Scottish Parliament, 10 February 2000

520 contributions from 90 members. The official report.

Introduction

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. I am sorry to inform members that the problem with the consoles that we had yesterday is still with us. The equipment has not arrived this morning. We will therefore operate the same procedure as yesterday.

We have two short debates this morning, so I am anxious to press on.

Scottish Enterprise

David (None, Lothians)

The first item of business is the non-Executive debate on motion S1M-510, in the name of Nick Johnston, on Scottish Enterprise, and on an amendment to the motion.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

On a point of order. I wish to point out that I gave the correct information, that the enterprise debate would be before the debate on section 2A, and would last an hour. The misprint on the business bulletin was therefore nothing to do with the correct information that I had submitted.

David (None, Lothians)

There is no suggestion that you were in any way at fault, Lord James. It was a technical fault in the preparation of the bulletin, which was not spotted by the business managers or by anyone preparing the bulletin. I understand that the revised bulletin is in everyone's hands, and we are indeed beginning with the enterprise debate.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This morning, I want to talk about coincidences. A coincidence is a chance happening or, as Louis Pasteur put it:

"Where observation is concerned, chance favours only the prepared mind."

Or, as Francis Bacon said:

"In things that are tender and unpleasing, it is good to break the ice by some whose words are of less weight, and to reserve the more weighty voice to come in as by chance."

Or, to paraphrase Paul Simon, coincidence is too good to leave to chance.

The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is, by coincidence, the weighty voice today. After nearly nine months of procrastination, it has taken a Conservative motion, lodged by a humble junior spokesman, to bring forth a response from our minister. Notwithstanding the fine work done by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in its inquiry into support at local level, and notwithstanding the welcome, if overdue, announcement of a consultation on the national economic strategy, we need to fundamentally revisit the provision of economic development in Scotland.

For many months, the Conservatives have been campaigning for a radical overhaul of the enterprise network. When Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise were first introduced 10 years ago, it was made clear that they served as a framework for an economic development system which had a finite lifespan of 10 years maximum. As we are only too aware, the pace of change over the past decade has accelerated way beyond our wildest imagination. Consequently, the sell-by date of the Scottish Enterprise and HIE structure fell well short of the original expected 10-year lifespan.

Apart from the growing criticism from and disenchantment felt by the business community about Scottish Enterprise's output and deliveries to them over the past two years, if further proof were needed that the current design was starting to fail Scotland, one only has to look at SE's consultative document, "A New Strategy for the Scottish Enterprise Network", to confirm the growing anxiety that many of us have felt about SE's ability to deliver for Scotland as we approached the first decade of the new millennium.

By its own hand, Scottish Enterprise recognised Scotland's relatively low level of entrepreneurial activity and identified the relatively low number of companies competing at a low level. Scottish Enterprise pointed out that Scotland created fewer large global companies than we should expect, given its population.

The list of failures and inadequacies grew ever more depressing, with low levels of investment in corporate research, a continued fall in school education performance, growth in many of the fast-growing tradeable services such as computing, consultancy and business services below the UK average, and a large stock of workers with out-of-date skills or with a low level of skills.

The picture portrayed was not just sad but seriously worrying if Scotland was to survive and grow in an increasingly competitive world economy. For months, we have urged the Executive to tackle the problem of Scotland's slippage in those vital areas of economic activity and to deal with them with a greater sense of urgency and importance than it seems willing to do.

Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise were success stories for many years and were the ideas for their time. Scottish Enterprise replaced the Scottish Development Agency, which was seen as the economic machine of the 1980s, as Scottish Enterprise was for the 1990s. Due to the pace of change, we are in need of another radical overhaul.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Could Mr Johnston specify exactly when things went wrong?

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is tempting to say that it all went wrong in May 1997, but the pace of change has been increasing for the past four or five years. I cannot point to an exact moment when things started to go wrong. No doubt Mr McLeish will do so later.

The radical reform of our economic machine must not be left to those operators in Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise or to civil servants. We need a small team of radical and dynamic business figures to produce a new blueprint for Scotland's economic prosperity in the first decade of the new millennium.

We have a new Parliament, a new Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, a new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and a new chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, who started this week. I have not seen a copy of the consultation document but, as usual, The Herald had it before me. If what The Herald says is correct, the answer to my question today to the enterprise agencies—has Scotland the relevant structures?—is no.

We should not ask the enterprise agencies to vote themselves out of existence—we should not ask turkeys to vote for Christmas. We understand that the contract of the chairman of Scottish Enterprise expires in August or September this year and we suggest that the minister speedily identifies a chairman designate. The new chief executive and the chairman should gather round them, as I mentioned earlier, a small team of radical and dynamic business figures to design a new model that will drive Scotland's economic development into the new millennium.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I offer Mr Johnston the opportunity to step back from the abyss that he is lurching towards. He is in danger of insulting one of the most successful business figures in the Scottish economy.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I presume that Mr Swinney is referring to the chairman of Scottish Enterprise. I have no intention of insulting anybody. As Mr Swinney knows, that is not my style. However, we have many new structures in Scotland and surely the time is right to re-examine the system. I do not know if the chairman of Scottish Enterprise wishes to continue in his post, but I suggest that it is time for a new chairman.

Henry McLeish has been agreeing with us for months about the need for radical change, after his initial knee-jerk reaction against our initiative. No doubt the Labour members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, together with the intelligence that he received from the business community, convinced him that that was not a clever response. We can all do U-turns. However, after all the promises and statements of intent, we seem to be no further forward.

We are all understandably anxious that Mr McLeish imagined that a quick and easy solution to this problem was simply to get his civil servants together with Scottish Enterprise's senior staff to design a new formula. That would be entirely the wrong approach. As I said before, business needs to design a model that best serves the interests of the business community. The matter should not be left to others who think that they know what the business community's interests are.

Senior figures in the enterprise network are honest enough to admit the structure's failings and are convinced that the per capita spend on economic development in Scotland is far higher than in any other country in the western world. They are also concerned about the fact that, despite that record spend, Scottish Enterprise is now, at best, in the middle of the first division of the league table and not even at the bottom of the premier league. I suggest that we need an Inverness Caledonian Thistle and not a Celtic to run Scotland's economic development.

We expect the minister to answer the following questions not next week, not next month, not next year, but now. Is he prepared to announce the remit for a comprehensive review of the operations of Scottish Enterprise and other agencies involved in economic development? Within what time scale will that comprehensive review be undertaken? Is the minister prepared to announce who will be involved and who will lead that review? When can we expect the announcement of the new chairman designate, and is the minister prepared to allow the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to be involved in the final choice?

The minister's responses are necessary not only for our benefit, and not only for the benefit of the Scottish Parliament, but for the benefit of the Scottish business community. Scotland's future prosperity depends not just on the number of jobs that are created, but on the funding of first-class public services, be they schools, hospitals, housing, or whatever else is paid for out of the public purse. That, in turn, will be financed by a prosperous business community.

I notice that Mr McLeish announced, on 9 December, an intention to review the enterprise network in those terms. Almost two months have passed since then. That, in my book, is too long to wait for a review to take place.

I move,

That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Executive to announce a remit and timescale for a comprehensive review of the operations of Scottish Enterprise and other agencies involved in economic development as a demonstration of its commitment to the expansion of Scotland's indigenous business base.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am currently dealing with a couple of requests from Kilmarnock and Aberdeen to take over the managers' jobs at those clubs. If the Celtic job comes along, I shall give it due consideration after consulting my busy schedule.

I am always deeply impressed by the selective amnesia of the Conservative party: it is as though Conservative members have just flown in from another planet. From 1979 to 1997—a period during which we had a Conservative Government in the United Kingdom—is it not the case that they had control over the economy, that they appointed Sir Ian Wood as the chairman of Scottish Enterprise and that they gave him a knighthood as well?

With all the courtesy that I can muster, I must say that this debate is not about the chairman of Scottish Enterprise, nor is this the time to say that anyone should be moving on. This debate should be centred on the functions, aims, aspirations, objectives and role of our enterprise network.

I am pleased that the Conservative party is engaging, in a positive way, with the future of the Scottish economy. That was not evident between 1979 and 1997—but more of that later. We are trying to develop a consensus in Scotland on the real issues that affect the economy. I praise the work of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which has all-party involvement. It is an excellent committee, and is already tackling the key issue of local economic delivery.

This review can take place against an encouraging set of economic figures: inflation is low and stable; output in the Scottish economy continues to expand, both in manufacturing and in services; unemployment in Scotland is falling, and by historical and international standards is low; and employment is rising.

Those conditions, combined with our investment in skills, knowledge and learning, provide a sound basis on which Scotland can move forward. Gross domestic product grew by a highly respectable 2.2 per cent in the year to June 1999, slightly above its long-term trend, and conditions in the labour market are excellent. Moreover, the new deal is helping those who previously faced the greatest hurdles in the labour market. Youth and long-term unemployment are at their lowest levels since records began, nearly 50 years ago.

At this point, I want to demonstrate why people in Scotland will find it difficult to have confidence in the policies of the Conservative party unless it changes its ways. It cannot be trusted on the issue of jobs, if its previous record is to be believed. We want a commitment that it is willing to work in a consensual way with all political parties.

Lest we forget, let us consider the high point—if it can be called that—of unemployment under the Conservative Government. In 1986, 360,201 Scots—that was the yearly average—were unemployed: 14.6 per cent of the Scottish population. One in seven Scots who wanted to work could not work. The equivalent figure for 1999 was 133,796, representing 5 per cent, or one in 20 Scots, who wanted to work but could not.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I shall give way in a moment.

We talk about structures, and economic policies and indicators, but the priority is employment for all in Scotland. That one in 20 still represents, in my view, too many. That figure pales into insignificance relative to the dramatic figures at the high point—or low point, depending upon one's perspective—of Conservative economic fortunes.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the minister agree that, after the disasters of the 1960s and 1970s, the UK economy had to be turned around? High unemployment in the 1980s was an unfortunate consequence of that but, from 1992 onwards, the Tories achieved a consistent downward trend in unemployment. For a short period after Labour came to power, the Government reversed that trend in Scotland.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I do not accept any of Phil Gallie's comments.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

You should. [Laughter.]

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I will resist the temptation.

It is important that unemployment in a moral society is never used as an active weapon in economic policy. The 14.6 per cent unemployment total was bad enough, yet it was 17.2 per cent for males. We shall never return to such figures. One of the major objectives of this review and of economic policy is employment for all.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What measures is the minister using to link the performance of Scottish Enterprise to the fall in unemployment? This debate is not solely about employment; it is about the effectiveness of the enterprise networks.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I agree that the debate is about the enterprise networks, but enterprise was introduced as a Conservative word for the economy. When we are talking about the economy, the debate must always come down to people. There is no point in having this or that particular policy unless it delivers for people on the ground. Our economic framework and agencies are key to assisting that positive purpose.

While the economic foundations are good and the Scottish economy is in good shape, there is no room for complacency. That is the context in which the review is taking place. Global competition is fierce and we must stay ahead of that competition. As we enter the 21st century, we can expect continued liberalisation of capital markets and trade, which will unleash a tidal wave of consolidation of major industries around the world.

I agree with commentators who predict that advances in communication technology will spur a revolution in economic affairs as profound as the first industrial revolution. We must make other new, dynamic and creative changes, to ensure that we are equipped for the 21st century.

I want a knowledge-driven economy and I think that my view is shared by this Parliament, by every political party and by the Executive. The knowledge-driven economy will be based on a lifelong learning revolution, on the new industrial revolution and on a revolution in the workplace and in the labour market. As I said earlier, at the core of our policy is the historic goal of employment for all.

As this is a brief debate, I now turn to the framework for the review. I am determined to ensure that the public sector support for business in Scotland meets the needs of the 21st century. In my lifetime, the Scottish economy has gone through an astonishing transformation. In the 1960s and 1970s, the decline of traditional heavy manufacturing was a large factor behind the creation of the Scottish Development Agency, which was a great Scottish success story. Continuing change saw the focus shifting to market-based approaches and to the improvement of skills, which was instrumental in the 1991 merger of the SDA and, separately, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, with the Training Agency in Scotland to form Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise—again, success stories.

I believe that the challenge is to turn Scotland into a knowledge economy and to unleash a learning revolution. Members will be aware that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is conducting an inquiry into the delivery of local economic development services. I want to continue to have a close working relationship with the committee. The work that it has undertaken already will form a major part of our overall review.

The review will seek views on the following areas: the tasks that we expect enterprise networks to perform; the functions performed by the networks in pursuit of their tasks; the structure of the enterprise networks, between national priorities and local needs; the experience of leading development agencies in other parts of the world—as a nation, we are not good at learning from others—and the type of activities and programmes upon which the networks should focus.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose—

David (None, Lothians)

I would be grateful if the minister did not give way as he is well over time.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I will be brief, Sir David. I appreciate that there are time constraints. I hope that John Swinney will have an opportunity to make his comments.

I want the review to be a genuinely open exercise. I have no preconceived ideas about the outcome and I am prepared, as are the networks, for serious change if it is merited. However, I am clear that we have a strong base of success on which to build, so we need to take a measured view of the proposals for change.

The open consultation will extend to early May. We will engage in discussion with key players. We will have a website and we intend to organise seminars that will provide us with the opportunity to hear a range of views. It is hoped to conclude the review by the summer. We must minimise any period of uncertainty for the enterprise networks and the business groups that they serve.

