negative about what has been allowed to develop in this country, but the truth is that, despite the best efforts of this and previous Administrations, there is clearly a deep-rooted problem in Scotland. If we do not tackle that problem and double, redouble, and quadruple our efforts, in 20, 30 and 40 years we will be having the same debate and failing the same families from the same areas.
I know that everyone in the chamber appreciates the significance of literacy—or, perhaps more accurately, the significance of illiteracy. A National Literacy Trust paper by George Dugdale and Christina Clark that eloquently sets out some of the issues refers to a 2002 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which indicated that
"Reading for pleasure has been revealed as the most important indicator of the future success of a child ... and improvements in literacy, at any point in life, can have a profound effect on an individual."
I am sure that we all agree with that analysis.
In their report, George Dugdale and Christina Clark outline the profile of a literate community. In such a community, individuals are far more likely to participate in its work, are more likely to trust its people and are more likely to perceive it to be safer. Such positive aspects can serve only to enhance the quality of life in any community.
The report also sets out the profile of a literate nation. Such a nation is more likely to vote, the significance of which cannot be overstated; is less likely to smoke and drink—and we are aware of the profound significance of such factors; has better mental health; and has a better skilled and more flexible workforce. Some of those issues highlight why tackling the problem of illiteracy should be the number 1 educational priority of this and indeed any Administration. The fact is that every child who leaves primary school should be able to read, write and count.
However, any literacy policy needs to address three key factors: gender; parental input, which Karen Whitefield mentioned and to which I will return; and socioeconomic factors. On gender, we should not dismiss lightly the differences between boys and girls as far as literacy is concerned. We know that boys at any age are less likely to read.
However, although we need to find ways of engaging them more, we should also recognise that boys' books are pitched at a lower level than are books for girls of the same age. With that in mind, I encourage the cabinet secretary to engage with Learning and Teaching Scotland to review the advice that is given on practice so that it reflects available expert opinion.
There is another issue around literacy that we need to encourage, and on which I hope that the Government will also engage with Learning and Teaching Scotland. We need to encourage better and more significant links with the United Kingdom and the rest of the world, so that we articulate our success with some of the initiatives that have been outlined this morning, and so that we learn from best practice elsewhere in the world. We could do some more work on that.
Karen Whitefield mentioned some of the parental input initiatives. Over the years, the contribution made by some of the good sure start projects—I am not saying that every sure start project has been a success—has clearly shown the benefits of more parents getting involved with children at a young age. That has a lasting impact on the child, and indeed continues when that child becomes a parent. As a teacher working in a deprived area, over the years I saw generations of families that were failing because the parents were unable to articulate to their children, and when those children became parents they were unable to help their own children to develop. We were cementing in disadvantage in certain parts of the country, which was tragic for those families, the community and the country.
We need to consider socioeconomic issues. The Dugdale and Clark research looks specifically at impacts on the individual. The profile of a person with poor literacy shows that they are more likely to live in a non-working household; they are less likely to have children, and if they do their children are less likely to be successful; they are more likely to live in overcrowded housing; and they are less likely to vote. If we tackle the problem of illiteracy, such families and individuals are less likely to rely on state benefits and more likely to become home owners. They are more likely to be able to engage productively in the workforce and to be able to use the new technology that is increasingly available in every workplace. We know about the negative results of socioeconomic disadvantage and the positive ways in which literacy can address them. We ignore that at our peril.
Socioeconomic issues demand different types of teaching in different areas. Language development will be different in different communities. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. Teaching children who traditionally have a small vocabulary needs teacher-intensive phonics and vocabulary building, whereas children who come from more affluent households can go with more child-directed work and develop as a result. I say to the cabinet secretary that we should encourage and allow local authorities to allow individual schools to take the approach that is best suited to the children they teach. We can all sign up to that crusade.
I understand Christina McKelvie's point that we should not be negative about what has been allowed to develop in this country, but the truth is that, despite the best efforts of this and previous Administrations, there is clearly a deep-rooted problem in Scotland. If we do not tackle that problem and double, redouble, and quadruple our efforts, in 20, 30 and 40 years we will be having the same debate and failing the same families from the same areas.
Speech on Getting It Right for Every Child 3rd. December 2009
There is no doubt that, as is wider civic society in Scotland, all members are committed to the principle of getting it right for every child. It is a principle that is based on common sense, a caring philosophy and understanding. The minister is right to talk of the progress that has been made—progress that all parties, those in the previous Administration and this one, supported. He was also right to point out some of the issues that are essential if getting it right for every child is to be implemented effectively. We need joint leadership, commitment, training and a single planning process.
