Scottish Parliament, 24 January 2002

392 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Introduction

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business will be a debate on motion S1M-2631, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on the abolition of council tax, and two amendments to that motion.

Points of Order

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This morning, we have an hour and a half to debate three motions, which means that we have half an hour for each. This is supposed to be a debating chamber, but it is ludicrously impossible to have a meaningful debate on any of the motions. Are there any procedural rules to limit the number of motions that can be debated within a period of time? I know that that has been the subject of discussion at the Parliamentary Bureau, but I feel strongly that to impose such debates on the chamber is ridiculous. I seek your guidance on that.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Had any such rules existed, we would have applied them. The Parliament has approved this morning's business, so it would be impertinent to challenge the decision of Parliament. Although there are difficulties in the timing of this morning's business, I am afraid that we shall have to make the best of it. I urge those members who will speak in the debates to pay careful attention to the time limits as time is so constrained.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Perhaps this is more a point of information—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We shall see.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

How do you intend to manage the debates? Will you ensure that each debate lasts for half an hour, as is set out in the business bulletin, or do you intend to let the debates run over?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will manage the debates to the best of my ability and will follow the time scales with due diligence. I will try to tell every member who is due to speak how many minutes they have. I will indicate when their time has expired, when I expect members to close promptly.

Council Tax

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I call Tommy Sheridan to speak to and move motion S1M-2631.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Had the two members who raised the points of order been present at my debate last year, they would have known that there were 22 contributions in the course of 90 minutes, during which we managed to discuss three issues. That is quite a healthy number of speeches. I hope that we will get the same level of contributions today.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

No, thank you.

I open the debate by drawing members' attention to what the social reformer and socialist Richard Tawney said some 90 years ago. He said:

"What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thinking poor people call, with equal justice, the problem of riches."

Today is the third time that I have introduced a debate on the abolition of the council tax and on its replacement with a progressive, redistributive service tax to be levied on an individual's personal income. I make no apology for doing so because, in the three years of its existence, the Parliament has failed to tackle the obscene inequality of wealth that exists in this country. The Parliament has failed to introduce redistributive policies to improve the disposable income of the families on the lowest incomes. That is why this measure is so important.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member accept an intervention on that point?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

No, thank you.

The motion would replace an unfair and regressive council tax system. The council tax has been condemned by illustrious bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies—as well as scores of others—for being acutely unfair because the families who are on the lowest incomes are charged more than those on the highest incomes.

Of course, it would be better if we had an independent socialist Scotland that had control of all Scotland's resources, including our oil, gas, electricity and finance sectors. We could then effect a wholesale redistribution of wealth and power.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

No, thank you.

However, it is incumbent on the Opposition to try to use the limited powers of the Parliament to the maximum to effect a redistributive change. That is what the Scottish service tax would do. The proposal is radical and has been academically scrutinised and developed. It has been updated—

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will the member give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

No, thanks. I do not want Pinky or Perky.

An updated research note has been provided to members to enable them to work out that the Scottish service tax would redistribute income significantly, especially for the lowest income households across Scotland. Those households and individuals who are on incomes of less than £20,000 per year—the overwhelming majority of income earners in Scotland—would pay significantly less under this tax measure. Those with incomes that are less than £10,000 per year—there are 882,000 of them in Scotland, which is a shameful statistic—would be automatically exempt without any means test being applied.

The Scottish service tax would impose a marginal rate of taxation of 12 per cent on those with incomes between £50,000 and £70,000 per year. For those on incomes of more than £90,000 per year, the marginal rate would be 20 per cent. I hope that Labour members will remember that even Thatcher imposed a 63 per cent marginal rate of taxation on the top earners. I therefore hope that Labour members will not oppose this meagre level of fair taxation and redistribution of wealth.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the council tax is a fundamentally unfair and regressive tax; believes in social justice and the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor; therefore agrees to abolish the council tax and replace it with the Scottish Service Tax which is based on an individual's income and is inherently fairer, more efficient and redistributive; notes that the Scottish Service Tax would raise more revenue than the council tax and that it would remove the burden of paying for local government jobs and services from the shoulders of low paid workers and pensioners and place it firmly on the shoulders of the well paid and the wealthy, and believes that the introduction of the Scottish Service Tax should be complemented by the return of the right for local authorities to raise and retain their business rates and a thorough investigation of land value and speculation taxes to supplement local authority revenue.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Before I call Peter Peacock to speak to and move amendment S1M-2631.2, I ask members to be respectful in the way that they refer to other members. I call Peter Peacock.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

During yesterday afternoon's budget debate, I confessed to having a strong sense of déjà vu. The same applies this morning, as it is only a year since the Parliament debated a similar proposal from Tommy Sheridan. Yet again, as Robert Brown indicated, the fact that Tommy Sheridan has allowed precious little time for a proper debate on the issues demonstrates that his motion is more about grandstanding than about exposing ideas to proper parliamentary scrutiny. His proposals today are no more acceptable than they were last year; I am sure that Parliament will not take long to reject them once more.

Mr Sheridan's service tax would not be a local tax. People would pay all their current central Government taxes to the Exchequer and their Scottish service taxes to the Scottish Parliament. In one fell swoop, he would remove a vital element of local accountability that exists between the local electors who pay local taxes and their council, which is accountable to that electorate. The proposal would destroy the principle that those who live in an area should contribute towards the costs of local services and exercise discretion in the local service levels that they receive. Tommy Sheridan's proposal would also undermine the financial stability that we have provided for councils in recent times. More fundamentally, the service tax would put at risk the approximately £300 million of public expenditure that comes through council tax benefit, which people on low incomes in Scotland currently receive each year to help to meet their council tax commitments.