I want to find out what all the members of this Parliament, all the political parties and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee want. This is an important opportunity to get it right. I sincerely hope that we can create a new economic model on the basis of consensus, and that if anything illustrates the spirit of the new Parliament in Scotland, it is the success that we seek in relation to the Scottish economy.

I move amendment S1M-510.1, to leave out from "calls upon" to end and insert:

"supports the Executive's publication of a consultation paper seeking views on the future of the enterprise networks as part of its drive to encourage a more entrepreneurial culture in Scotland and to provide a modern framework for economic development."

David (None, Lothians)

This is a short debate, and the speeches are accordingly shorter.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will take that as a welcome hint, Presiding Officer.

I welcome this debate and the fact that the minister was able to provide information to substantiate his amendment in relation to the consultation document that he has announced.

In the past few days, I have been reading the economic strategy of the Irish Government, "Enterprise 2010—New Strategy for the Promotion of Enterprise in Ireland in the 21st Century". I would like to quote from the introduction to that document by Mary Harney, the Tánaiste in the Republic of Ireland. She states:

"The performance of Ireland's economy in recent years has been outstanding by any standard. Never in the relatively short period since the political independence of this country was achieved have we had so many people living in this country, so many people in gainful employment and so many people enjoying a standard of living which is among the highest in the world."

The document is part of an overarching, long-term economic strategy for Ireland. It sets the vision, defines the strategy, develops the policies and lays down the structures for the development of enterprise and commercial development in Ireland, all from a country that the previous Minister for Business and Industry at the Scottish Office, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, defined as a good place for a stag weekend.

I use Lord Macdonald's intervention in order to pose a question to the Government about where this review has come from. In the Scottish Grand Committee—which, to my delight, is to have its meeting programme restored—on 18 January last year, I asked Lord Macdonald, at his sole appearance before the committee, about the issues that we are wrestling with today. He told me that

"our development agencies Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and LEC networks are the envy of every English region and are probably the best in Europe. They should be left untouched, . . .to allow them to implement their ambitious and effective strategy."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Scottish Grand Committee, 18 January 1999; c 6]

This morning, Mr McLeish is quoted in The Herald as saying:

"My question to the various enterprise agencies today is this: has Scotland the relevant structures to make us, as a small country, a world leader in this area? And the answer just now is No".

We need to know what has happened in the past 12 months to encourage the Government to move from being, under Lord Macdonald, dramatically hostile to a review to being enthusiastic for reform today.

Among my other interesting reading is a document to which I pay close attention, "Making it work together: A programme for government". It is a huge document, which we use as an umbrella when we come over from parliamentary headquarters when it is raining. Under Mr McLeish's priorities, reference is made to a tourism strategy review and a management strategy review, but there is absolutely no mention of a review of the enterprise networks. Where has this come from?

I hope that it is not change for change's sake, because that is what I am accused of all the time. I was accused of arguing for change for change's sake when I argued for the merging of Scottish Trade International and Locate in Scotland, and the development of commercial embassies abroad for Scotland. I was ridiculed at the election for arguing for that, but I find in the Scottish Executive's submission to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee that a pilot exercise on that very subject is currently under way in the United States. At the election I also argued for the rationalisation of enterprise networks and agencies, and I am pretty sure that I was ridiculed for it in debates with Mr McLeish. However, that is now at the heart of the Government's thinking.

I make those points not to crow about them, but to indicate that we must understand where this debate is coming from. We must have a wide and inclusive debate, in which many views can be expressed and appreciated, rather than dismissed in the way that some of our views—sensible views that have now been incorporated into the heart of Executive thinking—have been dismissed because they happen to come from a particular quarter. Maybe this is the emergence of new politics; if so, that is welcome.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

As a generous man, Mr Swinney will concur that we are trying to develop a genuine consensus on economic policy. The work of his committee, including the contributions of Allan Wilson, Annabel Goldie and George Lyon, is excellent. This review will be based on evidence. There are challenges ahead and I hope that we will build up a consensus to take us forward.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As the minister knows, I am all for a consensus that benefits the Scottish economy. The key point, which the minister has just made, is that whatever we decide about the structure of the economic development agencies and our economic strategy must be based firmly on evidence. Arguments and ideas that are strongly based on evidence must not be rejected because of their source.

In December, shortly before Mr McLeish made a speech at the Royal Bank of Scotland conference on many of these issues, I noticed that, in an exclusive article in The Herald by Alf Young, Bill Hughes, the creator of Scottish Enterprise, called for the demise of Scottish Enterprise. I disagree with Mr Hughes about these issues, but his views should be disregarded not because of who he is, but because they are not grounded in evidence. There should be a reasoned and substantial debate about these issues.

I also do not want to get into the position that Scottish Business Insider magazine got into when it defined the appointment of Robert Crawford as chief executive of Scottish Enterprise as safe. We must be more generous to people who are prepared to make a contribution and to lead and initiate this debate. We must be imaginative and bold and have a good, well-evidenced debate in the public domain.

David (None, Lothians)

I am afraid that I must be ungenerous with time.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will conclude on this point. It is important that the process be open and transparent, and based on an understanding of the Scottish economy and on much better information about the Scottish economy. I know that Dr Andrew Goudie of the Scottish Executive is working on that. Out of that process, we must create a strategy, a delivery mechanism and, most important, performance measurements. We can then have a robust economic development framework and robust economic development agencies. The Irish example I gave shows how we can give coherence and structure to the process. We must get it right this time by having an open and honest debate and then sticking with it.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I, too, welcome this chance to debate the future of the enterprise structures in Scotland. On 9 December, Henry McLeish announced the Executive review of Scottish Enterprise and we welcome today the publication of the consultation paper. However, it should be recognised that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is midway through an in-depth review of the delivery of service. I was glad to hear the minister say that the committee's review will be an integral part of the review of the enterprise network.

Nick Johnston's motion seems to call on the Executive to gazump the Parliament's inquiry. That is not the right way to proceed. I was glad to hear John Swinney call on the Executive to ensure that the review of Scottish Enterprise is an inclusive process and that all sides are listened to before final decisions are taken.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the limited time that I had, I tried to make it clear that the review of Scottish Enterprise should not cut across the work of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. We have done a good job, even though I say so myself. We need to examine the strategic framework that overarches our work.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Everyone should be aware that there are two separate enterprise networks in Scotland: Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. The structures and remits of those organisations are very different. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has a social remit that is quite different from the functions of Scottish Enterprise. The number of structures in the areas covered by the two organisations is different; the only structures in the Highlands and Islands are the enterprise network and the local authorities. It should be recognised that there has been very little criticism of Highlands and Islands Enterprise's performance.

As has been said in much of the evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, there are numerous bodies charged with economic and business development: enterprise trusts, local authorities, local enterprise companies, business shops. It is clear that this creates confusion. Any review should acknowledge that if we could have a clean sheet, we would not start from here. Many of the institutions and agencies are there because they have been there for many years and they are still trying to come to terms with some of the changes that have been introduced.

As I have said, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has had evidence of confusion and overlap, but also evidence of partnership working to deliver real benefits. Yesterday we heard from the Aberdeen area where an economic forum seems to be working well and offers a useful model. I spent some time in Ayr and saw good partnership working at a strategic level, although below that level there was some confusion on how it was delivered.

The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is not yet in a position to come to any firm conclusion on the way forward. Before the Executive takes action it should engage with the committee and listen closely to our final conclusions. We must be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. There is much that is good within the enterprise network at the moment. The key must be to identify what must remain in place and what needs radical surgery to bring it into line with the overall economic development framework that the Scottish Executive intends to pursue.

I believe that we must see change on the basis of the evidence—not change for the sake of change. As John Swinney rightly said, we must get it right for Scotland.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is interesting to participate in an enterprise debate called for by the Conservatives. I represent Clydebank, which perhaps of all areas of Scotland is the clearest victim of the past mistakes of Conservative enterprise strategies. It goes back two generations: the destruction of the shipbuilding industry, beginning with United Clyde Shipbuilders; and the Conservatives' madcap economic strategy of the early 1980s, which brought about so much manufacturing decline in Scotland, but particularly in Clydebank—

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

No—perhaps I will give way in a little while, but I will make my point first.

The closure of Singers resulted in 10,000 job losses. What Clydebank got in its place, the Conservatives' solution, was designation as a rates holiday area, which brought in relatively few jobs and limited numbers of small-scale businesses. It brought the great Clydebank experiment, the creation of Health Care International, into which tens of millions of pounds were poured on the basis that an American-based private medical scheme, using highly speculative business strategies, would solve Clydebank's problems.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

HCI is only now beginning to move forward on its business strategy. That is no thanks to the efforts of the Conservatives.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I visited HCI; the management of HCI would completely disagree and say that it is absolutely nothing to do with Labour policy that it is now moving forward, employing more people than Kvaerner shipyards just down the road from it, and is in fact an investment that was made by our Government and the specialist equipment that was there. On the point of Scotland and the "madcap" economic policies, will the member answer this question: why was it under the Conservative party that Scotland as a region in Britain went from one of the most poorest to one of the most prosperous?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am not sure which school Ben Wallace attended to achieve such grammatical clarity.

The management of HCI is beginning to work with other sectors in the business community, in biotechnology and in providing services in partnership with the health service. I welcome that, and I visited HCI last Friday. The new management of HCI has had to cope with the complete mess left by Conservative Administrations. When the money was put in, there was no conception of how the original owners would engage with or provide for the people of Clydebank, despite the statements that were made.

What we need in Scotland is not some ideologically fed perception of enterprise, something that is geared towards business prejudices rather than local needs. What we need is something that tackles the problems of people living in our local communities, with a stronger emphasis on training. I welcome the fact that there is now a link between training and economic development as framed in the ministerial responsibilities of Henry McLeish. I welcome the fact that there is more co-ordinated local participation in decision making and more pressure, through the Scottish Enterprise network, to bring about clearer local strategies.

In Clydebank, where there are high rates of unemployment and a slow rate of business start-up, we need the efforts to be sharply focused. We suffered from a backward-looking approach to the possibilities for and capabilities of our people during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. We must build up support and expertise for the people of Clydebank, but there must be more co-ordinated activity. I hope that working through a revised Scottish Enterprise network strategy will enable public-private partnerships and allow us to form a strategy for the Clyde. That will enable us to spread throughout Scotland the prosperity that exists in some parts of the country.

It is only under a Labour Government that has produced an effective economic strategy and better prosperity, and under the coalition Executive here in Scotland, that we can achieve that, because, certainly for Clydebank, the Tories' policies consistently failed.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Like Des McNulty, I find it strange to be debating a Conservative motion that draws attention to the problems facing Scotland's indigenous industries and the consequences of unemployment associated with the decline of that industrial base. I shall come back to the Conservatives' record a bit later.

It is not possible to tackle unemployment by examining the enterprise network in isolation. It must be set in the wider political context and must work as part of our overall co-ordinated strategy. The potential for job creation cannot be viewed in isolation from the new deal, for example.

As Henry McLeish pointed out, under the Conservatives, the nation witnessed the politically engineered destruction of coal, steel and shipbuilding, and the doors clanged shut on industry after industry. The Tories' response at the time was quite simple; they did not want to deal with those who were unemployed, so they simply stopped counting them.

We all remember that the local enterprise companies scheme was drawn up on the back of a fag packet by Bill Hughes, as the Conservatives' answer to investment in employment. It is hardly surprising that the LECs were not the answer then and are certainly not the answer now. It is only right that we should study and review the enterprise network. The world is changing and we are operating in a global economy.

The empty Hyundai plant in Dunfermline is the living legacy of the folly of placing all the enterprise eggs in one basket. Let us consider Henry McLeish's constituency, Central Fife; what a pity he is not here to listen to this list. There have been 60 job losses at Anderson paper mill, 65 at Fraser Gray, 200 at Bekaert Handling and Display, 70 at Methil power station, 40 at Balfour and, in the past few weeks, 25 at Central Farmers and 35 at Glencast. Those jobs have been lost in his constituency in the past year. If some of the millions of pounds that were thrown at Hyundai had been used to support our existing companies and the start-up of new indigenous companies, our communities would not now be suffering such devastating job losses.

I mentioned that the enterprise network alone cannot create prosperity, so I will refer to the Government's main initiative to cut unemployment. Tony Blair promised the best of the American slogans, and hailed a new deal and a promise of jobs. Blair hijacked the idea of Roosevelt's new deal, but he sold out on the ideal.

Under the new deal, there are a number of different assessments on those without work, but in itself it does not create jobs. More than three quarters of new dealers have left the scheme without going into a marketplace job. Industry is not impressed by the scheme. Only 6 per cent of Scottish businesses have signed up to the new deal.

Roosevelt's new deal created the Tennessee river valley project, which provided flood control and navigation to satisfy a national need, electricity, and jobs for the unemployed. Blair's new deal has done none of that. Tennessee got a dam, but all that we got was a dome.

I believe that restructuring the enterprise network is not enough. We welcome it, but the goal of full employment can be achieved only if our Parliament is allowed to take responsibility, and not just for the enterprise network, because that is only part of the budget. The £200 million for the new deal should be handed over to this Parliament to allow us to succeed where Westminster has failed.

