02/02/12 Members Debate: Assistance Dogs are Working Dogs Too
In particular, I thank Guide Dogs Scotland for the help and information that it has given me and, more than anything else, I want to reassure our very own Parliament additional member, Mr Q, who has recently taken a bit of a huff with me because I have had other guide dog friends coming to the Parliament.
I am delighted to open the debate and to pay tribute to the assistance dog organisations that do such sterling work: Guide Dogs Scotland, Canine Partners, Therapet and the Search and Rescue Dog Association. I know that there are guide dog owners and volunteer puppy walkers in the public gallery. I thank them for attending the debate and for bringing the issue to my attention and to that of a number of my colleagues across parties and Parliaments and, of course, that of the many people throughout the country who have now signed the petition that asks for the United Kingdom Government to change the VAT legislation in respect of assistance dogs. I hope that members who are unable to be here for the debate will take the opportunity to sign that petition when they get a reminder to do so.
I have found that most people naturally assume, as I did, that guide dogs, hearing dogs and other assistance dogs are classed as working dogs, given the nature of the task that they perform for their owners. They are loved, but they are very different from the average family pet. When Chris Sinclair first told me that there is a VAT issue, my natural instinct was to say, “This can’t possibly be right.” We do, after all, have legislation that ensures equality of treatment. I was sure that there must have been a mistake somewhere, but after some investigation, I found that it was true that guide dogs and other assistance dogs are not defined as working dogs under the Equality Act 2010, so their food is not VAT exempt.
Let me turn to the definition of a working dog. A working dog is a “canine working animal”—a type of dog
“that is not merely a pet, but learns and performs tasks to assist and/or entertain its human companions, or a breed of such origin.”
Assistance dogs would certainly meet that criterion, especially as their duties mean that they are physically active for the majority of the day, but the current HM Revenue and Customs definition of a working dog appears to be based on the type of food that it consumes rather than the role that it performs. Working dogs are broadly defined by HMRC as sheepdogs, gun dogs and racing greyhounds. The food that is formulated for those types of working dogs is high in protein in order to provide them with enough energy to be active for long periods of time and thus to work effectively. That type of food is not suitable for assistance dogs, which require a specific diet to ensure low faecal output. That allows a guide dog to work out in public and provides the guide dog’s owner with greater control over their dog’s habits. It seems to me that that is not a sufficient reason to deny such dogs working-dog status. Their food is selected to best support the person with a disability whom they are assisting, and HMRC should take that into account.
Assistance dogs have a right of access, which allows them to accompany their owners everywhere and offers their owners confidence and independence. Assistance dogs greatly enhance the lives of an often-disadvantaged minority of people in Scotland and throughout the UK. They help their owners to perform everyday tasks, which increases their owners’ physical, emotional and mental wellbeing, and they contribute to improving their owners’ self-esteem. They are trained to assist with everyday tasks around the home and out and about, including unloading the washing machine, opening and closing doors and drawers, helping people with undressing and bedtime routines, retrieving items, assisting with shopping, and fetching help in an emergency. They do wide-ranging and fascinating work, and they are working dogs.
Assistance dog charities do remarkable work in training the dogs to perform those jobs, in raising funds and in ensuring that dogs are given to people who need them and not just to those who can afford them. To take guide dogs as an example, it costs about £50,000 to breed, birth, wean, train and support a guide dog through its working life. Guide Dogs Scotland pays for the majority of the food that is given to its dogs. In 2011, the charity was responsible for 1,000 dogs. It incurs a yearly VAT spend of £40,000 on dog food. If we made that food VAT exempt, we could provide a much-valued guide dog to another person with a disability in Scotland. In the UK context, in 2010, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association supported 8,000 dogs, incurring a VAT spend of £300,000. That would provide a lot of help to more people if the charity could use that money in another way.