The property-based council tax provides councils with stable and predictable levels of income. With the three-year grant allocations that we have announced, authorities are able to give their local electorates the certainty of three-year indicative council tax levels. With a Scotland-wide income tax, that predictability would be lost. Mr Sheridan's proposals would also create additional unpredictability and instability in Scottish business rates. It would remove the power of local electorates to influence the budget decisions of their local council and replace it with a power for councils to place additional tax burdens on local businesses.

Furthermore, Tommy Sheridan argues for the retention of non-domestic rates at the local council level. That would be of no benefit to the councils because the way in which the grant system operates means that the grant that councils would otherwise receive would be reduced to equalise any increase in non-domestic rates revenue. That is called redistribution of wealth. It is interesting that Mr Sheridan argues so vehemently against the principle of wealth redistribution, which the Labour party supports.

Councils are collecting a higher proportion of council tax than ever before. The legislative changes that we have introduced for this year allow councils to start collecting one month earlier and to take action more quickly when people fall into arrears. That is helping the further increase in collection rates across Scotland. We continue to work with councils to improve further the efficiency and targeting of their collection arrangements. We look forward to seeing the outcome of the research into the operation of the council tax that the Local Government Committee has commissioned.

The council tax supports vital local public services. Mr Sheridan's simplistic tax proposal does not provide any sensible alternative. It joins his many other simplistic ideas.

I move amendment S1M-2631.2, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the substantial reforms that the Scottish Executive has brought to the operation of local government finance, including the stability for three year council tax figures and welcomes the Executive's commitment to pursue further reforms; further welcomes the fact that councils are now collecting a higher proportion of council tax than ever before and the continuing work by the Executive and local authorities to better target and further improve collection arrangements, and notes that the Local Government Committee of the Parliament will shortly conclude its inquiry into local government finance and local taxation."

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

I start by expressing regret that Mr Sheridan has chosen to split the debating time available to him into three half-hour sections. It is, of course, Mr Sheridan's right to determine how his allocation of time is used. When this was discussed last year, as SNP business manager, I robustly defended his right—and the right of all non-Executive parties—to do so. However, it is clear that Mr Sheridan has no wish to engage in debate. There will be little time for meaningful speeches from other members.

The present system of council tax is undoubtedly unfair—it takes no account of ability to pay. For that reason, the SNP advocates a system of local income tax. However, a change in the method or form of collection cannot be considered in isolation, without an examination of how local government is financed at present. Such an examination would include consideration of the method of distribution of moneys from the Executive as well as consideration of the system of raising tax locally.

The McIntosh commission recommended that an independent commission should examine all aspects of local government in Scotland. Following the refusal of the Executive to set up such a commission, it has been left to the Local Government Committee to carry out a review. As the minister said, the committee will report shortly.

I do not want to pre-empt what the Local Government Committee may say, but it has been clear to me in my short time on that committee that few people or organisations are satisfied with the present system. Few organisations agree with each other on what should be done. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Executive do not even agree about the percentage of money that is ring-fenced or is for grant-aided expenditure: COSLA claims that the proportion that is ring-fenced is 30 per cent while the Executive claims that it is 10 per cent.

It suits the Scottish Government to take a smoke-and-mirrors approach to local government finance because Labour in government has caused an increase of £103 in council tax bills while services to the public are worse than they have ever been. Local government has been underfunded for decades. Schools are crumbling and lighting, footpath and bridge repairs have all but stopped. Social work services are at crisis point, with social work posts going unfilled and services to the vulnerable being reduced.

We need radical reform of local government finance and we need independence to free up the wealth of Scotland and to provide the resources and services that we need and desire.

I move amendment S1M-2631.1, to leave out from second "believes" to end and insert:

"notes that it is part of an unsustainable system of local government finance which, under Labour's stewardship, has resulted in an increase of £103 to the average householder's yearly tax bill while local services have deteriorated, and calls for a full review of local government finance which includes the replacement of unfair property based taxation with a system of local income tax, which takes account of ability to pay."

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As a Scottish Conservative, I firmly believe that a thriving enterprise economy is the best way of both ensuring the prosperity of Scotland and providing our people with high-quality public services. For easily understood economic reasons, people and businesses in Scotland should not be penalised by having to pay higher taxes than those paid by people and businesses elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Mr Sheridan wants to penalise people by picking the pocket of every hard-working Scot. The Parliament's tartan tax power can impose a maximum increase of 3p on the basic rate of income tax, but there is no ceiling for the Scottish service tax. The tartan tax, if implemented, would make the average Scottish family around £250 a year worse off, but Mr Sheridan's plan makes that cost seem insignificant.

Mr Sheridan tells us that many will be exempt. However, 27 per cent of households in Scotland already receive full or partial council tax benefit from a system that he claims is unfair to the poor. The facts are that the less well off do not pay council tax and that local services are already charged according to ability to pay.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue in this debate is the need to make local taxation democratic and accountable. The service tax proposal would further destroy local decision making as the Executive would determine taxes for local services. Councils would have even less autonomy than at present, as they would be able to set only their spending.

Even on practical grounds, the Scottish Socialist Party proposal would not work. It would be hugely costly and bureaucratic. However, the most serious effects would fall on our economy, as the introduction of a Scottish service tax would have extremely serious disincentive effects on businesses and entrepreneurs. If someone is rich and mobile, they will simply move, so reducing the overall tax take. As high-income earners flee, it will place the burden on low-income and middle-income earners and the tax will become more and more regressive. Taxpayers will vote with their feet. That will mean boom time for the north of England at Scotland's expense and it will produce poverty and unemployment traps for people on benefits.