We need to put together all the pieces of the jigsaw, combining the strategies of promoting enterprise, investing in communities, creating jobs and businesses, and getting people back to work. We can restructure the enterprise network, but we are having to watch while millions of pounds are squandered on the new deal, and while people are pitched between the scheme and the dole, creating work only for those involved in the resulting paper chase. While I welcome the measures that were announced by the minister today, they do not go far enough. Tackling unemployment should be at the heart of this Parliament, not at the whim of Westminster.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

This is an interesting short debate. I welcome the inquiry of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, and especially its examination of the performance of local enterprise companies, local authorities, chambers of commerce and enterprise trusts. The minister's enterprise networks review issues paper asked a number of the right questions. It is time that we went through those questions in detail.

It is true that in parts of Scotland there is duplication of agencies, a lack of clarity for business as to who does what and when, and a lack of focus for the agencies themselves. In such circumstances, we risk having a system of benevolent incoherence in some areas. There is also a need to contain costs. The administrative costs of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are higher in percentage terms than are those of the national health service, which is cause for concern.

The view that the review might suggest a uniform structure for the enterprise network is important, because that would be a considerable disadvantage. I would like to relate our experience in the Scottish Borders. We faced a meltdown in our economy some months ago, which was encapsulated in the phrase, "the banana wars". The Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning heard something about that when he visited us earlier this week. The response in that situation was to set up a working party with the Scottish Office, and then to develop the "New Ways" strategy for the economy. But the key lesson that was learned was that working in partnership was fundamental to leading our local economy back from the abyss.

We had an advantage, in that the local authority, Scottish Borders Enterprise, Borders College and Scottish Borders Tourist Board had coterminous boundaries, so there was a focus, but the key point was working in partnership. The response was first to pool knowledge, to develop a common understanding of what the problems were, and then to draw up an agreed programme with a series of targets and objectives. Those were the ingredients of a successful economic strategy. I commend the example from the Borders, which was developed out of a crisis that was not of Scotland's making; it was an international crisis.

I also commend that example as a constructive way of addressing the economic problems of a region in Scotland. Where there are coterminous boundaries, it would be disastrous if the local enterprise company were drawn back into the parent body. If Scottish Borders Enterprise had not existed and a committee of Scottish Enterprise was dealing with the south-east of Scotland, it would not have been able to develop the same recipe for success.

In commending the review, I emphasise to the minister the concerns of rural areas that their identity be retained and suggest that the advantages that have been demonstrated in my area are used in the review to develop future structures.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is a privilege to take part in such an animated and informed debate on this key issue as we look forward to the future of the Scottish economy.

I was very taken by the Conservative motion. Mr Johnston spent his entire opening speech criticising a structure that his own party set up. His explanation was that it was good for 10 years and then had to be abolished. He also stated that it was under pressure after five years—in the heart of the period of Conservative administration.

The most astonishing statement by Mr Johnston was his shameful call for the sacking of Sir Ian Wood as chairman of Scottish Enterprise. As the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning pointed out, a Conservative Prime Minister knighted him for services to Scottish business and industry, yet now Mr Johnston ungraciously calls for his sacking.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not believe that in any way, shape or form I called for the sacking of the chairman of Scottish Enterprise. I suggested that his contract was up in August or September, and we do not know whether it will be renewed. Mr Wilson's grasp of facts is, as usual, tentative.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Mr Johnston said that we need a new chairman, someone more dynamic and forward looking. If that is not a call for a sacking, I do not know what it is. To take up the football analogy, I remember that "Sack the board" was the cry of Celtic fans, but if Nick Johnston had been there with them, it would have been, "Perhaps renew their contracts, perhaps not; in due course, in the fullness of time." Conservative members have shown a distinct lack of a grasp of reality in the debate. There are problems with the enterprise structures but, as Tricia Marwick pointed out, there is much more to the development of Scotland's economy than enterprise structures.

We must welcome the gracious praise that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning gave the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which perhaps should be renamed in the standing orders as John Swinney's Excellent Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, because that is how it is often described.

I agree with Henry McLeish that there is scope in this policy area for a cross-partisan approach, because we all agree on the endgame. It is a question of opening our minds as to how we get there. As John Swinney pointed out, it is to be welcomed that so much of the Scottish National party programme at the election campaign has been adopted and embraced. The current enterprise minister shows a much more consensual approach than was shown by Lord Macdonald. John Swinney pointed out how wrong it was of Lord Macdonald to dismiss his call at the Scottish Grand Committee for our sights to be set on small countries such as Ireland. It was shameful that Lord Macdonald dismissed that by stating that Ireland was a good country for a stag night, but not for economic policy. How nice it is to put behind us those outdated, old-fashioned politicians, although perhaps they will raise their heads again at the Scottish Grand Committee when it starts—I hope not.

I was delighted at the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee yesterday, to hear Dr Goudie, the respected new senior economist at the Scottish Executive, say that it is now looking towards Ireland for examples.

We should extend our sights beyond the narrow confines of enterprise structures to issues such as taxation, because we should never constrain ourselves in this Parliament.

I welcome the debate and Henry McLeish's generous remarks about the SNP's approach. I hope that we can have a cross-partisan approach to those issues and that Mr Johnston will retract, publicly and more formally, his shameful attack on such a respected figure in Scottish business and society.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

This has been a productive debate. If this Parliament is to succeed—this is uncomfortable for some and difficult for others—the new politics must be different in Scotland.

This is not a matter of saying that any party has a monopoly on wisdom on any aspect of economic policy. That is vital to the prosperity of Scotland, to employment in Scotland and to the quality of life in Scotland. If we cannot move to a consensus on a new economic model, we will fail the wider aspirations of this great country, aspirations that this country now has its own Parliament to deal with. I take that as the baseline from which we should progress.

It is important that we should also consider the wider Scottish society in our deliberations—that is happening with the work of the committees and it is happening with the Executive. I am unapologetic about listening to people—that should be the nature of this Parliament. Once we stop listening, we will have much less of an influence on the politics and the quality of life in Scotland.

As part of the review, we will take the advice of the business world. The group of business advisers we have secured for the review is not another task group or another committee, but key people in Scotland, who will help us to shape the way forward as the consultation develops and as we reach the point of producing a report. They are: Frank Blin, the PricewaterhouseCoopers executive chairman in Scotland and head of the UK regions; Catherine Garner, head of research and enterprise at the University of Glasgow and a member of the knowledge economy task force, who has experience of commercialisation of the science base; Professor Neil Hood, professor of business policy at the University of Strathclyde, who has long experience of economic development; Afzal Khushi, director of Jacobs and Turner, an entrepreneur who developed small manufacturing to become a major exporter; Alison Loudon, chair of Appsco Software and Data Discoveries and a member of Connect and the Entrepreneurial Exchange, who has extensive experience of software; Gavin Nicholson, managing director of Realise and a member of the digital Scotland task force; Brian Stewart, group chief executive and deputy chairman of Scottish and Newcastle; and Mr Alf Young, deputy editor of The Herald.

We have tried to combine a wide range of experience and knowledge of the Scottish economy and the economic framework—that gives us a new model. We will want to add some names. There will be the parliamentary committee, there will be the Parliament and the political parties, there will be the wider business community in Scotland and there will be a chance for individuals to be involved in consultations. Now, instead of the review going out to consultants—which costs vast amounts—or being carried out in-house, we have a new economic model, with a group of business advisers to help us to shape the future of the economic network. That is a significant step forward and I hope that it appeals to the chamber.

I finish on the point on which I started: this is a unique opportunity to review where we are. We want a network that is effective, appropriate and relevant to the changing economic circumstances. It is important to say that we are building on success. The Scottish Development Agency was a success and the Highlands and Islands Development Board was a success. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise are success stories.

I did not agree with one of Andrew Wilson's points. This is a message to the Scottish National party: we have to boost the confidence of Scotland, to praise, where praise is necessary, and to take Scotland along with us. However, let us never talk Scotland down, even on areas where we can have a critical debate. As far as I am concerned, the consensus that I want must go hand in hand with everybody playing their part. We must not rubbish achievements just because they do not go as far as a political party would want.

I hope that this will be the start of a very productive few months. I look forward to everyone's participation.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I declare an interest from the start, because I was in at the ground floor, when the Scottish Enterprise movement was launched. I was seconded for a time to Central Scotland chamber of commerce and worked closely with Bill Hughes on the project. The underlying principle of the Scottish Enterprise movement was a one-door and a business-led approach. I believe that to have been very important.

With respect to Andrew Wilson's attack on Nick Johnston, Andrew must realise that business is constantly changing. The business scene today is totally different from what it was 10 years ago. Nick Johnston's point was that when Scottish Enterprise was launched, it was on the basis that things would change and that that would have to be addressed.

I have a further interest to declare: I worked with Enterprise Ayrshire for a short time after my dismissal from Westminster. After becoming involved in the political mainstream once again, I was obliged to set up a small business consultancy and I was contracted to the enterprise movement. I have first-hand experience of the enterprise agencies.

In summing up, Henry McLeish said that he would listen to the people of Scotland. I hope that in the next debate that message comes from all the ministers. He spoke of the problems created by the Conservatives' handling of the economy between 1979 and 1997. As Ben Wallace suggested, during that time, Scotland's economy grew and we moved from second from the bottom in the United Kingdom league of economic prosperity to third from the top. That is a record of which I am proud, as I am sure is Ben Wallace.

I remind Des McNulty and Trish Marwick—to a lesser extent, because she is not part of the ruling group—that only a few weeks ago, Tony Blair spoke to the World Economic Forum. Tony Blair's advice to the world was to forget the Labour-led economic policies of the 1960s and 1970s and to look to the economic policies pursued in the United Kingdom between the 1980s and the 1990s. That was a ringing endorsement of the time to which Henry McLeish referred and I draw his attention to his leader's words.

John Swinney commented on Ireland. He said that we should follow the Irish route. That is all very well, but Ireland has enjoyed massive subsidies from Europe. I remind him of comments made two or three years ago by Margaret Ewing at a Scottish Grand Committee in Inverness, when she pointed to the difference between the economies of Scotland and Ireland. Margaret Ewing pointed out that Scotland would be a net contributor to Europe, rather than a taker of European funds.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the member give way?

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am obliged to give way to John Swinney—my apologies to Winnie Ewing.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does Mr Gallie understand the point that I was making about the economic strategy of Ireland? The leadership that that strategy gives to the process of economic and enterprise development in Ireland is one that we are gradually creeping towards in Scotland. The coherence of economic strategy in Ireland is something that we should embrace and take to the heart of our economic policy.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If we had unlimited funds from Europe, we would be happy to follow such a line. However, as we are all too well aware, the funds available to us are restricted.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Out of courtesy, I give way to the lady.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Gallie mentioned Ireland and the subsidy from Europe. Does he agree that it is rather sad that we are the only country that refuses to match money and therefore turns down European money? We are currently doing that in relation to the farmers' need for compensatory funds.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am glad that I allowed the lady to intervene, because in this case she has a point. Those of us who are concerned about the farming industry would identify with the comments that she made.

When we consider the enterprise movement, it is clear that it has drifted away from the one-door approach at which it was aimed. A multitude of agencies deliver enterprise services. I draw members' attention to comments made by the Glasgow Development Agency, which refer to the many organisations in the city that supposedly provide services. Those organisations include Glasgow City Council, Targeting Technology, Services to Software and Glasgow Exports. The GDA identifies 19 different organisations that are doing what one organisation should be doing. They should be providing services to businesses. One difficulty for businesses is that they are not quite sure where to go when they have a problem. When they get there, they are not quite sure which facilities can really help them. They are pushed from place to place.

Scottish Enterprise has, to some extent, done a great job for Scotland. It has brought in much inward investment, and that has to be welcomed. However, when we consider its activity at local level, we see the constraints that are placed on the enterprise organisations. Many companies may go to them simply to seek financial aid; they do not seem to recognise that such aid is not readily available.

We have to target cash in such a way that we can support product development or launch funding for new products. On some occasions—although I recognise that there are difficulties with competition—we should support companies that are suffering from short-term cash-flow difficulties. The perception of the small business community is that, if a company is big and comes from elsewhere, help is abundantly available, but that, if the company is an indigenous Scottish company, the situation is different.

The enterprise companies at local level are obliged to deliver various Government programmes. There is the new deal—which is youth training scheme mark 3, some would say. Investors in People is undoubtedly a good and necessary programme, but not one that is always seen as being imperative and important to small companies. There are other schemes such as skillseekers and new modern apprenticeships, which are excellent.

But what about the old skills and the traditional apprenticeships? What about the construction and engineering industries? We need people in those areas of Scotland's economy. I hope that Henry McLeish's review will consider that. He named a number of fairly high-profile and knowledgeable people who will serve on that group. I welcome that, but I make a plea to Henry—please include people from the small business community. That is essential. If he can achieve that, perhaps the enterprise movement will begin to gain some respectability in the future.

Local Government Act 1986 (Section 2A)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-509, in the name of Mr Brian Monteith, on the proposed repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, and on amendments to that motion. I call Miss Annabel Goldie to speak to and move the motion. You have 15 minutes, Miss Goldie.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Section 28 is arguably the most perplexing and sensitive issue to come before this Parliament. I am sure that I am not alone in having been deeply disturbed by the nature and flavour of recent comments.

We have to be clear about what we are discussing. To me, this debate is not, and never should have been, about homophobia. It is not, and never should have been, an unseemly and at times offensive exchange of views.