It is also right to pause and reflect on some of the challenges that face us. It would be wrong to dwell solely on all the positive things that are happening and to be blind to the risks and dangers. I was shocked—as I am sure other members were—to hear the statistics that Duncan McNeil articulated. If nothing else, hearing his encapsulation of the figures, which are in the public domain, should make us pause and question whether Parliament and ministers need to investigate the situation further. We heard the horrendous death toll of vulnerable youngsters in this country. We rightly talk of our shock and horror at deaths from drug addiction and say how committed we are to dealing with the problem, but we seem to say little about those 144 children, the plight of whom Duncan McNeil raised. Perhaps a warning bell should be rung on the issue.
I turn to Angela Constance's speech. As she said, there is never room for complacency. She pointed out that only 12 councils were given excellent reports and also, rightly, that satisfactory was not good enough. She would not accept a satisfactory rating for her child. Like her, I would not accept a satisfactory rating for my grandchildren. I am sure that no member would accept satisfactory for any child who was associated with them.
I repeat what I said in a previous debate on the very point about the HMIE reports that Angela Constance raised:
"If a school were to get a 'satisfactory' report in an HMIE inspection, there would be an inquiry into the school's performance because that would not be good enough. A 'satisfactory' report is barely scraping a pass."
In terms of HMIE definitions, "barely scraping a pass" is essentially a "satisfactory" report. I went on to say:
"I refer to 'The Summary of Indicative Quality Indicator Results from HMIE inspections, 2009', which reveals that out of 30 councils, 16 are barely passing or are failing on the quality indicator that 'Children's needs are met'; 24 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on the 'Recognising and assessing risks and needs' indicator; 17 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on 'Operational planning'; 17 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on 'Leadership and direction'; and 18 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on 'Leadership of change and improvement'."—[Official Report, 24 September 2009; c 19945.]
That is not good enough for our children and should not be good enough for anyone here or anyone who has any influence to do anything about it.
There is still a challenge. Members are right to point to professionals' commitment and to the challenging and difficult job that they do. However, we ignore at our peril the damning indication of weaknesses in our system. If we do that, the figures to which Duncan McNeil referred will continue to grow, which is unacceptable.
We need to look at what is happening as a result of our actions. I refer to Parliament collectively—I am not trying to damn the present Administration, because the problems have existed for a number of years. Collectively, we need to do something to achieve more success. What are we achieving from our political and resource input?
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): In the light of the reassurances that I have repeatedly received in Parliament in response to questions about home visiting, and given the figures that Mary Scanlon cited, I am extremely concerned. Does Hugh Henry agree that there is a strong case for the Government to institute a review of the national health service's provision of home visiting, which seems to be failing? It might even want to ask Audit Scotland to become involved in that review.
Hugh Henry: We are duty bound to review any area of activity in which there is a sign of weakness. Home visiting is critical, because often it can pick up some of the weaknesses and dangers that Duncan McNeil highlighted. I hope that ministers will listen carefully to what Robin Harper has said.
Do we spend enough time listening to our children and young people and to the concerns that they articulate? Often, when I speak to teachers and health workers, I hear stories of young children pouring their hearts out about the circumstances that they face at home because of their parents' addiction to alcohol or drugs. Are we listening to them? Do we sometimes brush them off when their behaviour is a bit aberrant, without understanding what is causing that behaviour?
This comes back to Robin Harper's point: are we spending enough money to ensure that we achieve the desired outcome? The voluntary sector in Scotland—as the statutory services are—is under pressure and struggling. There are cuts and redundancies in many voluntary organisations across Scotland, but we depend on high-quality services to make a difference. As the minister and others have said, we need to improve information sharing and to ensure that our GIRFEC principles are at the heart of any proposed legislation.
My final point relates to our children in care, both those who are looked after in foster care and those who are in residential care. For years, we as a society have failed those children. It is remarkable how some survive and, indeed, thrive, but too many are left vulnerable to homelessness, addiction and prison once they leave care. We need to put that issue back at the heart of our commitment and discussion, in order truly to make a difference for every child in Scotland.
It is also right to pause and reflect on some of the challenges that face us. It would be wrong to dwell solely on all the positive things that are happening and to be blind to the risks and dangers. I was shocked—as I am sure other members were—to hear the statistics that Duncan McNeil articulated. If nothing else, hearing his encapsulation of the figures, which are in the public domain, should make us pause and question whether Parliament and ministers need to investigate the situation further. We heard the horrendous death toll of vulnerable youngsters in this country. We rightly talk of our shock and horror at deaths from drug addiction and say how committed we are to dealing with the problem, but we seem to say little about those 144 children, the plight of whom Duncan McNeil raised. Perhaps a warning bell should be rung on the issue.