Folk do not donate to assistance dog charities to see part of their donation ending up in the UK Treasury, but to support the services that those charities provide to people with disabilities. At a time when we are all too aware of the financial difficulties that many disabled people face in Scotland and the UK, I hope that the Westminster Government will take this opportunity to do the right thing. I accept that that might be difficult in terms of VAT exemptions for some individual owners who rely on their assistance dog and buy the dog food themselves, and that that would need further discussion; I get that. However, I believe that the situation with regard to VAT exemption for food for working dogs for registered charities could easily be sorted and very quickly implemented. I ask that the UK Government consider the matter without delay—I have done that in the form of the petition to Westminster—and, once again, I urge members to sign it. Legislation could be amended, if necessary, to make the food for assistance dogs that are funded by these charities VAT exempt.
I ask that the Scottish Government note the debate, take on board the issues and perhaps write to Westminster on behalf of people in Scotland who rely on assistance dogs.
01/02/12 Year of Creative Scotland
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP): I absolutely agree with what the member has said on that point. Does she agree that the trad trails collaboration between the Traditional Music and Song Association of Scotland and Fèis Rois, which was launched at Celtic Connections earlier this month, represents an ideal opportunity to enhance both of those important Scottish cultures?
Patricia Ferguson: I absolutely agree with Ms Fabiani on that. To take the connections a little further afield, one thing that has always impressed me is the way in which the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland has been able to combine the teaching of classical music at the highest level with the teaching of our more traditional music, also at the highest level. We should be proud of that and celebrate it.
01/02/12 Higher and Further Education (Governance)
Perhaps the important thing to stress—Linda Fabiani was right to raise the point—is that the process of education is about learners; it is not about institutions or managers. If we keep that in mind, I am sure that good sense will prevail.
26/01/12 Claim of Right debate
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP): I feel that this debate is a logical extension of the recent debate that we had on the future of Scotland, which focused on legalities. I am pleased that today we can further address the issue of legitimacy.
Surveys have demonstrated that it is, in fact, the belief of Scotland that the Scottish Parliament and not Westminster should speak for Scotland. I feel that we are doing that by taking forward debate on the extension of the Parliament’s powers towards independence. We have heard Opposition members talk here today and in the media about the need to consult civic Scotland. As the Scottish Government’s consultation paper shows, we all agree about that. However, we acknowledge today, as we did in 1989, that parties that are represented in the chamber consulted civic Scotland and the Scottish people. They attracted sufficient support to press successfully for the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament. They did that not just by pressing a political case but by pressing the constitutional principle that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people.
It seems, in that case, that we are all agreed on where sovereignty does, in fact, rest:
“The ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish and Welsh peoples is a fact. Whatever the niceties of international law, Scotland and Wales can claim the right of self-determination if that is what they want”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 May 1997; Vol 294, c 872.]
That was said by a Conservative, Bernard Jenkin. Then there is this:
“I believe that sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland rather than with any Parliament. That is a view established in the claim of right 1989.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 1996; Vol 573, c 1514.]
That was said by the Lib Dem peer, the Earl of Mar and Kellie, in a House of Lords debate. Indeed, our late First Minister, Donald Dewar, said in 1997:
“If they want to go for independence, I see no reason why they should not do so. In fact, if they want to, they should. I should be the first to accept that.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 May 1997; Vol 294, c 725.]
That seems to me to be unequivocal. So, why then do the UK anti-independence parties, even in this Parliament in Scotland’s capital city of Edinburgh, continue to deny the Scots the right to that self-determination and to determine the form that it should take?
In the 1970s, there was the wheeling and dealing that stymied the 1979 devolution referendum, which was of course a response to the SNP’s 1974 election result. The process leading to the 1989 claim of right and constitutional convention is well known and documented; it was of course supported by Labour and it followed the SNP by-election win in Govan in 1988.
Since the establishment of our Parliament here in 1999, the constitutional question has been raised many times by the anti-independence parties. We have had the Calman commission in response to an SNP minority Government that was elected in 2007. We have had a Scotland Bill that was introduced by the Labour UK Government and a Scotland Bill that was introduced by the current coalition Government. Incidentally, as convener of the Scotland Bill Committee, I am concerned that we have not had a substantive response to our report on the bill, given that it goes into the Lords this week for potential amendment.