For a society that aspires to reflect social inclusion, tolerance is, or should be, the foundation stone. I have no doubt that, when people are mature enough to make their own decisions on lifestyle, they must be free to make those decisions. The decisions are for them and them alone.

The issue in this debate is much simpler—the stable, reassuring and supportive environment that we want in our schools for our young people. During adolescence, young people go through arguably the most turbulent and difficult time of their life and are perhaps at their most impressionable and vulnerable. That is what any debate on section 28 ought to be about.

When the Executive first intimated that it proposed to repeal section 28—I recall that that was done not in this chamber, but at some event attended by the Minister for Communities at the University of Glasgow—the reasons advanced were that the presence of section 28 prevented or inhibited teachers from dealing with the bullying of young people who were thought to be homosexual, and it inhibited or restricted adequate discussion about homosexuality in schools.

Those arguments troubled me, because I find it unacceptable that bullying in schools should arise from any cause and that it should not be dealt with. It also troubled me that there could be any meaningful sexual education class in schools without reference to homosexuality; the discussion of such matters, as appropriate for the age and stage of development of our children, is absolutely essential.

That took me to the text of section 28. Reading that text as a lawyer rather than a politician, I found nothing in it that would prevent schools from dealing with bullying or would inhibit the discussion of homosexuality in our schools. I say that because the nub of this issue is the word "promote". A confusion has arisen about the meaning of teaching, as distinct from promoting.

In the "Oxford English Dictionary", "promoting" is defined as "advancing", "preferring" or "encouraging". That places a very different construction on the argument. As far as sexual education in our schools is concerned, section 28 is doing no more than preserving a balance. The reality is that, without any promotion at all, heterosexuality is the norm; and when I say the norm, I mean that it is the condition or situation in which the majority of people exist. That is a central tenet of society.

I understand that the First Minister has said that he does not wish to promote homosexuality, as has the Minister for Children and Education. If that is so, the question that I and a great many people in Scotland are asking is: why has this issue arisen?

Choice of lifestyle should not rest with schools, which are there to inform. Nothing in section 28 prohibits the imparting of such information. In my opinion, such information should also refer to the structure and value of marriage, the family and stable relationships, to use the Executive's own words in a newspaper this morning.

In considering section 28, I have been struck forcibly by two factors. Before the Minister for Communities made her announcement at the University of Glasgow last October, no one had raised the matter with me. Nobody had expressed the fears that the minister seemed to harbour or the difficulties that she seemed to have. That view is supported by Chris Woodhead, the chief inspector for schools in England and Wales, who recently said that the issue had simply not been raised with him by the teaching profession.

I presume that that is why the repeal of section 28 was not thought worth including in any party manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections, and did not merit mention in the Executive's programme for government, the partnership agreement or any ministerial statement on the ethical standards bill. I cannot say that that silence has endured since the minister made her announcement.

I cannot believe that I am the only MSP to be overwhelmed by a mountain of mail from members of the public who are deeply alarmed at the threatened removal of what they see as a fundamental protection for young people. I cannot speak for others, but, as of this morning, of the 223 letters that I have received on the issue, 11 are for the repeal and 212 are against.

I have to ask myself how the matter has arisen at all. There was certainly no public appetite in Scotland for raising it. I can only conclude that this is the naive afterthought of an Executive that is zealously obsessed with the politically correct.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is Miss Goldie aware that the repeal of section 28 has been long-standing Labour policy and that we are now proposing to do what the Labour party has promised to do ever since this nasty little law was introduced by the Conservatives back in the 1980s?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Forgive me, Mr Macintosh, but there are intervals in your recollection. The Labour party has not shown consistent adherence to repeal of section 28. In particular—and Labour members can check this out for themselves—the Labour manifesto for the Scottish Parliament gave no commitment to seek to change that law. The public are acutely aware of that fact. At best, that may have been a convenient omission; at worst, it was deception.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, I have dealt with that point.

I can conclude only that the proposal to repeal section 28 is the naive afterthought of an Executive that is zealously obsessed with the politically correct, rather than the result of mature and measured consideration of an issue that is profoundly sensitive and potentially hurtful to many people. Would that such consideration had weighed more heavily with the Executive, as something regrettable and profoundly undesirable has arisen out of its precipitate and ill-advised initiative.

In the past few weeks, I have seen a polarisation of views, caused by the Executive's decision to repeal section 28. That is unhealthy and unwelcome in our society in Scotland. An ugly and undisguised homophobia has been laid bare, to which the Executive's action has given a fair wind; its action has created a climate for the fertile spawning of such offensive attitudes. Had it not been for a clumsy and precipitate Government decision, those attitudes would never have seen the light of day.

Ordinary people—such as the mothers, fathers, surgeons, doctors, teachers, nurses, social workers and youth workers who are represented in my correspondence files—have been stirred into fear. They also feel resentment that the fundamental protection that they thought was in place to ensure their children's safety is to be removed without any democratic notice.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I, too, have had a big mailbag on this subject. I respond to my constituents and explain fully what the Executive's proposals actually are—as opposed to what they are reported to be—and most constituents seem content with that response. Has Miss Goldie done likewise?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yes. Everyone who has communicated with me has received my response and I have had very few returns to that response. That suggests that I am not alone in my understanding of the position, which is that parents are deeply concerned about the removal of a protection that will be replaced by guidelines that do not have the force of law. That does not escape parents' attention, Mr Kerr, nor should it.

Parents feel that the fundamental protection that the Executive is removing, without democratic notice, should at least be replaced by something equally enforceable and protective. Guidelines with no force of law do not amount to that.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Miss Goldie's proposition seems to be that section 28 is required to give fundamental protection to some of our pupils. Does she feel that other areas—which are not currently legislated for but for which perfectly proper regulation exists—should be legislated on to provide that fundamental protection for pupils in our schools? Does she want other areas to be covered by the statutory protection that she thinks so important on this one issue?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Stephen should be more interested not in my opinion, but in the opinion of people outside Parliament. Our legal system includes numerous laws that protect children; there are too many such laws to enumerate now, but they exist.

Section 28 undoubtedly provides protection, because it is concerned with promotion. I have given my understanding of promotion, which apparently is shared by many people in Scotland. Parents must have a fundamental say in what happens in our schools and must know that the protection of the law is behind them. They are saying that protection is required in this area. Mr Stephen has the democratic right to disagree with that view.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

If Mr Rumbles does not mind, I am watching the clock.

The threat of removing that safeguard and of replacing it with guidelines that enjoy no force of law is a curious way in which to aspire to social inclusion in Scotland.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry.

Social inclusion is not about fostering division, as this proposal has done, but about respecting the views of the majority and seeking to reconcile those with the views of a minority. In my judgment, the Scottish Executive has failed that test.

I oppose the repeal of section 28, because I must listen to the fears and concerns of the people who put us in this Parliament, not to the zealous naivety of the Executive. I move the motion because it pledges continued statutory protection within a framework that promises a far better chance of promoting agreement, tolerance and integration; that is a form of promotion with which I have no problem whatever.

I move,

That the Parliament affirms its belief in an open, democratic and tolerant society where all members are treated equally under the law; calls upon the Scottish Executive not to include the proposed repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 in the draft Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Bill, to establish an official committee of inquiry to consider all aspects of the section and in particular the provision of sex education in Scottish schools and to give this committee the remit of ensuring that relationships form the basis for discussion and teaching of sex education and establishing what statutory protection for children, parents and school boards is required, accompanied by clear guidelines on what topics and materials are appropriate for pupils of varying age, experience and maturity, and agrees to defer further consideration of this matter until said committee has reported to the Parliament.

Amendment S1M-509.1 moved,

Leave out from "calls upon" to end and insert "notes the Executive's move to consult fully on all necessary safeguards before any repeal of section 2A and in particular the Executive's commitment to publish a draft circular to education authorities on introduction of the Bill, to set up a Working Group to review and consult on that circular, the existing curriculum material and support for teachers in relation to sex education and thereafter to use powers in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to issue any necessary guidance, and to consult on any other reassurance that may be required, including the status that then might be given to the guidelines."— [Bruce Crawford.]

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I start by welcoming the tone of much of Annabel Goldie's contribution. This debate can do credit to the Parliament. I also welcome the fact that the Conservative motion does not call for the retention of section 2A, but simply for us to defer its repeal. The fact that the Conservatives are not calling for section 2A to remain on our statute books indefinitely tells its own story.

The case for repeal is not just about schools, but about society and about Scotland taking its place in the company of modern nations. Above all, this Parliament is the custodian of the law of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is important to make clear the position of the Conservatives. We framed the motion as we did to indicate as precisely as we could the framework of protection that we believe must continue for youngsters in our schools. When we talk about deferring the repeal of section 28, we are not saying that we are prepared to dispense with section 28, but that we seek reassurance from the Executive that an equally safe measure, which is enforceable in law, will be substituted.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Let me move on. There seems to be some confusion about whether the Conservative's position is a cover for continuing homophobia. Later, I will deal at length with the point about education raised by Miss Goldie.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I will take Mr Gallie's intervention in a moment.

By our actions in this Parliament, we have demonstrated that we want the law of Scotland to be characterised by a spirit of tolerance. The Liberal Democrat party has long been committed to civil rights, the SNP today champions civic rather than ethnic nationalism and the Labour party is ideologically rooted, not in clause 2A, but in our new clause 4, which commits us to building a society in which people can

"live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

It was in that spirit of tolerance that Jackie Baillie, at her inaugural appearance before the Equal Opportunities Committee in September, affirmed our intention to repeal a piece of legislation that undeniably singles out a minority in our community for stigma, isolation and fear.

In October, having forewarned the Churches, I announced the Cabinet's decision. England and Wales followed suit. Mr McAveety launched the formal consultation and, the day after we announced the repeal, the Conservative spokesman said in the Daily Record that section 28 would have to be amended.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the minister explain why the repeal of section 28 did not appear in the Labour or Liberal Democrat election manifestos? Can she further explain why the repeal does not appear in the Government's partnership agreement and why it did not appear in the First Minster's statement to the Parliament on the Executive's programme?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Repeal of section 28 has been a long-standing policy of the Labour party and, as I understand it, of two of the other parties in the chamber. Since the day when the legislation was enacted, we have been in favour of its repeal. I hope that members can deal today with the principle of the matter, rather than talk about who said what, and when.

From the day on which we announced the repeal, we have acknowledged parental concerns, offered reassurance and promised a review of the existing guidelines. That is all on the record. Of course, some did not agree with repeal of section 28, but their disagreement was reasoned and credible—not so very long ago, extremism had not raised its head.

Then in January, on the last day of an eight-week consultation, when the end of the hype about the millennium had left the news pages bereft, came a carefully co-ordinated campaign of misinformation. That campaign was intent on fostering fear, rather than debate. The clearest example of that fear was the claim that gay sex lessons would be taught in Scottish schools.

In place of that fear, let us place on record the facts: before 1998 there were no gay sex lessons in Scottish schools; today there are no gay sex lessons in Scottish schools; and in future there will be no gay sex lessons in Scottish schools. Effective safeguards existed before 1988, they exist today and they will exist in the future.

I do not dismiss the damage that is caused by the fiction about proselytising teachers, titillating texts and terrible threats. That fiction has squeezed out the facts, and parents, the public and pupils have become perplexed.

The section has never been used for the protection of children in a court of law. It is not that law, but existing procedures that daily protect our children—now and in future, parental preferences and good teacher sense will shape practice in Scottish classrooms. Fear has undermined parental confidence. Our challenge is to restore that confidence.

There is much in the Conservative motion on which we can agree: parents are concerned; parents have fears; sex education is difficult. All that is common ground and that is why our review of education guidelines will be conducted with maximum participation. Rather than inviting interested parties to submit to the review, we have asked them to share in the process of the review.

Sam Galbraith today announced the membership of the working group. That membership is broad and representative. The group will review the new circular, the curricular material and the support for teachers in relation to sex education. Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, ministers will use their existing powers to issue guidance to education authorities.

That is all in keeping with the tradition of Scottish education. It is, simply, the way we do things up here. We part company with Conservatives over their plea that, in response to fear and misinformation, the chamber should turn the Scottish education system upside down.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I will give way in a moment.

I do not doubt the sincerity of many Conservatives or that of those in the SNP who, perhaps, hesitate on the issue. If we go down the route of singling out this issue for different treatment from all other issues relating to school curriculums, we will be betraying a tradition of Scottish education that is held dear by many members throughout the chamber. We have no national curriculum—we need no national curriculum to protect our children.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does Ms Alexander accept that there was not a campaign of misinformation? Every constituent who has written to me has had a copy of section 28 and the guidelines that were issued in 1988 sent to them. They were left to make up their own minds. The minister accuses everybody who opposes the repeal of section 28 of being homophobic. Is she accusing virtually all parents and grandparents of being homophobic?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Let me try to provide some reassurance for those who are worried by the fear that misinformation has caused. The guidelines and the circular will, as they do at present, recognise the place of the family and reflect the values of the family, marriage and stable relationships as the basis for bringing up children and for offering them security, stability and happiness. However, the way in which to honour marriage and the family is not by denying the reality of different relationships that are now established in our society. The circular will also reaffirm the special position of denominational schools, particularly those where Church teaching bears most clearly on the curriculum.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

As one spinster talking to another, I should say that the minister and I are perhaps ill suited to be talking about marriage, but I accept the spirit of what she is saying and the way in which she says it.