I turn to Angela Constance's speech. As she said, there is never room for complacency. She pointed out that only 12 councils were given excellent reports and also, rightly, that satisfactory was not good enough. She would not accept a satisfactory rating for her child. Like her, I would not accept a satisfactory rating for my grandchildren. I am sure that no member would accept satisfactory for any child who was associated with them.
I repeat what I said in a previous debate on the very point about the HMIE reports that Angela Constance raised:
"If a school were to get a 'satisfactory' report in an HMIE inspection, there would be an inquiry into the school's performance because that would not be good enough. A 'satisfactory' report is barely scraping a pass."
In terms of HMIE definitions, "barely scraping a pass" is essentially a "satisfactory" report. I went on to say:
"I refer to 'The Summary of Indicative Quality Indicator Results from HMIE inspections, 2009', which reveals that out of 30 councils, 16 are barely passing or are failing on the quality indicator that 'Children's needs are met'; 24 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on the 'Recognising and assessing risks and needs' indicator; 17 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on 'Operational planning'; 17 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on 'Leadership and direction'; and 18 are barely scraping a pass or are failing on 'Leadership of change and improvement'."—[Official Report, 24 September 2009; c 19945.]
That is not good enough for our children and should not be good enough for anyone here or anyone who has any influence to do anything about it.
There is still a challenge. Members are right to point to professionals' commitment and to the challenging and difficult job that they do. However, we ignore at our peril the damning indication of weaknesses in our system. If we do that, the figures to which Duncan McNeil referred will continue to grow, which is unacceptable.
We need to look at what is happening as a result of our actions. I refer to Parliament collectively—I am not trying to damn the present Administration, because the problems have existed for a number of years. Collectively, we need to do something to achieve more success. What are we achieving from our political and resource input?
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): In the light of the reassurances that I have repeatedly received in Parliament in response to questions about home visiting, and given the figures that Mary Scanlon cited, I am extremely concerned. Does Hugh Henry agree that there is a strong case for the Government to institute a review of the national health service's provision of home visiting, which seems to be failing? It might even want to ask Audit Scotland to become involved in that review.
Hugh Henry: We are duty bound to review any area of activity in which there is a sign of weakness. Home visiting is critical, because often it can pick up some of the weaknesses and dangers that Duncan McNeil highlighted. I hope that ministers will listen carefully to what Robin Harper has said.
Do we spend enough time listening to our children and young people and to the concerns that they articulate? Often, when I speak to teachers and health workers, I hear stories of young children pouring their hearts out about the circumstances that they face at home because of their parents' addiction to alcohol or drugs. Are we listening to them? Do we sometimes brush them off when their behaviour is a bit aberrant, without understanding what is causing that behaviour?
This comes back to Robin Harper's point: are we spending enough money to ensure that we achieve the desired outcome? The voluntary sector in Scotland—as the statutory services are—is under pressure and struggling. There are cuts and redundancies in many voluntary organisations across Scotland, but we depend on high-quality services to make a difference. As the minister and others have said, we need to improve information sharing and to ensure that our GIRFEC principles are at the heart of any proposed legislation.
My final point relates to our children in care, both those who are looked after in foster care and those who are in residential care. For years, we as a society have failed those children. It is remarkable how some survive and, indeed, thrive, but too many are left vulnerable to homelessness, addiction and prison once they leave care. We need to put that issue back at the heart of our commitment and discussion, in order truly to make a difference for every child in Scotland.
Speech on Alcohol Minimum Pricing 5th. November 2009
There is no doubt about the need to take effective action to tackle the scourge of alcohol in families and communities throughout Scotland. I do not intend to go into the damaging effects that excessive alcohol consumption can have—they have been spelled out by other speakers and in many articles prior to today's debate. I hope that we can rise above our differences on the subject and come together to take effective action.
Although the cabinet secretary and her colleagues have made a well-intentioned proposal—and I commend them on the vigour that they have introduced to the alcohol debate—as we know, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. My concern about the debate today is that the SNP has not addressed many of the concerns and criticisms that have been levelled. I am here to be persuaded that minimum pricing would have a positive effect and achieve the desired result, but so far I have heard nothing to persuade me.
We heard today about the legal issues and I do not intend to go into them, but they undoubtedly need to be addressed. We heard of the worry about the damage to the Scottish whisky industry, not just in Scotland but potentially internationally. That needs to be addressed, although it is but one small part of the wider argument about tackling Scotland's significant alcohol-related health problems. Murdo Fraser rightly mentioned some of the damaging products that are available in our communities but would not be hit by a minimum pricing policy. That point needs to be answered.