All those things were introduced against a backdrop of certainty that Scotland’s legitimately and democratically elected SNP Government has always been clear in its belief in independence for Scotland, and that it stood on a manifesto commitment to hold an independence referendum. One could almost suspect that all the anti-independence machinations are about no more than spiking the SNP. After all, despite the Calman commission, two Westminster-instigated Scotland Bills and discussion that was supposedly about additional powers for Scotland, Labour and the Lib Dems seem to be intent on denying civic Scotland and the people of Scotland the right to discuss and determine the future of the nation.
I understand the Conservatives because they are at least consistent in their unionist viewpoint. As I said earlier, Labour and the Lib Dems pressed the constitutional principle that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people. Now, however, it seems that Westminster says different. My view is that it is time for all to choose what side of the constitutional question they are on. The Advocate General for Scotland, who is a Lib Dem, now tells us that the Scottish Parliament has no power to question the devolution settlement. He tells us that the union in its entirety is a reserved matter and beyond the powers of this Parliament to consider. That man was a leading member of the Calman commission—the Commission on Scottish Devolution—which was funded by this Parliament. It seems to me that there is a bit of a contradiction there.
Willie Rennie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD): I hear what the members says, although I am afraid that I do not agree with much of it. She asserts that my good friend Lord Wallace is not trying to help this Parliament to deliver on its mandate. It is exasperating that she does not recognise that he is trying to assist.
Linda Fabiani: I am terribly sorry to have upset Mr Rennie by speaking ill of his friend, but looking at the machinations of the Lib Dems over the piece, I suggest that, given that their party is supposedly a party of federalism and home rule and is, supposedly, on the side of people in civic Scotland who want to have their voices heard, they look to themselves rather than to stopping the SNP. I suggest, too, that Mr Rennie get on to his colleagues in the Scotland Office to ask why they wasted money on the Calman commission, which was set up to look at more powers for Scotland, and why they have wasted money on a Scotland Bill, on which they do not even have the courtesy to respond to a committee of this Parliament, before he tries to do down Scotland and the SNP.
26/01/12 Themed Questions: Education and Lifelong Learning
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP):
15. To ask the Scottish Government whether national guidelines are issued in relation to testing for dyslexia. (S4O-00623)
The Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages (Dr Alasdair Allan): Although no national guidelines are issued in relation to testing for dyslexia, to help all teachers to identify the signs of literacy difficulties and dyslexia early in a child’s school life, the Scottish Government, in partnership with Dyslexia Scotland, launched the online assessing dyslexia toolkit in June 2010. That was supported by four regional seminars, which were attended by 338 teachers. In November 2011, we announced an additional £40,000 grant to Dyslexia Scotland. That will be used to review and update the toolkit; to add new materials on how to support children and young people with dyslexia effectively; to make it more accessible to teachers; and to develop a section for local authorities on how best to implement the toolkit.
Linda Fabiani: What consideration is given to the use of colour screening for Meares-Irlen syndrome? I know from the charity Sight Aid International, in East Kilbride, that the 15-minute test is extremely effective. Does the minister see a case for piloting such testing locally, beyond the work that is currently carried out at Glasgow Caledonian University? I note that part of the funding is for making the toolkit accessible to teachers and local authorities. I am sure that South Lanarkshire Council would consider such a pilot, particularly for school children.
Dr Allan: The use of colour screening for Meares-Irlen syndrome falls outwith the scope of the national health service eye examination. However, under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, as amended, education authorities are required to identify, meet and keep under review the additional support needs of all pupils for whose education they are responsible. It is for South Lanarkshire Council to consider whether it might pilot the test. If such a pilot took place, the Scottish Government would be interested in the findings.
12/01/2012 Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy- Dermatology Services
Linda Fabiani: I thank the minister for that answer and I also thank the organisations and individuals who share their expertise on the cross-party group on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The consensus of those experts is that there should be either national guidance on dermatology services or, perhaps, the creation of a national framework for skin disease and the development of a national managed clinical network for skin disease, to complement the regional managed clinical networks for skin cancer. Often, it is felt that the service is not given the attention that it requires to benefit those who suffer great distress as a result of psoriatic arthritis and other dermatological conditions. Will the minister please give the matter further consideration?