The council tax may not be perfect, but it is fair, it takes account of ability to pay, it is easy to administer and collect, it allows for local democratic variation and it does not damage Scotland's economy. On each of those points, the opposite would be true for the Scottish Socialist Party's proposal. I urge Parliament to reject it once again.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have a terrible feeling of déjà vu because we seem to debate this subject every year and then throw it out. No doubt we will do the same today.

Tommy Sheridan is right to say that his tax proposal would redistribute income—it would redistribute income from local government to central Government, which is a strange thing to want to do. The tax would be set centrally and not by local government, so local government would lose the ability to determine its own tax rates and improve its own services. That would be odd and certainly not something that Liberal Democrats could support.

The council tax is not a perfect form of taxation. Liberal Democrats have long supported the idea of a local income tax and we will continue to work towards that. However, once we take account of benefits, the council tax is not as unredistributive as Tommy Sheridan suggests. That it requires a benefit system to make it fairer is a weakness of the council tax, but if we take account of benefits, we can see that the percentage of income that any group pays is roughly the same across all income ranges. The lowest percentage of their income that people pay on council tax is about 1.8 per cent, and the highest percentage is, I think, about 2.5 per cent.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am afraid I have only three minutes.

It is important to bear in mind the fact that taking council tax benefit into account removes what would be fairly severe regressive problems. That is not to say that the council tax is perfect. In its inquiry into local government finance, the Local Government Committee has considered how to make the system more progressive by increasing the number of bands—with more bands at the lower and higher ends to ensure that the banding system more accurately reflects differing incomes.

An interesting point that a number of people have made in evidence to the Local Government Committee—and, surprisingly, a point that the socialist party does not seem to acknowledge—is that a property-based tax takes account of wealth as well as income. It is interesting that the socialists do not seem to want a tax that has anything to do with wealth.

As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support a move towards a local income tax. We hope that that will happen in time. However, it will happen effectively only if the Parliament has more income tax-raising powers, because change would require a move from national taxation to local taxation to give local authorities sufficient scope to vary the tax and so vary their income.

It is interesting to note that the last party to suggest, as Tommy Sheridan has suggested, removing income from local government and having central Government taxation was the Conservatives—when they tried to buy off the poll tax by increasing the VAT rate to 17.5 per cent. It is interesting that the socialists want similarly to take powers from local government and give them to central Government.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We now move to open debate.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Looking in the shaving mirror this morning and contemplating this debate, I had—a bit like Iain Smith—recollections of "Groundhog Day", although sadly there is no Bill Murray. Mr Sheridan's motion for debate this morning is the same as last year's. It is in exactly the same terms—motion S1M-2631 is motion S1M-1627. I thought that only disreputable lawyers gave the same advice twice and charged for the same thing twice, but apparently not. In any event, the motion pops up, we scratch our heads, feel a vaguely uneasy sense of déjà vu, and carry on.

I do not think that any Labour member has any particular dogmatic reason for persisting in levying and collecting the council tax. Any progressive—and certainly any left progressive—should be ready to keep policy and structures under continual review, in so far as the unchanging values of solidarity, community and fairness must be upheld and promoted in varying social circumstances.

The fundamental principles and values are constant, but the judgments and adaptations are renewed. We should not rule out innovation that might arise or recommend itself to us in changed circumstances. However, the proposers of innovations—particularly innovations that impact on the incomes of and services for working families—have a responsibility to demonstrate and provide evidence for the benefits that are claimed, to explain the consequences for policy and for infrastructure, to explain costs and to reduce or eliminate concerns about likely results. At some future date, we might inquire more broadly into the consequences of Mr Sheridan's programme for working families, but it is obvious that we are not going to hear the appropriate indications from the proposer today.

I want to outline some reasons why I will not support Mr Sheridan's motion and why I urge other members to reject it. The best reason for rejecting the proposal is that it would add to the current burdens on working families in my constituency and constituencies throughout Scotland. It would also put at risk the jobs that those families depend on and place all Scotland at an economic disadvantage. The proposal would hang a high-tax tag around the neck of the whole Scottish economy. Every working family knows that our economic success depends on our ability to attract investment, encourage growth and compete with neighbours who would quickly and willingly take up the businesses and skilled workers who would make a rational choice about where their best future lay. Moreover, the proposal would transfer the burden of local services on to those who make an income—those who work hard for a living. There is no mention of the asset rich; no longer is all property theft—under Mr Sheridan it is sacrosanct. I wonder whether that has anything to do with his entering the housing market.

The terms of the motion are yet further evidence of the centralism at the core of the proposer's beliefs. There is no mention of the role and independence of local democracy through local councils.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No. The member is in the final minute of his speech.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I would love to give way.

The proposal is the total subjection of local communities to the determination of the centre. As Peter Peacock reminded us, lest those who support local income tax are tempted by the terms of the motion, the proposal is for a tax that would by no definition—save that anything said in defence of the revolution is necessarily honest—be a local tax. The tax would be set, collected and allocated centrally, presumably by a central committee, chaired, staffed and minuted by Mr Sheridan. All we need to hear is, "If you don't meet your quotas you'll get it." I urge members to reject the motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Fitzpatrick was the last speaker in the open debate.

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

Thank you for giving me an additional two minutes, Presiding Officer. This has been a very short debate. In summing up a debate, one usually refers to what previous speakers have said. Brian Fitzpatrick made a humorous speech and Keith Harding said, quite rightly, that the council tax is not perfect. Indeed, it is not a perfect tax; neither was the poll tax perfect, but I am sure that Mr Harding defended that tax to its death.