Looking at the amendments on the business list, does the minister agree that—notwithstanding what she says about consultation, and notwithstanding her express desire to ensure that the education that we agree is needed will still rest on the basis of guidelines—the public are seeking reassurance about how to provide statutory protection if something goes wrong? Where is that protection to be found?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Let me deal directly with the issue of protection. We do not believe that separate laws are required to govern the teaching of every sensitive topic in order to protect our children. The Scottish curriculum works.

Scottish parents can take action to stop inappropriate instruction of whatever kind, be it politics in the classroom, the promotion of promiscuity of any kind or the use of inappropriate heterosexual or homosexual material. Parents exercise their role by going to the teacher, head teacher, education authority or, ultimately, the Scottish ministers.

We are seeking consensus on the practicalities of safeguards. However, on the principle of repeal we will not delay, because justice delayed is justice denied. When all is said and done, section 2A remains a piece of legalised intolerance. The passage of time will neither heal it nor help it. It needs to go. Repeal will not leave a vacuum, but will take away a symbol of intolerance and a source of confusion. If people say that they do not discriminate, we should not let Scotland's law discriminate.

Repeal has been the stance of three of the parties represented in this chamber since the day the proposal was introduced. Let me recall the words of our last-but-one male Conservative Prime Minister. He said:

"We may be a small island but we are not a small people".

For those who are genuinely worried about our plans, we have sympathy. Of those who are deliberately distorting and demonising this debate, we despair. For all those who want to work out the best Scottish solution, we have an open ear.

I move amendment S1M-509.2, to leave out from "affirms its" to end and insert:

"supports a tolerant, just and inclusive society; notes the concern that section 2A constrains local authorities from serving all sections of the community, and has inhibited teachers who are concerned about the legal status of any action they may take against homophobic bullying; recognises the existing high professional standards of teaching and management in Scottish schools; notes the Executive's intention to consult on all necessary safeguards and whether further reassurance is required before any repeal of section 2A and in particular the Executive's commitment to publish a draft circular to education authorities on introduction of the Bill, to set up a Working Group to review the package of safeguards including the existing curriculum material and support for teachers in relation to sex education and thereafter to use powers in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to issue any necessary guidance; and looks forward to a full debate on the Ethical Standards in Public Life Bill when it will have an opportunity to consider the package of safeguards on sex education and the views of the Working Group which the Executive has set up."

[Interruption.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Before calling the next speaker, I must remind visitors in the gallery that they are obliged to observe proceedings quietly, if not silently.

I now call Michael Matheson to speak to amendment S1M-509.1.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. The Minister for Communities said that three parties were committed to repealing section 2A as policy. I can confirm the Scottish National party's commitment to that policy. However, I must correct the minister and tell her that five parties are committed to the repeal. Due respect should be accorded to that.

The debate serves as an important marker. It allows this Parliament to underline its commitment to create a fairer and more equal Scotland. However, it arises not from the Conservatives' new-found enthusiasm for a fairer and more equal Scotland, but from the fact that they have chosen to use this sensitive issue to their own narrow political advantage. [Interruption.] I must say that the members of the public in the galleries behave better than the members of the Conservative party.

Let us examine the position that the Conservatives have taken on this issue. It has been extremely unclear. When the ministerial statement was made, David McLetchie talked about his concern about the repeal of section 2A, but made no mention of the proposals contained in the motion that is before us today and of the need for a Cubie-style committee.

On 16 January, Brian Monteith stated in the press that he planned to lodge an amendment to allow teachers to deal with homophobic bullying but to stop the promotion of homosexuality within the school. If that failed, he said, the Tories would vote against repeal. That seemed a credible position for the Conservatives to hold at that stage. However, later that week, he appeared on the "Holyrood" programme to tell us that he wanted to establish a Cubie-type committee to investigate the matter. Before the Conservatives could gather round that commitment, Keith Harding was telling the press that, if appropriate guidelines were put in place, the Conservatives might support the repeal of section 2A.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Matheson show me a copy of the article to which he is referring? I presume that he is talking about the article in the Daily Record , which does not state that at all. I said that the Parliament should consult the people and that, although I could live with the decision of the parents, I doubted whether the Executive could. At no time did I say that we would consider revised guidelines.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I would be more than happy to pass the clipping on to Mr Harding.

Mr Harding is a member of the Local Government Committee, which has considered the ethical standards bill on at least four occasions. Not until the fourth occasion did he indicate that he had some concern about section 28. That seemed a little late in the day.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If Mr Matheson speaks to his colleagues on the Local Government Committee, he will discover that, at every stage of the debate, I have recorded the fact that I am against the repeal of section 2A. The only time that the minutes record members' opinions is when a vote is taken.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Mr Harding's comments in the Official Report tell another story.

The motion that we are considering today is fairly ambiguous. It does not mention whether the Tories want to keep or repeal section 2A. It says that educational material should to be appropriate to age, experience and maturity. I would point out that two 16-year-olds can have different levels of experience and maturity. The Conservatives have shed no further light on the matter today.

There has been considerable public anxiety around this issue. That has occurred because of the way in which the Executive has handled the issue and because of the misinformation that some organisations have promoted. The Executive could have handled the matter in a better way. The Minister for Communities gave evidence to the Local Government Committee on 27 October and outlined her plans for the ethical standards bill. However, she made no reference to the repeal of section 2A. The next day, we read in the press that she planned to repeal section 2A. That is not an appropriate way for an announcement to be made on a sensitive issue.

The SNP welcomes the Executive's new position, which is that it will consult on guidelines and have them in place before the repeal of section 2A.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I hope that this will be a helpful intervention. As Michael Matheson is a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, he will recall that, in September—well before the date on which the Minister for Communities addressed the Local Government Committee—I gave a clear indication of the Executive's intention, which he welcomed at the meeting.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I accept what Jackie Baillie says. However, there is a difference between what the Minister for Communities has done and what Jackie Baillie said to the Equal Opportunities Committee. Although she said that the Executive wanted to address the issue, the way in which the Executive's actions were announced by the Minister for Communities was unacceptable.

The SNP welcomes the fact that the Executive has moved to a new position on consultation, which is broadly in line with the position that we called for. Had ministers moved earlier towards consultation, it is possible that we would have been able to move away from some of the concerns that now surround the issue.

Like the Executive, the SNP fully supports the need to repeal section 2A. Our amendment demonstrates the considerable common ground that exists between us. It illustrates our determination to make Scotland a fairer and more equal society. Having pressed for full and proper consultation on the guidelines, we believe that it is essential that that consultation is as open and inclusive as possible. That is why we believe that there should be a consultation exercise to examine the status of the guidelines. We believe that this matter should not be prejudged. We should keep an open mind on whether it is desirable, necessary or practical to give guidelines a formal status.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On the issue of guidelines, will Michael Matheson give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I stress the point that this matter should not be prejudged at this stage. We recognise that guidelines should reflect the need to trust our teachers in dealing with this sensitive issue in the classroom.

I hope that members will support the SNP amendment and reflect on our commitment to the repeal of section 2A and to a wide-ranging consultation exercise. Section 2A promotes discrimination and singles out a minority in our society as unacceptable. If any other policy that proposed such discrimination was brought before the Parliament today, it would not be tolerated.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will Michael Matheson give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No thank you, I am winding up.

To argue that the repeal of section 2A would allow the promotion of homosexuality in our classrooms is, at the least, misleading. We must recognise that people do not choose their sexual orientation. To say that homosexuality can be promoted is equivalent to arguing that blue or brown eyes can be promoted, or that people can be encouraged to be tall or short.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Michael Matheson enter into the debate by giving way?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order, Mr Gallie. Michael Matheson is winding up.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Our children have a right to learn about the society in which they live and which they will inherit. They have a right to be protected from mental, physical and emotional harm. No amount of prejudice or hysteria should allow those rights to be removed. Some of our people—some of our children—will be gay. Whether as parents or concerned citizens, it is our duty to care for, nourish and support all our nation's children without exception. If we do not teach the acceptance of difference, we foster intolerance.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Michael Matheson be tolerant and give way?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If we cannot accept those who are different, we can only expect them to reject us. I ask members to support the SNP amendment and confirm my support for the repeal of section 2A.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call Nora Radcliffe, who has up to eight minutes for her speech.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Equality of opportunity is one of the key principles of the Scottish Parliament. The definition of equal opportunities in the Scotland Act 1998 explicitly includes equality for people regardless of sexual orientation. Section 2A singles out homosexual people and labels as unacceptable them and their relationships.

I want to read a short extract from a letter written in January of last year by a mother.

"About a year ago, I found my son crying down the telephone to a gay helpline in London. It was the middle of the night, and he thought my husband and I were asleep, so we would not find out. He was only fourteen at the time. He knew he was gay and was desperate. He didn't know where to turn for help and was in a terrible state.

Please get rid of Section 28. It is damaging so many young people."

Many members will have seen another mother's open letter in The Scotsman.

"DEAR Scotland: I write because I can't be silent any longer about the continuing public abuse of many of our children. One of those children is mine. He is a loving, kind, friendly, intelligent and talented person. But for weeks now he has been confronted daily by headlines screaming how unacceptable he is as a member of his society . . .

Yet my son is a danger to no-one. He is not a murderer, rapist, thief, vandal, drug-dealer or drunk driver. Nor does he have any other failing which might render him anti-social. Quite simply, my son is gay."

I have received a lot of letters about families and I wish to read part of another one.

"I am bisexual. I have recently moved to Edinburgh to live with my partner and my two-year-old son. My son now lives with two parents who love and care for him. Previously, we lived with his father, who left us with no money for food or clothing, who wandered round our house with a long sharp knife, and who eventually left us totally homeless and in debt, yet that's a valid family and we are not."

Another correspondent is a 40-year-old lawyer, who votes Conservative, pays tax at a hefty rate and has two young sons.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I am in the middle of a quotation.

He is also homosexual, separated from his wife and living with a male partner. His sons have taken that in their stride—indeed, one commented that he was lucky to have two dads when he stayed with his father. As this man says:

"We are not—in the words of the Section—a 'pretend family' when we are all together, and it is offensive to me and my children to suggest that we are. Far from promoting homosexuality I have spent my life making it as normal as being straight and I am affronted that the law should discriminate against my children and undermine my efforts to have and live a normal life with my children and partner."

We hear the phrase homosexual lifestyle bandied about, often with the implication that lesbians or homosexuals lead promiscuous and unstable lives. That is far from the truth—lesbian and homosexual people have the same aspirations for love, commitment and stability as everyone else. They are as good or bad, as dull or interesting, as brave or cowardly as everyone else in the population.

The values that will help young heterosexuals to develop and grow up as responsible adults are just as relevant to young homosexuals. The difference is that life for homosexuals or lesbians, particularly when they are young, is more difficult, because they face considerable prejudice, often in isolation and without support.

In November 1998, the Daily Mail ran two stories, which the paper chose not to link. The first was that the Westminster Government had again postponed a repeal of section 28, while the second was a report on the inquest into the death of a 15-year-old boy driven to take his own life as a result of homophobic bullying at school. The boy had been physically attacked and verbally abused because his schoolmates had decided that he was a "poof". He felt unable to seek help from the school and was even disciplined for being disruptive when he tried to stand up to his tormentors. He saw killing himself as the only way out.

Section 28 has been portrayed as the bulwark preventing our schools from being flooded with homosexual propaganda. That is arrant nonsense. Schools are run by education authorities, teachers and parents, not gay activists. Like all members, I have been sent material targeted at adult gay men, which warns them of health risks that they may face. It seems to me to be very effective in the context for which it is intended, but I would find it quite inappropriate for classroom use. It is extraordinary to suggest that the people who are responsible for running our schools do not have the basic common sense and decency to decide what material is suitable for use in our schools.

Much of the material to which our attention has been drawn is on the internet, which remains an unregulated and uncensored medium. Young people can access any amount of pornographic images and material, homosexual and heterosexual. There is a valid debate about how to regulate access to that stuff, but it is not a justification for retaining section 28.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I accept and sympathise with many of the points that the member has made. However, is it not a fact that much of the material on the internet has been paid for from public funds?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I hardly think that that is relevant to whether the material will appear in our schools, which is the point that I was making. There is a lot of material that would be totally inappropriate for use in schools. It is my contention that that material is very unlikely to find its way into our schools.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I do not want in any way to diminish Nora Radcliffe's contribution to this debate. Some of the letters from which she has read extracts are familiar to us all. However, the member expresses a concern about the nature of some of the material that we have all received. A policeman outside this Parliament told me that if I handed it to passers-by in the High Street, I would be charged. Given that Nora Radcliffe has said that she would not wish that material to make its way into classrooms, what underpinning safeguard does she offer parents to ensure that if it ever made its way in or stood a chance of making its way in, it would be stopped by law?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I want to carry on with my speech, as I think that the next part of it addresses that question.

Teachers are trained professionals, whose effectiveness is undermined by discriminatory legislation. We should support and trust teachers, not impose restrictions such as section 2A that force them to marginalise their most vulnerable pupils. The minister referred to the safeguards that are available to parents and enable them to approach schools if they have doubts about what is happening.

Section 2A has never been used in courts and is, literally, meaningless. Homosexuality is a state of being. It is impossible to teach that homosexuality is a relationship, acceptable or otherwise, just as it is impossible to teach that being tall or short is a relationship. More dangerous is the very clear signal that the section gives out: that we cannot tolerate tolerance of homosexuals.