12/01/12 Debate Scotland’s Future
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP): It is interesting how the anti-independence parties are generally keen to accuse SNP members of always wanting to discuss the constitutional question—we have heard that again this morning—yet, this week, those parties have shared platforms, radio microphones and television studio couches and have tied themselves in knots over the very question of the legality or illegality of a referendum to decide Scotland’s future.
The question of legality is no more than a smokescreen. The section 30 possibility was, after all, recognised by the Scottish Government some time ago. It is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the UK Government—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, assisted by the Labour Party—is intent on determining the terms of Scotland’s referendum. It is determined to pull the strings and thus deny the rights of Scotland’s people, through their elected Government, to make decisions on the future of their nation. I had hoped that the Labour Party in Scotland, after joining with the Tories and Lib Dems to stop the referendum in the previous session, would renege on that joint crusade this time round and recognise that, as stated in the 1989 claim of right, while the union may be a reserved matter, the sovereignty of the Scottish people certainly is not.
I read the consultation document issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland and noted that one possibility mooted is an amendment to the Scotland Bill that is wending its way through Westminster. That prompted me to reread the exchanges that I had with Mr Moore in November last year. I asked a very straight question:
“I am asking you to ensure that there is nothing in the Scotland Bill that interferes with the right of the Scottish Government, representing the Scottish people, to set the timing and wording of the questions for the referendum.”
His answer seemed straight, too:
“Those issues are not part of my bill, nor do I intend to bring them forward.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2011; c 628-9.]
What a difference two months makes—or perhaps it is the difference that a Tory Prime Minister makes when the secretary of state’s party has tied itself to his apron strings.
It is not just the timescale or the question that the secretary of state’s party is backsliding on—it is voter eligibility too. The Lib Dems, who have long campaigned for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, now do not believe that 16 and 17-year-olds on the electoral register should be entitled to vote in the referendum. As well as referring to the Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto pledge, I am sure that many of my colleagues taking part today will be able to cite many examples of Lib Dem MPs and MSPs going on record to support this cause—that is, the cause of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, as opposed to the abolition of tuition fees.
Some Labour members also signed up to the votes at 16 campaign. In addition, as we heard from Mark McDonald and the First Minister, more than 180 Labour MPs supported an amendment to allow votes at 16 on the AV referendum, including Margaret Curran, who is currently on side with Messrs Moore and Mundell. Not many members who are here today have not at some time or other stated, or at least agreed with the statement, that our young people are our future, so why on earth are they trying to deny Scotland’s 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote on that future? There is no logic in that position, and nor is there logic in Scottish Labour’s motion, which calls for discussion with all quarters of civic Scotland to ensure a single question. Civic Scotland has called for greater powers for our Parliament over and over again, and that call is due respect from members of the Parliament. Therefore, let us continue the discussion, not dictate the answer.
I believe in independence for my country and believe that Scotland’s future will be best served if we rejoin the family of nations, as so many have done over the past decades. I believe that independence can bring us prosperity and a fairer society, which is why I will always campaign for it. I respect the views of others, sincerely held and stated, but I find it difficult to thole the denial that Scotland has the right to make its own decisions through the mandate of its democratically elected Government. The Government in Scotland has been democratically elected by Scots, but let us not pretend that the current UK Government has been, despite what David Mundell, Scotland’s only Conservative MP, insists on repeating.
Scotland has been told for long enough what it cannot do. Sadly, that has too often been by those whom we have elected to represent us. I ask those who have been elected to the Scottish Parliament to think long and hard about why they came to it. We should ask and talk about what Scotland can do and what we can achieve. That starts with Scotland making it clear to the Westminster Government that the referendum is ours and that it is our right to decide its timing and terms. On that basis, the SNP amendment should be supported.