We need to rethink radically the way in which our council tax is determined and the way in which local government is financed. Iain Smith said that the Parliament needs more powers. He, too, is right. The real and radical changes that we need to make to local government finance will happen only when the Parliament acquires the powers necessary to do that.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As members on all sides of the Parliament have suggested this morning—Brian Fitzpatrick most eloquently—Tommy Sheridan's proposals are not realistic, credible or deliverable. They would undermine fundamentally the principle of local accountability, which is held dear by most members. Many of us came through the local government system and understand how important local accountability is.

Local authorities do not support the proposal. In written evidence to the Local Government Committee, which is investigating local government finance, COSLA said that the Scottish service tax would undermine local democracy and be less predictable than council tax. The service tax would lead to significant increases in bills, not just for the mega-rich, as is often portrayed, but for people on average and below-average incomes. It would replace local accountability with additional burdens on Scottish business.

In evidence to the Local Government Committee, those who created the Scottish service tax proposals acknowledge that their proposals would put at risk the £300 million-worth of council tax benefit that currently comes into the Scottish system. That money has a huge redistributive effect at lower-income levels—as Iain Smith described—but, under the proposals, it would be lost permanently to Scottish public service.

As usual, Tommy Sheridan's timing is immaculate—he is holding this debate on the day on which the Accounts Commission announces that in Scotland we are collecting higher proportions of council tax than ever before.

There are important issues about local tax that need to be debated. That is why the Local Government Committee is advancing its inquiry. The Executive looks forward to receiving the committee's proposals. As Brian Fitzpatrick and others have suggested, we should have an open mind about how we can refine and improve our tax system. Mr Sheridan's contribution adds nothing to the discussions that are already taking place in Parliament.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Mr Peacock referred to timing and, indeed, timing is of the essence. We are holding this debate only a couple of days after an NCH report confirmed that we still have 310,000 children getting brought up in poor families and 200,000 pensioners who are officially poor. In other words, nothing is changing in relation to poverty. Iain Smith's comments raise some difficulties and I advise him to read the Scottish Parliament information centre research note. The Institute of Fiscal Studies studied the effect of council tax and pointed out that the top 10 per cent in society pay 1.22 per cent of their income in council tax, whereas the bottom 10 per cent pay 7.5 per cent of their income. The IFS noted that taking benefit into account had comparatively little effect.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The centre for council tax reform states:

"after benefit the richest fifth of non-retired households pay 2 per cent of gross income in council tax, while the poorest fifth pay 5 per cent."

Iain Smith should check his facts. [Interruption.] There is a gaggle of geese here—will you try to get them under control, Presiding Officer?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

There have been some lively exchanges this morning, Mr Sheridan. It is for you to decide whether you wish to take an intervention.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I thought that it was obvious that I did not intend to give way.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It helps for the member to say no or to make a gesture to indicate that they are not giving way. It is now clear that Mr Sheridan is not giving way.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

On a point of order. Is it in order to define as a gaggle of geese members who want to participate in a debate on a policy, rather than listen to Mr Sheridan make the same points that he has made repeatedly over a long period of time?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I acknowledge the point and I have already drawn Parliament's attention to an unfortunate expression that Mr Sheridan used earlier to refer to two Labour members. In the formality of debate, members must observe a proper degree of respect for other members.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am sure that the two members to whom I referred are big and broad enough to take my comments in the playful way that they were meant.

On Johann Lamont's point of order, it is interesting that I am accused of not allowing proper debate on the issue and then I am accused of bringing it back for debate three times.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

That is a bit of a contradiction—either there is proper debate, because it has been on the table for three years— [Interruption.]

I am sorry, but I cannot hear myself think.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member is closing.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

In relation to the squeals of anger from Labour benches about higher rates of taxation on the wealthy, I remind Labour members that we already impose a 60 per cent rate of taxation—we impose it on the poor. I remind members that 950,000 people are subject to the withdrawal of benefits—council tax benefit and housing benefit—as soon as their income rises. Instead of being tough with the poor all the time, is it not time that we got a wee bit tougher with the wealthy and the rich?

Progressive Water Tax

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2632, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on the introduction of a progressive water tax, and one amendment to that motion.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The proposal in the motion is an excellent complement to the proposal in the previous debate, which dealt with the removal of an unfair system of taxation—the council tax. If we accept that the council tax is unfair to the root, it is also fair to assume that water rates are unfair, as they are based on council tax. However, water rates are even less fair than council tax, because there is no rebate system for water rates. The so-called relief system that the Executive intends to introduce from 1 April has rightly been condemned as pathetic by all independent observers, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has said that the system is totally inadequate and will miss out 1 million of the poorest households in Scotland. Water and sewerage services are essential and should be properly resourced in a progressive fashion.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Tommy Sheridan's motion states that

"sewerage service charges to domestic customers should be paid for by using an income-based personal tax".

In my case and in the case of many of my constituents in rural Aberdeenshire, we have to take care of the sewerage ourselves—we do not pay sewerage charges. Is Tommy Sheridan suggesting that we should be taxed on personal income for a service that we do not receive?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

As the member knows, only a very small proportion of the Scottish population are not connected to the sewerage system. With the extra £201 million a year that the progressive water tax would bring in for water and sewerage services, we could ensure that everyone in Scotland is properly connected.

The proposed tax would be fair and progressive. We have to ask ourselves, "Is this service essential? Should this service be recognised across Scotland as an essential service, similar to the police, fire services and health services?" If so, it should be paid for progressively via income.