I encourage the cabinet secretary and her colleagues to reflect on some specific issues. Michael Matheson mentioned cross-border trade and Canada, but there is a difference between what is happening in the Republic of Ireland and Canada. By my estimation, one could near as damn it fly from Glasgow to Toronto as quickly as one could fly from Toronto to Vancouver. Opportunities for short cross-border journeys are not exactly available in Canada. Recently, along with other members from this Parliament, I spoke to politicians from the north of Ireland and the Irish Republic. The TDs who represent border areas in the Republic said that something like over 60 per cent of all alcohol sales in Ireland are now made in the north of Ireland. Although the cabinet secretary and her colleagues might suggest that other shopping is done when people go to the north, it is
Col 20898
nevertheless true alcohol is a major influence on that pattern.
The cabinet secretary, I and others who are well paid, have internet access and credit cards, have the opportunity to go online to do our shopping and have deliveries made from Carlisle to Glasgow. Such facilities are not necessarily available to the poorer in our communities so the policy has a prejudice in favour of the better-off. It would create the opportunity for booze runs to Carlisle, not only for those such as me with the means to do that, load up the car and have a day out. It would also create opportunities for those with white vans who sell tobacco illegally in our communities to load up and return to sell the alcohol along with the tobacco. Many such people are also associated with the drugs trade, so we should worry that what we do has the potential to reinforce criminality. We should also worry about the impact on Scottish retailers.
My final point is that the proposed policy will not put a penny towards paying for extra health or addiction services or putting extra police on our streets. Although I favour using pricing to limit the consumption of alcohol, in a country such as the United Kingdom it should be done on a consistent basis whereby there are no anomalies, it is done through taxation and the revenue is invested in the facilities and services that we need.
Even at this late stage, I appeal for consensus. This debate shows the best and the worst of the Scottish Parliament. It shows the best in that we can address fundamentally important issues; it shows the worst in that we take up entrenched positions and will not reach out to achieve consensus on a matter that vitally needs it.
Although the cabinet secretary and her colleagues have made a well-intentioned proposal—and I commend them on the vigour that they have introduced to the alcohol debate—as we know, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. My concern about the debate today is that the SNP has not addressed many of the concerns and criticisms that have been levelled. I am here to be persuaded that minimum pricing would have a positive effect and achieve the desired result, but so far I have heard nothing to persuade me.
We heard today about the legal issues and I do not intend to go into them, but they undoubtedly need to be addressed. We heard of the worry about the damage to the Scottish whisky industry, not just in Scotland but potentially internationally. That needs to be addressed, although it is but one small part of the wider argument about tackling Scotland's significant alcohol-related health problems. Murdo Fraser rightly mentioned some of the damaging products that are available in our communities but would not be hit by a minimum pricing policy. That point needs to be answered.
I encourage the cabinet secretary and her colleagues to reflect on some specific issues. Michael Matheson mentioned cross-border trade and Canada, but there is a difference between what is happening in the Republic of Ireland and Canada. By my estimation, one could near as damn it fly from Glasgow to Toronto as quickly as one could fly from Toronto to Vancouver. Opportunities for short cross-border journeys are not exactly available in Canada. Recently, along with other members from this Parliament, I spoke to politicians from the north of Ireland and the Irish Republic. The TDs who represent border areas in the Republic said that something like over 60 per cent of all alcohol sales in Ireland are now made in the north of Ireland. Although the cabinet secretary and her colleagues might suggest that other shopping is done when people go to the north, it is
Col 20898
nevertheless true alcohol is a major influence on that pattern.
The cabinet secretary, I and others who are well paid, have internet access and credit cards, have the opportunity to go online to do our shopping and have deliveries made from Carlisle to Glasgow. Such facilities are not necessarily available to the poorer in our communities so the policy has a prejudice in favour of the better-off. It would create the opportunity for booze runs to Carlisle, not only for those such as me with the means to do that, load up the car and have a day out. It would also create opportunities for those with white vans who sell tobacco illegally in our communities to load up and return to sell the alcohol along with the tobacco. Many such people are also associated with the drugs trade, so we should worry that what we do has the potential to reinforce criminality. We should also worry about the impact on Scottish retailers.
My final point is that the proposed policy will not put a penny towards paying for extra health or addiction services or putting extra police on our streets. Although I favour using pricing to limit the consumption of alcohol, in a country such as the United Kingdom it should be done on a consistent basis whereby there are no anomalies, it is done through taxation and the revenue is invested in the facilities and services that we need.
Even at this late stage, I appeal for consensus. This debate shows the best and the worst of the Scottish Parliament. It shows the best in that we can address fundamentally important issues; it shows the worst in that we take up entrenched positions and will not reach out to achieve consensus on a matter that vitally needs it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)