11/01/2012 The Educational Attainment of Looked-After Children
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP): On the point about learning from best practice, some years ago I was fortunate enough to go from the Parliament on a study trip to Finland with colleagues from all parties. We learned about the high educational attainment of looked-after children in Finland. Is our Government looking elsewhere in Europe for good models for achieving our desired outcomes?
Question S4O-00623: Linda Fabiani, East Kilbride, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/01/2012 To ask the Scottish Executive whether national guidelines are issued in relation to testing for dyslexia.
Current Status: Expected Answer date 01/02/2012
Question S4O-00551: Linda Fabiani, East Kilbride, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 14/12/2011
To ask the Scottish Executive whether consideration is being given to producing national guidance on dermatology services.
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 12/01/2012
Question S4O-00479: Linda Fabiani, East Kilbride, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 30/11/2011 To ask the Scottish Executive what initiatives there are to raise awareness of the symptoms of ovarian cancer to allow early diagnosis and treatment.
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 15/12/2011
Linda Fabiani: I welcome that action plan. As with other cancers, the key to dealing with ovarian cancer is awareness and early detection. The awareness level is low among women and sometimes even among health professionals. Could consideration be given to a specific campaign to raise awareness of ovarian cancer?
23/11/12 Carers and Young Carers Strategy
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP): I am aware of X and I am glad that Siobhan McMahon has raised her case. Does the member agree that sometimes the intention to help people does not work out? For example, respite care for the elderly person is often offered at a different time from the respite care for the young person, because respite care comes through different parts of social work and the health service. If there were a bit more co-ordination, the respite care for both people could be offered at the same time and would offer true respite for the carer.
Linda Fabiani: While Siobhan McMahon was speaking, I intervened on the issue of flexibility. Short breaks and respite are fine, but if someone is caring for two different people—if someone looks after one of those people for a couple of days a week, and then looks after the other person for a couple of days—there is no respite for the carer. They have no time for themselves and perhaps for the rest of their family. Can the minister give Siobhan and me some comfort by saying that flexibility will be considered?
Architecture Debate 10/11/11
Question S4O-00354: Linda Fabiani, East Kilbride, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 26/10/2011
To ask the Scottish Executive how the level of non-domestic rates impacts on post offices in light of their role in local communities.
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 10/11/2011
Question S4W-02635: Linda Fabiani, East Kilbride, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 10/09/2011
To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it is giving to the August 2011 briefing by Friends of the Earth Scotland, WWF Scotland and Oxfam Scotland on the revision of the National Performance Framework.
Answered by John Swinney (23/09/2011):
On 12 September, we published our new Government Economic Strategy which reaffirms our commitment to our central purpose of delivering faster, sustainable economic growth with opportunities for all people across Scotland to flourish. The new Strategy informs our outcomes based National Performance Framework (NPF) and maintains the focus on our long-term aspiration of delivering a more prosperous and fairer Scotland.
The ambitious purpose targets the NPF contains focus on the drivers of growth and have been reviewed and rolled forward to reflect the current social and economic environment. A refresh of the National Indicators set and Scotland Performs website is also in train and its publication in the autumn will complete the refresh of the agenda we set out in 2007. We are always willing to listen to suggestions and in concluding this work we will take a balanced view of all interests and representations received as well as the lessons learned since we embarked on this journey.
Current Status: Answered by John Swinney on 23/09/2011
Question S4W-02084: Linda Fabiani, East Kilbride, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 04/08/2011
To ask the Scottish Executive when the Registrar General will publish his annual report for 2010.
Answered by Fiona Hyslop (05/08/2011):
Scotland’s Population 2010: the Registrar General’s Annual Review of Demographic Trends is published today. The report contains information about births, deaths and marriages during the year, together with other demographic information. A copy of the report is available in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Bib. number 52980), or from the Registrar General’s website at www.gro-scotland.gov.uk.
Current Status: Initiated by the Scottish Executive. Answered by Fiona Hyslop on 05/08/2011
Question S4O-00126: Linda Fabiani, East Kilbride, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/06/2011
To ask the Scottish Executive what it considers the impact of the UK Government’s proposed housing benefit reforms will be on access to social rented housing in Scotland.