That means recognising the unacceptability of the burden of paying for water and sewerage services that is placed on the low paid and pensioners. Pensioners and poor households simply cannot afford it.

Since 1996, domestic water charges have risen by 105 per cent, whereas benefits and wages to the low paid have risen by less than 10 per cent. That represents a significant reduction in an already low disposable income, which is why we should move towards a system that taxes according to ability to pay. That suggestion is not rocket science; indeed, it is part of the post-war political consensus, which disappeared after Thatcher moved from a system with a preponderance of direct taxes to one with a preponderance of indirect taxes. New Labour has supported that. The move has been regressive, because it taxes low-income households at the same rate as high-income households.

If the water tax was combined with a service tax, a low-paid couple in Glasgow who earned £12,274 a year would save £628 on what they currently pay for council tax and water rates. A couple on average earnings who each earn £17,289 a year—despite the fact that the average annual wage in Glasgow is £15,000, we will take the higher rate of £17,289—would save £370.40 a year. Of course, those at the higher end of the income scale would pay more, but that is right and proper. For far too long, they have been getting away with paying too little.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that water and sewerage services are essential services which should be publicly owned and democratically controlled for the benefit of all Scotland's citizens; further believes that water and sewerage service charges to domestic customers should be paid for by using an income-based personal tax which would be progressive, efficient and easily understood; therefore endorses the replacement of the current unfair water rate system for domestic customers with a new individual income-based water tax that would be fair and redistributive, while raising more revenue for Scotland's water and sewerage services, and notes that this new Water Tax would be collected by the Inland Revenue in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish water industry.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I now call Ross Finnie to speak to and move amendment S1M-2632.1. Speakers in the remaining opening round have three minutes.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I listened with interest to the last two thirds of Tommy Sheridan's opening remarks. Of course, it is difficult to disagree with a general philosophy of progressive taxation. There is no difficulty in agreeing that we could fund the range of services that we want to provide through progressive income tax and apply the sum that is raised to a variety of purposes. However, the difficulty with the motion is that Tommy Sheridan is not proposing a general tax to pay for a variety of services; he wants to raise income tax specifically to meet a water charge. Where is the equity in that?

If we ask citizens to bear a form of taxation for a specific purpose, do we not have to tell them the amount that will be charged and their personal relationship to the tax? That relates to the point that Mike Rumbles made. The proposal for a specific income tax for water charges fails on two counts. First, the system would not tell citizens why an unspecified sum of money was being raised for water charges. Tommy Sheridan's calculation is that the sum would be £201 million, which is different from the sum that he has mentioned in committee meetings. Secondly, there is no way of identifying within the income tax system the link between the customer and what they are being asked to pay. Tommy Sheridan has presented no evidence on the link and on the amount that will be raised. There is no way that the citizen can be told that they should raise a general sum when they are being asked specifically to pay a water income tax.

I do not claim that the existing arrangements are perfect—far from it. For example, there are problems with collection rates and how to determine the quantity of water used, but I will come to those in a minute—sorry, I mean in three seconds.

I say to Tommy Sheridan that the creation of a specific tax from income tax would raise the collection rate for that tax to an unacceptable level. How would he change the current system so that it more equitably relates to use and the specific charge that is required? He has to accept that, although the current system may not be perfect, it is, through its link to the council tax band system, more progressive than any other utility charge.

The Executive's policy is far less cumbersome to administer. Scottish Water—if Parliament approves the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill—will have to consider carefully the way forward, because the present arrangements are not sustainable in the long run. However, the tax that is proposed in the motion would be far more cumbersome and difficult to operate. It would not be equitable, it would not relate to the cost, it would not tell citizens why they were paying it and it would not address the link between those who use water services and those who are being asked to pay.

I move amendment S1M-2632.1, to leave out from the first "believes" to end and insert:

"commends the efforts of the Scottish Executive in ensuring that the public water industry in Scotland is strong and efficient, bringing considerable benefits to all customers; recognises the Executive's continuing commitment to a public water industry; recognises that the best way to fund the Scottish water industry is through charges on domestic and non-domestic customers utilising the services provided; recognises that the current system for charging domestic customers already provides a degree of protection for lower income households and the most vulnerable through the link to council tax banding, and finally recognises that the reduction scheme provides help to those low income households facing the biggest charge increases."

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We should ask why water charges are now an issue, as we have had them for many years. We had them in the form of an addition to domestic rates; we had the water community charge, or poll tax; and then we had the council tax. For many years, water charges have been a separate item. At best, the charge has been a minor irritant. It usually came with the main bill, but people always complained about the main bill and never said much about the water element. The imperfections of the water charge system could be safely ignored.

As with the rates, we all agree that the imperfections lie in the fact that the system is property based, as we discussed in the previous debate, and unrelated in any direct way to the ability of people to pay. We also all agree that water and sewerage services are a special case. By and large, they are not an option that one can buy into or buy out of; they are services that we must have.

The council tax, for all its faults, at least has a benefits mechanism—albeit expensive, cumbersome and slow to respond—that can mitigate the system's worst features, but that cannot be said about the current water charge arrangements. The imperfections of those arrangements have come to light because of the huge increase in charges that consumers have faced recently. That increase has come about because of the neglect of our water system infrastructure over decades. Our railways, roads, school buildings and most of the rest of our infrastructure have been neglected in the same way; in this debate, it might be appropriate to say that they have gone down the pan. Helen Liddell says in the introduction to the Scotland Office website:

"Through devolution, Scotland enjoys the best of both worlds."

If the running down of our infrastructure is an example of the best of both worlds, the sooner we get rid of those two worlds, the better.