I want to finish by quoting a professional psychologist and the editor of the "British Journal of Social Psychology", who writes:

"nearly half a century of social psychological research, stemming from revulsion against the Nazi holocaust (which, it should be remembered was targeted at homosexuals as well as gypsies and Jews), has revealed that discrimination is all too easily triggered once a group is identified as inherently different and as constituting a problem for the majority. That is precisely what has been created by Section 28 and is exemplified in the recent debate. The very notion that one needs to 'protect' young people from homosexuality implies that it is a danger to youth. Equally, the idea that a 'homosexual lobby' seeks to prey on impressionable youth conveys the idea that homosexuals are a sinister menace. Such ideas are the root of intolerance, the wellspring of hostility and they are the start of a tragic descent into homophobic violence.

Section 28 cannot affect the 'promotion of homosexuality' but does serve to promote homophobia. It protects our children against nothing but exposes them to the danger of intolerance . . . We appeal to everyone who believes in teaching our children to embrace tolerance and compassion over prejudice and hatred, whatever their views on homosexuality, to support the repeal."

I endorse those views.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate is now open to the floor. Speeches are limited to four minutes.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome this debate, and I welcome the change in stance of the SNP. Michael Matheson, who is obviously an avid reader of the Official Report of meetings of the Local Government Committee , will know that his colleague Kenneth Gibson gave the SNP's total support to the repeal of section 2A without guidelines.

It has become clear from the debate over section 2A that the Executive could not care less about what anyone else thinks, and that it is determined to plough on regardless of public opinion or even of the opinion of some in the Labour party. That is arrogance on a grand scale. Wendy Alexander thought that she could slip the repeal of section 2A into the ethical standards in public life bill without anyone noticing—that she would get some political brownie points from her right-on friends and boost her standing within the Labour party. How wrong she was. She has completely misjudged the mood of the public and shown herself to be completely lacking in political judgment.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

rose—

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will not give way to Wendy Alexander, who has said enough. She started all this by talking.

Wendy Alexander conveniently forgets that neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats have any mandate from the Scottish people on this issue, as neither party included it in their manifesto for the Scottish elections. Indeed, the repeal of section 2A was such a low priority for Labour and the Liberal Democrats that it was not included in either their partnership agreement or their programme for government. However, Wendy decided that it should be a priority for the Executive, and what Wendy wants, she seems invariably to get.

I do not know about the mail that Wendy has received, but since the repeal was announced, I have had more mail on this issue than on all others put together.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I will not. As the Conservatives are restricted to four-minute speeches, we cannot be expected to take interventions if we are to make a contribution.

The letters I have received are overwhelmingly hostile to the Executive's proposal to ditch section 2A, and express anger that the Executive has tried to play the Scottish people for fools. Opinion polls have shown that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland want to keep section 2A. According to the ICN opinion poll for Scotland on Sunday, two out of three Scots think that the section should be kept, and certainly do not regard its repeal as a priority.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I will not.

It is no use the Executive portraying opponents of repeal as raving bigots, as that simply will not wash with the Scottish people. Is the Executive seriously saying that most Scots are bigoted?

Most people just want to ensure that their children are taught about homosexuality, and sex in general, in a way that is in tune with their wishes. In our current education system, that means that legal protection on sex education for our children is needed to reassure parents. That does not mean that homophobic bullying should not be tackled; it should be dealt with as part of a general strategy to tackle all bullying. Bullying is wrong, no matter what its cause, and we support any efforts to eradicate it.

Not only has the Executive failed to win over public opinion on this matter, it cannot even convince some of its own people. Down south, a Labour MP, Stuart Bell, has been vociferous in his opposition to the repeal of section 28. He has shown great courage in standing up for what he believes in. I hope that members of this Parliament will follow his example and that of the 15 Labour peers who defied the No 10 thought police to vote against the Government's line in the House of Lords.

Most notably of all, Labour councillors who are responsible for running our schools and have to implement the decisions of the Scottish Executive, have expressed their opposition to repeal. The leader of the Labour group on East Dunbartonshire Council, Councillor Charles Kennedy, said:

"In no way should the legislation be repealed until we have had the chance to have a proper and detailed consultation with every mother and father of school-aged children in the district".

As far as we are concerned, that should apply throughout Scotland. Labour-dominated Falkirk Council is also opposed to repeal. It held a public meeting to which hundreds of people came in appalling weather to express opposition to the Executive's proposals. The belief that they are always right will allow Wendy and her pals to ignore that opposition in the same way as they have ignored all the other opposition to repeal.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Begin to wind up, please.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Wendy knows best, and anyone who says otherwise is either mad or extreme. That attitude is typical of the Executive since the Parliament was established. Labour may have created the Scottish Parliament but its representatives are not living up to the principles it is supposed to embody. Where is the consensus and responsiveness to public opinion that we were promised as part of new politics? I doubt parents think the Parliament is doing its job.

I will finish by saying—[MEMBERS: "Sit down."] We can make a start today by supporting my colleague's motion. We have sent a signal to the whole country that we are prepared to listen to public opinion and to act on it. I will certainly listen to my constituents. If we do not see proper, legally binding safeguards for parents, I will vote against the repeal of section 28.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Although speeches should be four minutes long, I will allow reasonable overruns so interventions can be taken.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Are you encouraging interventions, George?

Today's debate is clearly very significant, not only for the Parliament but throughout the country. It is a welcome opportunity to provide clarity, realism and reassurance. Forces of hysteria have stoked up a distasteful campaign, but we must listen to the voices of genuine concern. I share Annabel Goldie's sense of the significance of the debate, but I hope I will not be drawn into making personal comments such as have been made this morning, particularly by Mr Harding, whose comments were quite inappropriate.

I have been concerned for many years about a number of relevant issues: access to pornography and the effects of it, particularly among children; early sexual activity; bullying and wider issues of sexual violence; and the abuse of children. I could never be characterised as being soft on such issues. I strongly support the Executive's position.

Since its introduction, section 28 has been unworkable, unhelpful and short sighted. It is particularly misleading. Young people on the precipice of sexuality face myriad issues. Singling out one issue distorts the picture—young people need a range of supports. "Promoting" was always the wrong word. To promote or not to promote homosexuality is not the debate—that fundamentally misses the point. Repeal will not mean gay sex lessons; rather, we will have better guidelines to ensure sensitive and professional handling of all sexual issues.

All children and young people should be protected—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Phil, I may as well, as—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Margaret comments on future guidelines, but the existing guidelines, which went out with section 28, mandate teachers to stop bullying and to counsel. The only thing they are stopped from doing is promoting homosexuality. What is the problem?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Mr Gallie, research published in 1997 reported that 82 per cent of teachers feel that section 28 needs to be clarified and that 44 per cent have difficulty meeting the needs of gay young people because of their concern about the section. The guidelines are clearly not appropriate.

Section 28 legitimises the targeting of one section of the population. We cannot have the message in schools that the targeting of gay people, from name calling to physical abuse, is acceptable. Section 28 suggests that there should be some hesitation and perhaps different treatment on the part of teachers when what all young people really need is clarity, guidance and support. The guidelines proposed by the Executive are far better.

I make a plea to the parents and others who have voiced concerns—which I understand. Please listen to the children's and teachers' organisations, Save the Children, Barnardo's and the Educational Institute for Scotland, which support repeal. None of those organisations treat children's emerging sexuality lightly. Rather, they are at the forefront of campaigns and services to protect and support children and young people. We cannot turn away when they tell us of the most horrifying catalogue of cruelty, abuse and violence that some young people have to face. It is our task to ensure that sensitive issues are discussed in an appropriate, informed, educational context.

I firmly believe that loving parents are the primary agents for the process of learning. However, we all know that our children are influenced by other things—by friends, by school and by the media. Young people know about gay issues not because of an uncontrolled gay campaign, but because they watch programmes such as "Emmerdale". We cannot leave the matter to be dealt with only by soap operas. We would fail our children profoundly if we were so naive as to fail to realise that these issues are discussed in the playground.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Margaret Curran agree that one of the benefits of the representation of homosexuality in soap operas is that it is at least shown in the context of loving relationships?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I do not particularly want to get into a debate about "EastEnders" and I am not saying that homosexual story lines should be banished from soap operas, but as a concerned parent I do not want my children's discussion of homosexuality to focus only on soap operas; I want them to discuss it in school as well. I say to Mr Monteith that we have to live in the world as it is and not as we hope it might be.

I hesitate to talk about my own children, because in politics we must be careful about that—I desperately want to protect my children from the horrible side of politics—but I have one son on the verge of adolescence and another a few years behind him. I do not treat these issues lightly, and I do not shirk the responsibility to provide a moral framework for their lives, but I would do them and others a disservice if I suppressed a proper discussion in schools. The guidelines are a much better alternative for my children.

In all honesty and sincerity, I would not support the Executive if I thought for a moment that it would damage the interests of my children. I profoundly believe that my children and Scotland's children will grow up much better in a tolerant and informed society.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

For the avoidance of doubt—and particularly Mr Harding's doubt—I shall make the SNP position quite clear. In September 1990, I proposed a motion at the SNP conference in Dundee. That motion was in favour of repealing section 28 or 2A, and it was overwhelmingly adopted by the SNP membership at that conference. That was the position in 1990; that is the position now.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Russell give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Perhaps Mr Monteith will allow me to begin my speech before I take any interventions. I have never seen the Tories so animated.

I hold that position, fully conscious of the fact that there are people in Scotland today who are genuinely afraid of the present situation. We have heard from many of those people in our constituency mailbags. I have answered every one of those letters positively and sympathetically, but saying what my position is: I shall vote for repeal. I have given my reasons, and they are the reasons that have been well outlined in the chamber today.

Our job is not to fear the fears, nor is it to scaremonger and fan up those fears with documents such as have been published by the Keep the Clause campaign. It is quite legitimate to argue to keep the clause; that is a considered position. It is not legitimate to head that document "Protect your children: Keep the Clause!". That is scaremongering. Our job as parliamentarians is to discuss, consult and reassure so that those fears should be assuaged. I suggest to the Conservatives that that is what political leadership is about. Their motion today is not about political leadership.

The fears centre around the reference in the legislation to "promoting homosexuality". Those words are unique in legislation; they occur only in section 2A and nowhere else. In no other legislation is there any mention of promoting any type of sexuality. That gives the clue to what section 28 or 2A actually is; it is not about sex education or about protection, it is about prejudice and discrimination. That is why it is there and why it has to be removed. It was put there to discriminate, but equality is indivisible. As I have said in this chamber before, one cannot believe in one form of equality and reject another. In these circumstances, we must remove that inequality.

What distresses me is that section 2A was not only put there to discriminate; it was also put there as a ticking time bomb of discrimination. It was designed to continue fear and prejudice. We must have the courage to defuse that time bomb. That is what political leadership is about, but we cannot do that in a vacuum. We have to accept that there are reservations, and we have to bring forward ideas and arguments about what will happen after repeal.

I commend to the chamber six principles for discussion that I received in the mail the other day, and which are important. The first is:

"Indoctrination, whether it be political, religious or sexual, has no place in . . . schools."

That is a fair principle. Secondly:

"Homophobia and its expression in abusive, violent and bullying behaviour in our schools must be challenged and eradicated."

Thirdly:

"All young people should be given accurate information on sexual relationships, regardless of their sexuality."

Fourthly:

"All young people, regardless of their sexuality, should learn about the importance of commitment, trust and respect in sexual relationships and the dangers of risk taking behaviour."

Fifthly:

"Young people should be made aware of the teaching of religious faiths on homosexuality."

And sixthly:

"Teachers should respect differing family backgrounds among their pupils. All young people should learn the importance of the family, recognising that families come in many different shapes and sizes, and the importance of marriage within heterosexual family relationships."

That does not seem to be wild, radical material. Indeed, the organisation that sent it to me made the point that all of those points must be taken together in balance. Those principles are from Stonewall's charter on education in schools. I commend it to the Conservative party as a responsible approach—an approach from people who are being demonised in this debate, but who are putting forward constructive ideas on how we might take this issue forward.

I will conclude by saying that it is an obligation upon everybody who was elected to this chamber to be involved in making laws that are fair to all members of our society. One cannot lift and lay that; it is an obligation upon us. Laws have to be based on the founding principles of this Parliament—as dictated by the consultative steering group—one of which is equality. That is what we are here for, and if we fall short of that out of fear of those who are not being helped by us, we do not do this Parliament, Scotland or democracy any favours.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I would like to take a couple of moments to take part in this debate from a personal perspective. From a west of Scotland housing estate I entered the male-dominated, and sometimes brutal, world of a Clydeside shipyard. Coming from that community, and having been shaped by that environment, it will come as no surprise that I have no close gay friends—at least none that I know of. I have no connection with the gay community, but I recognise discrimination when I see it.

While I have no close gay friends, I would not wish them to be excluded, stigmatised or bullied. I take heart from the constituency letters and representations that I have received and the fact that 90 per cent of them accept and support that view. On the one hand they do not want homosexuals to be victimised; on the other they have expressed genuine concerns that we must respond to.

There is great apprehension that the repeal of section 2A would lead to the promotion of homosexuality, or classrooms being filled with sexually explicit material. People are afraid that their views are being ignored and that their children are being put at risk for the sake of political correctness. Do they believe that the parents and grandparents in this chamber will vote for something that would promote homosexuality or fill classrooms with pornography? Of course we would not. Like most of the grandparents who have contacted me, I would vigorously oppose any measure that placed our children at risk.