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 08/09/2011
Question S4O-00089: Linda Fabiani, East Kilbride, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 15/06/2011
To ask the Scottish Executive what sanctions are available to local authorities in cases of antisocial behaviour by tenants of private landlords.
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 30/06/2011
09/05/11 – Scotland Bill: Borrowing Powers and Growing the Economy
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP): It is worth stating that the motion by the Scottish Government comes against the background of sound financial management over the past four years by the Scottish National Party. It is a history of maximising our capital spending, which we have also done this year, to support infrastructure investment and, of course, jobs.
In spite of the Westminster cuts, we have accelerated capital projects and front loaded the European social fund projects. However, we are now at the point where Scotland needs substantive capital borrowing powers to truly support economic recovery and enhance our infrastructure. To paraphrase what the First Minister said some time ago, Scotland needs borrowing powers that are appropriate to its size, ambition and potential.
That has been recognised across the board, and I am pleased at the consensual nature of the debate. The Scotland Bill Committee was clear that there was no principled basis for the particular capital borrowing limits that are proposed in the Scotland Bill. If I remember rightly, it recommended a cumulative limit of £5 billion as opposed to £2.2 billion. Even the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee asked that the Government reconsider the proposed limits.
Borrowing is important to finance the capital investment that we all require. However, sources of borrowing are also extremely important, and that is reflected in the motion. How Scotland should borrow is important. Should we borrow only from the UK Government? I do not think so. Because it has control, it would share none of the risks.
Should borrowing only take place under the conditions in the Scotland Bill as introduced? Probably not. It seems to me plain that any privately or publicly funded organisation that borrows should have in place a Treasury strategy and an asset and portfolio management policy. Therefore, it is sensible and right for John Swinney to call for
“joint work to agree a clear, long-term and principles-based approach”.
One of the first principles of that must be that Scotland should be able to decide what capital projects it wants to do. We cannot rely on Westminster to decide that for us, because Scotland’s economy is different from that of the rest of the UK and we have differing priorities. We cannot allow our nation to rely on Westminster to decide what capital investment funding and what type of funding to propose when it suits Westminster. We need that degree of borrowing autonomy to increase the range of options and policy levers that are available to us to stimulate the economy during times of economic necessity. The Scotland Bill still has to go through many stages and there is still time to make changes.
On bonds, the command paper that came with the Scotland Bill explicitly states that the Scottish Government will not be allowed to issue bonds. That seems strange to me when Transport for London is using what are, in effect, bonds for its crossrail project, and Birmingham City Council is similar. States in the United States, Canadian provinces and regional and local governments can issue bonds to raise money for capital projects, so it is bizarre that we cannot. The Scottish Government is one of the few national or federal Governments in the world that cannot borrow. Indeed, in these islands, local authorities, the Northern Ireland Executive, and even English parish councils can borrow. As we have just heard from Colin Beattie, the Northern Ireland Executive can borrow at a much higher rate than that which is proposed for Scotland.
Today, it was interesting to hear from the cabinet secretary that Nick Clegg had already said that he thinks that we can start to borrow more quickly than had previously been envisaged. I was reading back over some of the comments that Michael Moore made when he came to give evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee. He said that he hoped to make “positive noises” about bringing forward unrestrained borrowing powers earlier than 2015. It would seem that Nick Clegg stole Michael Moore’s thunder when he arrived today.
Michael Moore also said that the £2 billion was not set in stone. Nick Clegg did not say anything to suggest that he was talking about increasing that capital borrowing limit as well as conceding that we should have borrowing powers more quickly than was previously suggested. I hope that that figure is not set in stone and I hope that the Westminster side is prepared to offer the same level of co-operation that the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government have advanced. Everyone in the chamber wants the best for Scotland and will support moving forward towards what is best for Scotland in relation to borrowing powers to enhance our economy.
26/5/11 – Taking Scotland Forward
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP): I am pleased to kick off the debate this afternoon. It is fitting that our first debate in the new session of the Parliament is about taking Scotland forward, because that is something to which we should all aspire.