Even that neglect is not the whole cause of the crisis. At the heart of the crisis is the insistence on paying for the necessary improvements to our water infrastructure out of current revenue. That is why charges have gone up so much, making consumers rightly annoyed. It is also why some groups of consumers are facing bills that are disproportionate to their incomes. In those circumstances, the anomalies and unfairness of the property-based system become an important factor.

To set up a separate tax-based system is not a sensible way of addressing the problem, even if that system is run by the Inland Revenue and is based on a different method of collection, which could have its own inconsistencies. If, instead of council tax, we had a local income tax system that was related to ability to pay, water charges related to tax might be a sensible option. Until then, we have to keep the pressure on the minister and the water companies to mitigate as much as possible the undoubted unfairness of the current system.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

It has been interesting to hear Tommy Sheridan outline his proposals for the introduction of a progressive Scottish water tax. It has also been interesting to hear his proposal that the tax would be collected by the Inland Revenue. As the minister pointed out, those proposals display a considerable naivety about the real world.

The increased tax burden that Mr Sheridan proposes would certainly be redistributive, but it would also cause relocation. His tax would drive businesses and businesspeople from Scotland. If businesses were faced with greater costs in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, new businesses would not locate in Scotland. Unemployment would rise and fewer people would be left to pay Mr Sheridan's tax.

Although the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill is far from perfect, it at least makes a good attempt to deliver high-quality water and sewerage services on an equitable basis throughout the country. The bill is redistributive in that customers in the east and west of Scotland will pay for the redevelopment of the north of Scotland's water infrastructure. That burden, which we accept we should take on, will be hard enough for customers to bear. The suggestion that we go as far as is proposed under Tommy Sheridan's tax would provoke a public outcry and a mass exodus of business from Scotland. Keith Harding made a similar point in the previous debate.

The current system of charging for water and sewerage services already provides reliefs for lower-income households. In its own time, Scottish Water might introduce proposals for a different collection process—a process that will be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament. When that happens, we will probably have to consider Mr Sheridan's proposals again. In the meantime, the Conservative party will not support the motion.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I have been driven to reflect on what the 22 contributions could have been the last time that we debated three separate issues in 22 minutes, as it seemed. I presume that at least a quarter of them were made by Mr Sheridan.

I caution Mr Sheridan. I trust that he will reflect on today's proceedings so that he does not end up being described, as the Earl of Selkirk was by Burns, as

"a man of immense vanity, bordering on insanity—and every corner stuffed with mighty self".

I make a serious, rather than a debating, point.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that there is a considerable amount of male vanity in the Parliament? I ask her to stop targeting Tommy Sheridan, who has made an excellent contribution. I am tired of the harassment of that member and the attempts to make him run out of time on one of the few occasions on which he has had the opportunity to secure a debate.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I would never suggest that vanity is solely a product of the Scottish Socialist Party. There are many expressions of vanity elsewhere. I was cautioning Mr Sheridan that the Parliament is a place where we have debate—it is not a platform or an opportunity to get headlines. I deprecate spin-doctoring elsewhere and I deprecate it in this debate.

Water charges are an important issue. I have argued on record that we need to address the problems of the poor and those on low incomes, particularly in the context of rising water charges. We have been put in the unfortunate position of not having the opportunity to reflect on the strengths of the arguments; we have been told what the solution is and we must like it or lump it. Frankly, that is not what the Parliament is for.

The proposals that are the subject of this debate and the previous debate have been scrutinised by our committees and, sadly, have been found wanting. In the time that we have had, we have not had the opportunity to expose that further. It is important to consider the Parliament's powers to address the needs of the poor in relation to water charges. We must question the credibility of getting the Inland Revenue to deal with the problem, which is a rather cobbled-together solution.

Iain Smith made the point about socialists no longer wanting to tax property. Mr Sheridan wants to tax property—that is why I find his proposals on the council tax and the water services tax unacceptable and not sufficiently thought through. We must acknowledge the importance of keeping water services in the public sector. I ask the minister to reassure us that the Executive will look seriously at how the proposed water charges will affect the poor. That central issue is not the monopoly of one person in the Parliament; it is of grave concern to Labour members. It is not simply a party matter; we must find a genuine solution to the problems, so that people can have a good water service that is affordable and appropriately delivered.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We move to open debate. It gives me inordinate pleasure to invite Mike Rumbles to speak.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It gives me inordinate pleasure to accept the invitation to speak.

I do not intend to take the full three minutes. I want to make it clear that I believe that income tax is the fairest form of taxation that we can have in this country. We should be prepared to pay more in income tax to fund proper public services. However, Mr Sheridan's motion betrays a complete ignorance of real life in rural Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is the Parliament for urban and rural Scotland. It strikes me that the motion could only have been lodged by a Glasgow MSP.

In my intervention, I explained to Mr Sheridan why his proposal is so wrong for people in rural Scotland. I will give an example of that. The number of people who are not connected to the public water supply is greater in Aberdeenshire than anywhere else. I am not connected to the sewerage system— [Interruption.] That is a great opportunity for humour. My situation is normal across rural Scotland. It is remarkable to suggest that we should be charged through income tax for services that we do not receive.

In answer to my intervention, Mr Sheridan said that the increase in income tax would pay to connect everyone to the public water supply and the sewerage system. I would be pleased if he would confirm that in his closing speech. Does he have any idea how much that would cost in Aberdeenshire, never mind in the rest of rural Scotland? His motion is oriented towards an urban agenda. It completely ignores the service needs of rural Scotland. I want him to answer that point.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Water is regarded as special by many societies. In some countries, that is because there is too little of it and wars are fought over it. In Scotland, we feel that there is too much of it. Traditionally, we have been proud of our drinking water and have contrasted it with the unpleasant-tasting water in other less fortunate countries, such as England.