I welcome this debate, because it reminds us all that we have a long way to go before the final vote on the ethical standards in public life bill. I welcome the Executive's commitment to consult on the safeguards and to establish a working group—which will include parents, teachers and Churches—that will review the package of safeguards, including current teaching materials and support for teachers in relation to sex education.

We will have the opportunity to debate that package of safeguards. As Donald Dewar said during First Minister's question time last Thursday:

"The answer is to get a package of safeguards that reflect the values of family, marriage and stable relationships and which offer . . . children security . . . and, hopefully, happiness."—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol 4, c 776.]

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the tone of Annabel Goldie's opening speech. I think she was let down badly by the tone of some of her Conservative colleagues.

Today's debate has, unfortunately, been brought about for reasons of political opportunism. Whether we support or oppose the repeal of section 2A, it was clear that members would get their opportunity to give their view and cast their vote during the passage of the ethical standards in public life bill. There was no reason—other than political opportunism—for the Tories to introduce this motion today.

Although all parties occasionally indulge in political opportunism, there are times when they should not.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

As the whole country is talking about section 28 and substantial publicity campaigns are being run on the issue, does Shona Robison not accept that it is reasonable for Scotland's Parliament to discuss, in this chamber, the issue that Scotland's people are discussing outwith it?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

In some ways this is a false debate, because we will have the real debate in a few weeks' time. All of us are engaged in dialogue with the public about what has become an important issue. On some occasions one just does not exploit political opportunism—this is one of those occasions.

This issue has been terribly distorted, but it must be said that it was naive in the extreme for the Executive to think it could announce the intention to repeal section 28 without adverse reaction. The Minister for Communities should realise that although the people around her and her advisers may think like her, many members of the Scottish public do not and were likely to be concerned by the way in which the repeal was announced.

The lesson is that clear and early information—and proper consultation—must become the norm in this Parliament when changes such as this are announced. Would not it have been much better to take the entire Scottish public with us on this issue?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Is Shona Robison arguing that the Executive did not give early indications of the issues relating to the repeal of section 2A? When Shona Robison considers the tone of the discussion on this issue, particularly the publicity campaign organised by Keep the Clause, does she not think that this is about more than the way in which the Minister for Communities introduced this matter? We had to face fundamental issues, which are in Keep the Clause documents and have been raised by the proposed repeal of section 2A. Does Shona Robison accept that it would be inappropriate to state that the adverse reaction is solely the minister's responsibility?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Something has gone wrong somewhere, given that we are in this position.

I am trying to say that when the Executive makes announcements such as the one on section 2A, information must be put in the public domain that counteracts some of the negative and discriminatory arguments before they can be made. Unfortunately, that did not happen on this issue. We must all learn from that experience, so that we handle matters differently in the future.

We have reached consensus that full and proper consultation on the guidelines for teachers must now take place—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I must move on.

Let us not fall into the trap of trying to prescribe the nature of those guidelines, or we might find ourselves open to further criticism. Rather, let us hear from people out there the kind of guidelines that will allay their fears.

Repealing section 28 is the right thing to do—not the politically correct thing to do. For me, the main reason for its repeal is that it is a symbol of discrimination. How do I know that? Because that was the intention when it was introduced by the Tories in 1988.

I would like to think that Scotland is ready to move on and to reject one of the last bastions of the Thatcherite legacy—I hope that we can do that in a rational manner. The Scottish National party amendment will go some way towards achieving that; I urge members to support it.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I believe that it is the collective duty of the members here today to seek at all times to protect the children of Scotland. However, we do not have to retain section 2A to do that.

I welcome the motion, when it says:

"the Parliament affirms its belief in an open, democratic and tolerant society where all members are treated equally under the law".

However, I am not sure how that can be put into practice, when a piece of legislation could legitimise discrimination against a section of our society.

The other issues raised in the motion, regarding topics and materials and their appropriate use for pupils of varying age, experience and maturity, are covered by the letter issued by the Minister for Children and Education to school boards and head teachers.

As convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I would like to contribute to today's debate by explaining how I believe that the genuine concerns of parents can be answered. It is the role of the committees in the Parliament to ensure that ministers act appropriately. I can assure the Parliament that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will ensure that the minister delivers the package of safeguards set out in his letter.

Let us consider those safeguards. The minister says that clear guidelines, including consulting parents and listening to their concerns, will be given to education authorities. There would also be a requirement to consult parents when planning sex education. I am sure that I am not the only parent here who has attended their child's school to discuss the provision of education.

Nor can I be the only one who is impressed with the sensitive way in which teachers deal with the issues. We put a lot of trust in our teachers. Why should we doubt their integrity on this issue? It may help some parents, however, to have it said that if a teacher did act inappropriately, disciplinary action could be taken. It is worth repeating that the use of pornographic materials of any sort not only would be the subject of disciplinary procedure, but would constitute a criminal offence.

Another question that is frequently asked is how we, as parents and policy makers, can be sure of what is happening in the classroom when we are not there. Teachers will continue to work within the context of curriculum guidelines and advice, and within the context of local authority and school policies. The normal quality assurance arrangements regarding lesson delivery in schools would apply.

Removing the prohibition to promote homosexuality is not the same as encouraging its promotion. I question why anyone would believe that teachers would do that when, if we are being really honest, even with the existence of section 2A, that would not be stopped. If we trust teachers now, removing section 2A will not make them any less trustworthy.

I welcome the provision in the minister's letter to ensure that parents have a route to raise any concerns that they may have. It is important that such concerns could be raised with the teacher, with the school or with the education authority. The monitoring by the education authority, by the school and by parents of what is being taught will be as important as ever. We all have a responsibility to be vigilant to safeguard our children.

Finally, the establishment of a working party to review curriculum advice and supporting materials is also to be welcomed. However, any move towards a statutory arrangement would be inappropriate in Scotland. Here, the curriculum is not set out in statute, but in national guidelines that are developed through very wide consultation. There appears to be no argument to change that. As has been said, section 2A has never been enforced. It is seen as an unworkable piece of legislation. However, the fact that it exists could lead to discrimination and therefore, if we are serious about being a tolerant society, the section should be repealed.

I want to end as I began, by saying that our top priority in the Parliament should be to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Scotland's children must be at the top of the list. I assure the Parliament that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will continue to monitor the actions of the Executive, to ensure that our children are protected.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Over the past few weeks, I have been astonished and dismayed, as I am sure have many members, by the sections of the tabloid press that have delighted in stirring up people's fears and worries about the Executive's proposed repeal of section 2A. However, I have been heartened by the more thoughtful comments from newspapers such as the Sunday Herald , which told us that this is a defining moment for Scotland, as we stand on the brink of two very different countries—one a modern, tolerant and understanding country, the other defined by intolerance and a quickness to condemn.

As a parent of two boys aged 12 and nine, I understand the worries of parents about this matter. However, section 2A is clearly a law that discriminates against a minority of our fellow citizens. The evidence is clear: it has had a damaging effect on the ability of some of the teaching profession to treat issues of homosexuality in the sensitive way in which they need to be treated.

The Executive has made it clear many times that the guidelines for teachers will be updated before the section is repealed.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No, I will not.

The debate is not about the issue of promoting homosexuality in schools. It is clearly about whether all our citizens are to be treated equally under the criminal law.

Shona Robison welcomed the tone of Annabel Goldie's speech, but I am not sure whether she listened to the words of that speech. The Conservative motion is the height of Orwellian doublespeak. Annabel Goldie is the real wolf in very gentle and fluffy sheep's clothing.

The motion begins by saying

"That the Parliament affirms its belief in an open, democratic and tolerant society where all members are treated equally under the law".

Unbelievably, it goes on to call upon the Scottish Executive to withdraw the proposed repeal of section 2A. I could vehemently disagree with, yet respect the Conservatives if they were open in their criticisms of section 2A. However, to pretend that section 2A is anything other than a clear attack on one section of our society is abominable. They hide behind words such as "openness", "democratic" and "tolerant", yet in the same breath call for the retention of this outrageous law.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No. Annabel Goldie would not give way to me.

The repeal of section 2A is not about the promotion of homosexuality. It was never promoted in Scottish schools before the introduction of the legislation and it is not currently promoted in Northern Irish schools, where section 2A does not apply. The section is not needed to prevent the promotion of homosexuality in our schools now. Those of us who believe in a modern, liberal and tolerant society must be prepared to work at every turn to counteract the misinformation and propaganda which is being churned out.

Perhaps the Conservatives in this Parliament can learn something from Lord St John of Fawsley— [Interruption.] Listen and learn something.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Go on. Patronise us.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

This week, in the House of Lords, Lord St John of Fawsley said on this issue:

"Cardinal Winning of Glasgow, has spoken out in an unappetising way with which I certainly, as a Catholic, do not agree. I regret very much that the moderate voice of Cardinal Hume is no longer to be heard to guide us" —[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 Feb 2000; Vol 609, c 403.]

Lord St John's words certainly echo strongly with me.

This is the second issue of institutionalised discrimination that we have addressed in the Scottish Parliament. I am glad that Lord James is here. On the debate on the Act of Settlement 1701, I had great pleasure in congratulating Lord James on his speech as the very best I had heard in the chamber to date. I remind the chamber of his words during the debate on the Act of Settlement:

"The important issue is whether there should be legislation that blatantly discriminates against a Christian religion. The subject is particularly relevant as we live in a multifaith community."—[Official Report, 16 December 1999; Vol 3, c 1632.]

Lord James also quoted from a letter from Cardinal Winning:

"Nevertheless its continued presence on the statute books is an offensive reminder to the whole Catholic community of a mentality which has no place in modern Britain."—[Official Report, 16 December 1999; Vol 3, c 1633.]

How right both these statements are. All I would ask those who made them to do, especially Lord James, is to recognise that these two issues—the institutional discrimination contained in the Act of Settlement and the institutional discrimination contained in section 2A—are not unrelated.

In closing, I will return to my main point. This issue really has nothing—nothing—whatsoever to do with the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. This is an issue of equality before the criminal law for all our citizens. I spoke out in this Parliament against the institutionalised anti-Catholic discrimination contained in the Act of Settlement and I am speaking out again now against the institutionalised discrimination contained in section 2A.

Because it is a reserved matter, the Scottish Parliament cannot do anything about the Act of Settlement; but, for goodness sake, we must not fail in our duty to get rid of section 2A. This is a defining moment for Scotland. We stand on the brink of there being two very different countries, and I know which country I want to live in.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I express my regrets to the substantial number of members who have not been called because of overruns. Also because of overruns, we have a Liberal following a Liberal. I call Ian Jenkins to wind up for the Liberal Democrats.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order. I appreciate what you have just said, Presiding Officer, but I ask that, in future, on a subject that has generated as much publicity as this one has, the smaller parties be allowed at least to make a statement of their position. Had that happened today, it would have shown that we are a tolerant Parliament.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It may well be that members who are winding up will allow you in to satisfy that situation.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

On a point of order. We have had a very serious debate, but a very short one. We have heard just seven back-bench speeches, but the equivalent of eight front-bench speeches—four opening speeches and four closing speeches. Front benchers also get more time than back benchers. The Parliament has got the structure of debates wrong. It is time that the Procedures Committee considered that. [Applause.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have now been informed that Mike Rumbles wound up for the Liberal Democrats. Is that correct, Mr Rumbles and Mr Jenkins?

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Yes.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In that case, we have gained—no, we have not gained anything. We are just back on schedule. I call on Nicola Sturgeon to wind up for the Scottish National party. You have five minutes.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

For all that this debate was initiated this morning for purely opportunistic reasons by the Tories, whose position on this issue has—as demonstrated by Michael Matheson—shifted almost weekly, the debate has given Parliament a welcome opportunity to examine the issue calmly and rationally, in most instances, and to dispel some of the myths. Most important of all, it has given us an opportunity to address the very genuine fears and concerns of many people in Scotland.

The SNP supports, unequivocally, the repeal of section 28. That is, and will remain, our position. However, section 28 is not what people are being asked to vote on today. We support the repeal simply because it is right.

Let us be absolutely clear about one very important fact. Section 28 was not enacted as a reaction to any practice in Scottish schools. I challenge the Tories, when they wind up, to come up with even one example of homosexuality being promoted in any Scottish school, either before or after the enactment of section 28. I predict that they will not do that, because they cannot do that.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I believe that Mr Monteith is winding up, so he will have ample opportunity to answer the point then.

Section 28 is plainly and simply about discrimination. It is about singling out one section of the population and labelling it as unacceptable. That has been done in a way that, frankly, had it concerned any other minority in Scottish society, would have been unimaginable. Section 28 legitimises intolerance and prejudice, and it restricts the ability of responsible teachers to deal with sensitive issues and to provide support and counselling to pupils who have anxieties about their sexuality. Section 28 has no place in the statute book in 21st century Scotland, and its removal will be an important step on the road to a more tolerant Scotland.

However, the fears being expressed by many people in Scotland about what will happen after the repeal of section 28 are genuinely held, even if they are being exploited by organisations that are intent on peddling misinformation. The Parliament's job is to reassure the Scottish people and to convince them that its priority is to safeguard our children. The repeal of section 28 will not lead to the promotion of homosexuality in schools: of that, I have no doubt.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will Nicola Sturgeon give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Not just now. As Michael Matheson quite rightly said in his opening speech, the idea that homosexuality can be promoted is frankly ridiculous to most people in Scotland.