The First Minister’s statement outlined the Government’s aspirations to build on the record of the past four years and the SNP’s vision for our nation’s future. It is crucial that a nation and a people have a vision and something to aim for, as should our cities, towns, villages and communities—geographic and thematic.
I am delighted to represent the community of East Kilbride, which is Scotland’s first, largest and most successful new town. I wish my predecessor in that honoured role, Andy Kerr, well and hope that he has a good future in front of him.
East Kilbride is full of aspirational people with a great pride in their town. Although it is a new town, it was built round East Kilbride village, which has a fine history. For example, it was the home of renowned medical pioneers the Hunter brothers. Sadly, South Lanarkshire Council has decided to close the Hunter house museum and I hope that the Government’s proposed community empowerment bill will enable active East Kilbriders, such as those in the East Kilbride Development Trust, to maintain that asset for the town.
The voluntary sector in East Kilbride is strong. Across the public services and the arts, people of all ages contribute to the wellbeing of the town’s residents. That is why the Government’s commitment to public services and the voluntary sector is welcome. I look forward to further information from the Government about social impact bonds, for example. I also look forward to the results of the Christie commission on public services and to an expansion of social and charity banking. I hope that credit unions and the co-operative movement will be very much involved in that. I also look forward to procurement policy that will assist the third sector as well as local businesses.
East Kilbride has a successful business community too, from large firms such as Rolls-Royce and Robert Wiseman Dairies to international award-winning companies such as Controlled Therapeutics (Scotland) Ltd and Glencairn Crystal Studio. It also has many small companies that have benefited from the SNP’s small business bonus scheme over the past four years and will continue to benefit from it. The export growth fund is also ripe for companies such as those in East Kilbride to benefit from.
The town has many innovative companies and new industries based in the technology park. They are backed up by world-renowned scientists in facilities such as the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre and, in South Lanarkshire College, a further education facility that is second to none.
East Kilbride has aspirational people who moved to Scotland’s first new town from 1947 onwards. The East Kilbride Development Corporation was wound up in the early 1990s and local government was restructured so that East Kilbride District Council disappeared and the town became subsumed within South Lanarkshire Council. Although the aspiration still exists, there is a sense in the town of lost identity and a perception that East Kilbride has been disadvantaged by being part of the larger South Lanarkshire Council. There is a view that the town has deteriorated and that its fine assets have been stripped in order to fund initiatives in other parts of the bailiwick of South Lanarkshire Council. Perhaps East Kilbride has been the victim of its own success. At the moment, that is particularly clear in the huge issue with social housing in the town. Under the right-to-buy scheme, there was an aggressive sales policy, as a result of which social housing is now suffering—or, perhaps I should say, the residents who wish to maintain their families and communities within the town are suffering.
Margo MacDonald: As someone whose family got a new house in East Kilbride, I can remember when East Kilbride was accused of skimming off the best of the development money from Lanarkshire, as it did. Good came out of that, but if some of the money is now going back to the older parts of Lanarkshire, I would understand that.
Linda Fabiani: I would advise any local authority to consider the best towns in its area and bring the others up to that level. Levelling down is not a mark of success.
As I say, there is a huge issue with social housing in East Kilbride. Families who are proud to live there have sons and daughters who cannot get houses. Under the Government’s housing proposals, opportunities will arise. The proposals are hugely aspirational and innovative. I have written to the Minister for Housing and Transport to ask for an early meeting on how we can address some of the problems. I also hope to discuss with South Lanarkshire Council its allocations policy and whether it acts in the best interests of communities across South Lanarkshire.
East Kilbride should move forward, along with Scotland. Many residents believe that. They have a sense of civic pride and want to work to achieve the best. Last week in the local paper, a letter from a Mr Bill McGowan called on people to get in touch in order to start something for the town. The town needs its own identity again. For example, the most successful business hub in South Lanarkshire does not have its own business forum. I will take the opportunity to write to the appropriate minister to ask for assistance on that issue.
The Government will help Scotland to move forward; I hope that I can rise to the task of helping East Kilbride to move forward as part of that.