Tommy Sheridan believes that redistributive taxation is the answer to everything in Scotland. The Scottish service tax for local services, which looks remarkably like a clumsy form of income tax, would be highly centralised and totally unaccountable at local level. For water, we are to have a new, centrally collected income tax—the service tax mark 2. As the socialist service tax and the water tax are to be decided on and collected centrally, I am not sure why Tommy Sheridan does not forget about the red tape and the administration and just double the rate of income tax. Why does he vehemently reject the move to community ownership by way of housing stock transfer, which will strike a major redistributive blow for resources in Scotland and involve billions of pounds of investment and the creation of thousands of jobs?

As Mike Rumbles said, the Liberal Democrats—more than any other major party—support an element of redistributive taxation, but that must be implemented nationally within fairly narrow limits. There comes a point at which there are no wealthy people left to soak, because they have taken their wealth elsewhere and their jobs and their wealth-creating enterprises with them.

Tommy Sheridan's taxation proposals, whatever their intention, would destroy jobs, erode pensions and reduce incomes. I urge the chamber to reject the motion.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I agree with Brian Fitzpatrick, who compared today to "Groundhog Day". I recall many similar debates with Mr Sheridan in the 1980s, when he was a member of Militant in the Labour party, about the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin. In his attempt to hang a rather unsophisticated model for redistributing income, if not wealth, on the nearest passing vehicle, he has missed some fairly fundamental philosophical debating points.

A water charge is not a tax, but a payment for services provided. Charges must relate to the use of services, but Mr Sheridan's proposals divorce the level of charge from the service that is provided. Charges must produce sufficient resources to fund services, as the current system does. Mr Sheridan claimed that his scheme would collect more, but why should the Scottish charge payer be burdened with higher charges than are necessary?

In the competitive environment that the water industry is about to enter, there is a serious risk of the consumer opting to desert a high-charge, high-tax public service in favour of a low-cost private alternative. As ever, the losers would be the low paid and those who are on fixed incomes—the very people whom Tommy Sheridan hopes would benefit from his proposal.

I have heard nothing that substantiates any claim that Mr Sheridan has made, particularly the claim that his scheme could be cost-effective. Administrative costs would surely outweigh any benefits.

As Ross Finnie and Johann Lamont said, the Executive fully accepts that the current system is not perfect. Scottish Water will consider the future of billing and collection arrangements. We are therefore committed to ensuring that more work is done on affordability issues, including research by the water industry commissioner, whom we have asked to inform us of his findings. That will ensure that affordability issues are taken fully into account as Scottish Water considers options for tariff structuring, billing and collection arrangements.

However, the claim that, in the interim, Mr Sheridan's proposals represent an improvement on the current system is misguided. The current system has proved workable, fair, equitable and efficient. It successfully funds the Scottish water industry, relates charges to the service that is provided and ensures that customers remain at the heart of the system. It addresses ability to pay through a link to council tax bands and the transitional affordability scheme.

I commend the Executive's amendment to the Parliament.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I call Tommy Sheridan to wind up the debate, which we have timetabled to run until 10.30 am. If we do not make it to then, we will start the next debate immediately.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I thought that you were going to suggest that I should have a wee bit more time, Presiding Officer.

The Minister for Environment and Rural Development made an interesting point. He seemed to accept my argument that water and sewerage services are essential services. If they are essential services, I suggest that they should be paid for via general taxation or a specific tax that relates to a person's ability to pay, as represented by their income.

Although the minister accepted my point, he attacked the water tax. If a specific water tax was levied, the person who paid that tax would know that it was a water tax, because it would be denoted as a water tax on that person's wage slip.

The minister also said that we should relate charges to use. That is a dangerous principle. If it is accepted that water and sewerage services are essential services, like the police, fire and health services, it does not take much of a leap of imagination to say, "Why don't we relate those services to use as well? Perhaps those who do not use the fire service or the health service should not pay as much as others." The water tax is appropriate for the political situation because of the Parliament's ridiculously limited powers. The Parliament has a power in relation to local authority taxation and services that allows it to raise revenue in different forms. In anticipation of the use of the 3p-in-the-pound variation, the Inland Revenue conducted an exercise in Scotland—

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Yes—I am not sure whether it is Pinky or Perky.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I have heard that reference again, Presiding Officer—it is obvious that Mr Sheridan did not listen to your comments.

The main problem is that Mr Sheridan wants to centralise decision making and not take into account local factors. That is strange. This week sees the anniversaries of the deaths of three important historic figures—Louis XVI, George Orwell and V I Lenin. Of those three, who would most approve of Mr Sheridan's centralising ideas?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It is funny that Mr McAveety mentions Louis XVI. He may be aware that Louis's finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, once said that

"the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least ... amount of hissing."

It is unfortunate that, although new Labour used to agree that the rich should be taxed until the pips squeak, that is no longer on the agenda.

The proposed taxation system recognises the essential nature of water and sewerage.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

rose—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I have taken two interventions during the debate.

Members must recognise that the service tax is democratically neutral, because in exchange for the loss of the right to set council tax, local authorities regain the right to set the business rate. I had to laugh when the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services talked about the current system for setting the business rate being redistributive. It is so redistributive that the poorest local authority in Scotland loses £83 million in net terms from it.