However, thus far, that assurance alone has not been enough; it is important to go further. The SNP welcomes the Executive's move to introduce a package of safeguards following wide-ranging consultation. I thank the Minister for Children and Education for his usual courtesy in providing an advance copy of the remit and membership of the working party.

The SNP believes that consultation should be as open and inclusive as possible, which is why our amendment suggests that the consultation should seek views on the content and status of guidelines. That debate is happening outside this chamber and will continue with or without this Parliament's agreement. I hope that the Executive has the confidence in its own position to embrace the debate.

Of course, we do not have a national curriculum in Scotland and the SNP certainly does not desire to go down such a road. Our education system works; however, that does not preclude consultation on whether local authorities should be obliged to have regard to guidelines on sex education to ensure that they provide protection for our children and support for our teachers, whose judgment is beyond doubt, as is the Scottish people's trust in them. The First Minister's spokesman was quoted this morning as saying that such consultation would be feasible. Although the SNP does not want to prejudge the issue, it is important that we listen to the views of the Scottish people to ensure effective guidelines that promote tolerance and understanding and have the Scottish people's confidence.

By making the consultation process over the next few months as open as possible, we can take the heat out of the debate and allow much more light to be shone on it. This Parliament has a duty to take the lead against discrimination; and in repealing section 28—which will happen—we will take that lead. However, in doing so, we must listen to the people of Scotland and make sure that we take all of them with us down the road to a tolerant, equal and self-confident Scotland.

I support Michael Matheson's amendment.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have now had time to reflect on the points of order raised by Tommy Sheridan and John McAllion. Mr McAllion's point clearly has substantial support among back benchers. The best that I can do is to give an assurance that I will raise the matter next Tuesday at the Parliamentary Bureau and ask the managers to consider the matter.

Mr Sam Galbraith will now wind up for the Executive.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Having listened to the debate this morning, I can say that I am proud to be a member of the Scottish Parliament. It has been conducted in a decent, considered, well-measured manner, and I hope that our behaviour is reflected by people outside who might wish to conduct the debate in a similar manner.

It is unusual for me, when winding up, to single out any individual member rather than to deal with the points that they raised. However, I want to commend Nora Radcliffe's speech, which was given with some feeling and moved many members in the chamber.

In contrast, I was disappointed by Keith Harding's speech, which was rather ill judged and mean spirited. I hope that that was a reflection merely of his inexperience in debating such subjects and that he will change his habits in future. In particular, Mr Harding should not seek to personalise the argument in the way that he did. The decision to repeal section 2A was taken by the whole of the Scottish Executive, in the full and certain knowledge that similar action was to be taken south of the border.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

No, I have little time.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will Mr Galbraith—

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Please sit down.

There is not much that I can add to the debate, because most points that I would have wanted to make have been made already this morning, better than I could have made them.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Surely not.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Nicola is too kind, but I always like what she has to say, so I will go along with her on that.

As I said, I do not have much to add, but I will deal with Annabel Goldie's speech. I note that the Conservatives do not actually ask for retention of section 2A. I think that that is because, in their heart of hearts, they do not want retention—they just cannot bring themselves to say so. I say to them: "Be of good courage. Please, let us know your true feelings." Although I enjoyed Annabel's speech, I thought that her logic failed her. She seemed to be arguing that, by raising the subject, the Executive somehow or other produced homophobia and drew a large number of people out of the woodwork, but to say that is just to respond to bigotry. Is she saying, in other words, that we should not dare raise the issue because all the bigots will come out of the woodwork? For goodness sake, that view reinforces bigotry rather than rejecting it. Please do not use that argument again.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

rose—

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I will give way to Mr Sheridan. Briefly please.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I appreciate that.

Does the minister share my concern that some gentle, well-dressed homophobia can lead to abuse—sometimes verbal and often physical—and can end up with the type of extremist, far-right, nail-bomb mentality that, sadly, we witnessed in London last year?

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Mr Sheridan makes points that I know are shared and that all of us would wish to make.

I am grateful to Michael Matheson for his contribution. He asked why we did not move earlier on the guidelines. The reason was that we were very sensitive to the Parliament and its rights, and to the correct procedures. We felt that we should not be seen to move on an issue on which Parliament had not yet decided to change the law. Once it became clear to us that Parliament wished us to move in anticipation of that decision, we did so as soon as we possibly could.

I am sorry that we were not able to agree with the SNP on an amendment. Let me make it clear that that was not because there are any great differences between us; our views on this matter are more than similar. Rather it was because of my genuine fear, which I am sure that the SNP would share, that the term "statutory guidelines" that is suggested in the SNP amendment is, in itself, an oxymoron. How can we have guidelines that are statutory?

In addition, the basis of Scottish education is that the curriculum is non-statutory; one of the pillars of Scottish education is that the curriculum is decided under guidance and by consensus. The minute that we raise even the spectre of a statutory curriculum, we set out on a road that is dangerous to tread. I am sure that the SNP would not want to be the first party to be seen to go down the English road of a statutory curriculum. I ask SNP members to reflect on that; I know that that is not what they want.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am sorry, but I must move on. I have already used five of my seven minutes.

There has been much talk today about fears. I can well understand the concerns and fears of many parents and many teachers, so I have sought to allay those fears. As everyone knows, I wrote on 27 January to the chairs of the school boards in Scotland and to all head teachers to set out the package of safeguards that will ensure that sex education in Scottish schools is of the highest standard and sensitive to parents' concerns.

In addition to that, I announced today, in reply to a parliamentary question from Kenneth Macintosh, that we have established a special working group, including representatives of parents and Churches, to examine the range of material dealing with sex education and to consider whether, in the light of the legitimate concerns of parents and the public, it provides appropriate advice to schools and teachers.

The composition of the working group has also been announced. I am sure that all members will agree that it is a widely representative and inclusive group. I am grateful to all members of the group for taking on the important task of reviewing existing guidance and considering whether any new material is needed. A copy of the answer to Kenneth Macintosh's question is available in the office at the back of the chamber.

When I look around the country and when I hear some of the things that have been said and see the actions of some people, I wonder whether this is the vision that we had when we built the new Scotland. My vision was of a tolerant, decent society in which we can live together in harmony, with confidence and at peace with one another, and in which we pursue our lives in the certain knowledge that we will be respected and tolerated by others. When I look around and listen to this debate, I wonder whether we have achieved that.

As many people have said, this debate is a defining moment for the Parliament and for this country. We better get the choice right. I therefore commend the amendment to the motion, in the name of Wendy Alexander.

David (None, Lothians)

Before I call the final speaker, I remind members that this debate will end at 12.20 pm. There will then be a ministerial statement. The session will run until 12.50 pm.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I, too, looked forward to a sensitive debate about section 2A, that is, a debate that was sensitive to the issues. I certainly do not feel that the way in which the Scottish Executive has handled the matter is sensitive.

When the matter was raised, we were concerned about homophobic bullying. Our view was that homophobic bullying could be dealt with. I quote an extract from the Scottish Executive-sponsored anti-bullying network's website.

"There is at present no legal bar to prevent teachers from explicitly condemning homophobic bullying or from discussing pupils' concerns about homosexuality in a balanced manner that is appropriate to the age of the young people concerned and sensitive to the beliefs and customs of the wider community."

The website also says:

"School managers should ensure that homophobic bullying is tackled with the same vigour as other forms of bullying, harassment and abuse."

We support that position. It is entirely right. Nevertheless, we consulted councils, because we were concerned that there could be a genuine risk that a teacher or local authority might be challenged legally. We were told that there was a slim chance—but a chance none the less—that a parent could take a teacher to court over the interpretation. In that spirit, it was our belief that if section 2A was to remain, there should be, at the very least, an explicit clause in it to allow teachers to deal with homophobic bullying. In that context, we announced that we would include such an amendment.

Not for a moment, however, did we pull back from the belief that section 28 should remain. Our position has been consistent all along. For the benefit of Michael Matheson and others, I will read it out.

"If the removal of Section 28 were to be pursued, it would only be acceptable against a background of devolving far more control over the running of schools to local communities and particularly to parents. In our manifesto for the Scottish Parliamentary elections we set out policies to remove schools from local authority control. That would give parents far more choice as to the school their children attended and far more power over how these schools were run. Parents are the best people to decide what is best for their children and we have faith in parents' ability to take these decisions on behalf of their children. If our amendment fails we will vote against the repeal of Section 28."

That has consistently been our position.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Can Mr Monteith confirm how many schools took up the option under the previous Conservative Government to remove themselves from local authority control and how many remained?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I must update Karen Gillon. The repeal of section 28 is a policy for all schools. There is no question of any opting out. In the light of the fact that the Conservatives are not presenting an education bill to the Parliament, we will not be delivering the sort of structure that Karen Gillon mentions. We have made it clear through our statements in the press that, if there is to be repeal of section 28, guidelines are not enough to replace it. There must be legal backing for parents and for teachers. I will explain why later.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I can't wait.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know you can't.

While I treat the issue of sex education and sexuality with sensitivity, the behaviour of the Scottish Executive has called into question the manner of the repeal. Wendy Alexander did not announce to the chamber the policy journey that has taken the Executive into a parallel universe that is completely divorced from the reality of what the Scottish people want. She announced it at the University of Glasgow in a return to her alma mater. She triumphantly announced, "I'm delivering this for you."

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

For the purposes of accuracy, it might be worth reviewing when announcements about the repeal of section 28 were made. The announcement was made first to the Equal Opportunities Committee on 28 September 1999. Does Mr Monteith acknowledge that the Executive has used the passage of the local government bill as a vehicle for making it explicit that there would be a review of the national five to 14 curriculum guidelines, and that the Executive has undertaken to consult with parents on the matter? That review had started when the announcement was made.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is clear to everybody that the announcement to Scotland came in the leaked news articles and the delivery of a speech at University of Glasgow.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will Mr Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I am moving on to deal with the rest of my points.

While guidelines have been mentioned by the Executive, it is also the case that the only movement we have seen on guidelines has come as a result of pressure from the Conservative benches to provide a timetable for their introduction. No timetable was explicit in any of the Government's statements that have been made by the Executive. When Dr Sylvia Jackson asked Wendy Alexander about guidelines, there was no mention of a timetable.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

rose—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I must move on. If the ministers of the Scottish Executive announced their policies in the chamber, I would respect them enough to take more interventions from them.

We were told by the First Minister on "Newsnight" that—

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

rose—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am carrying on. Dr Jackson can sit down.

Sam Galbraith (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Mr Monteith should stand up.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the First Minister were here, might he be able to tell us on which page of the 1999 Labour manifesto the announcement appears? No, it is not there. I ask Mike Russell, who is still chortling at Sam Galbraith's joke, where in the SNP's manifesto there is mention of repeal of section 28. There is no mention of it in the Liberal Democrat manifesto either.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

rose—

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will not give way. I am moving on. I will take interventions later.

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Members must sit down if the member speaking will not give way.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

So out of touch was the Executive's announcement of the repeal of section 28 that other ministers had to be wheeled in to help. Jackie Baillie, Frank McAveety, then Donald Dewar and Sam Galbraith all tried to buttress the Executive's position.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I will accept Mr Monteith's argument if he will indicate to the chamber and to the people of Scotland where in the Tory manifesto it was proclaimed that they would introduce the poll tax to Scotland when they did.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What is interesting is— [Laughter.] I will answer: it was not in our manifesto. [MEMBERS: "Hooray."] We are clear that one of the reasons that this Parliament came about was the poll tax. One of the reasons— [Interruption.] We know that it is one of the reasons. There is nothing unusual in that.

In the debates about the setting up of a Scottish Parliament, in many of which I took part, Scotland was assured that it would not have laws like the poll tax that it did not want. What are we getting now? The repeal of something that the Scottish people do want.

Donald Dewar and Sam Galbraith say that we should trust them. We cannot trust them, because guidelines are not enough. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made it clear that guidelines can be overturned. We want not just guidelines that explain what materials may be made available and what discussion must take place—

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will Mr Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will not. I will be finishing soon.

We must give parents legal protection. We must give parents the ability to withdraw, explicitly, their children from sex education in schools—[MEMBERS: "It is there."] It is not there. If members check the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, they will find that it is not explicit on the question of sex education.

Furthermore, we should provide—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

rose—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am carrying on. Please sit down.

We must ensure that school boards have the ability to veto material provided to them by local authorities. Only in that way will parents and teachers be able to ensure that the material in the curriculum is in touch with what parents want. In that way, we can see if there is a change in law which gives parents and children protection. Then there might be a position in which the repeal of section 28 could take place. That is why we want a committee set up; that is why we want to consider guidelines; that is why we want to consider legal protection.

Wendy Alexander may be the high priestess of political correctness, but we in this party will not let Scottish schoolchildren be our sacrificial offering.

David (None, Lothians)

Order. The member is winding up.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In speaking to the motion, I reaffirm that—and this is the test for the SNP—if we lose, we will still have voted for the retention of section 2A. I welcome the SNP moving towards us.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Don't hold your breath.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I ask the SNP members, if there are no statutory guidelines or backing, will they vote for the retention of section 2A, or will they vote for its repeal? That is the test that they face.