The Inland Revenue has coded Scottish workers, and the water tax system would allow an exercise that has been conducted to be used to generate even more revenue for the essential services.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Mr Sheridan answer my point?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am just coming to it. Mike Rumbles was right to say that many rural citizens are not connected to the public water supply or sewerage system. I contend that we should have a campaign and should raise the resources to connect everyone in Scotland to the public sewerage system and water supply. However, I take umbrage at Mike Rumbles's suggestion that the water tax is only an urban issue. Low pay is one of the biggest problems in rural areas. The water tax would redistribute income to individuals in rural areas who are low paid but face high water charges and high council tax charges.

In combination, the two systems that I have proposed would redistribute income throughout Scotland. One tax would raise more money for local government jobs and services and the other tax would raise money for water and sewerage services in a fashion that is fairer and more efficient as well as transparent and clear. That is the type of redistribution of wealth that the Parliament should be responsible for.

I give members fair notice that they will have a chance to debate the issue next year, because it will be back on the agenda, as far as the Scottish Socialist Party is concerned. Members will then have another opportunity to defend the council tax and the water rate.

Anti-nuclear Campaign (Faslane)

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2633, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on Faslane and the anti-nuclear campaign, and one amendment to that motion.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The motion should be straightforward. However, the minister— Allan Wilson—is leaving the chamber, perhaps because he knows that I might make reference to debates in the 1980s when I, along with other socialists, was expelled from the Labour party. In those debates, the minister might recall that we agreed on unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Is it not incredible that new Labour lodged the only amendment, which removes reference to the opposition to nuclear weapons? As I look around the chamber, I see quite a few ashen faces on the new Labour benches. Many of them probably have their Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament membership cards and, although they might not be able to produce them very often, they continue to support a movement that is morally, politically and economically correct.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The key word in the reference that Mr Sheridan made was unilateral. Now that the Labour party is in power, we have reduced the number of nuclear missiles and we are working with our counterparts in other countries towards arms reduction. That is what happens when parties get into power. Unilateralism was something for the 1980s; arms reduction is something that we are doing now.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It is utter tosh—with apologies to the Deputy Presiding Officer—for Mr McMahon to say that the Labour party is reducing nuclear weapons or other weapons. The new Labour Government has given more licences to export weapons of destruction across the world, has continued to accelerate the nuclear programme and is about to sign up to the star wars programme, which will lead to a further acceleration in nuclear proliferation around the world.

Mr McMahon has to accept that his party's problems are those of a political party that used to have some principles and soul. His party has abandoned principles, including the principle of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That principle was established at the 1982 Labour party conference by a two-thirds majority in a card vote and was in the Labour party manifesto. People might say that Labour lost elections in the 1980s, but it did not do so in Scotland. Unilateral nuclear disarmament is popular and it is right.

It is morally correct for Labour members to oppose inhumane weapons of destruction. Those weapons were declared illegal in 1996 by the International Court of Justice precisely because of their indiscriminate nature. Nuclear weapons are the most indiscriminate weapons ever created by mankind. It is right and proper that Scotland should stand for unilateral nuclear disarmament.

I will take an intervention from a member who is at least honest about his pro-nuclear stance.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to the member for giving way.

On the point that Tommy Sheridan made about the International Court of Justice ruling, I have examined the appeal court decision that was made last year. It states clearly that the use of such weapons for offensive measures could be considered illegal, but the use of such weapons to guarantee self-defence and protection against mass genocide was considered not to be illegal. That ruling was made referring to United Nations conventions and law of custom.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The point that I made about the International Court of Justice hearing was to establish that the use of nuclear weapons was illegal and that their very possession was illegal. The UK holds that the possession of nuclear weapons systems that are first-strike and offensive is illegal to the core. The Conservative party has supported continually and consistently nuclear weaponry. At least it is wrong consistently. The problem with new Labour is that it has moved from a position that was politically right to—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am not sure whether I can take another intervention.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No, the member must not take any more interventions. He is already over time and he is now summing up.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am sorry.

When it comes to decision time at 5 o'clock, I hope that some new Labour members examine—or re-examine—their consciences and vote for a motion that most of them, perhaps privately, support.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that nuclear weapons pose a very real threat to humanity and accordingly should be opposed on moral, social, political and economic grounds; opposes the possession of nuclear weapons; supports unilateral disarmament in Scotland and across the UK in pursuit of a non-nuclear world, free of the threat of destruction by nuclear weapons; further supports the Scottish CND and Trident Ploughshares blockade of Faslane nuclear submarine base on 11-13 February 2002, and upholds the right of demonstrators to protest peacefully in support of world peace.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I have listened with interest to the points that were made by Mr Sheridan in support of the motion. As has been said already, defence is a reserved matter. It is for the UK Government to determine policy on Britain's nuclear deterrent and to account for that to the UK Parliament and, ultimately, to the UK electorate. Members of the Scottish Parliament can express views. Mr Sheridan's views were known from his previous speeches on the subject.

I will deal briefly with the second part of his motion, which he did not address in his opening remarks, as it is important in terms of the issues that the Scottish Parliament can and should deal with. Strathclyde police are responsible for policing the annual protests and demonstrations that take place at the Faslane base. It is not uncommon for as many as 1,000 persons to take part in such events. Each protest demonstration represents a significant policing challenge.

As my amendment sets out, such protests are entirely appropriate. We respect the right of individuals to hold strong views and to protest peacefully. However, Mr Sheridan needs to recognise the fact that peaceful protest is one thing, but other forms of protest are not victimless. When individuals have their cars rocked, they feel it and are traumatised by such an experience. I am aware that Mr Sheridan would not support that form of protest but, nevertheless, he is a regular part of a protest that involves victims.

I want to make another point, in what will be a brief speech: because of the element who are involved in attacking individuals in a way that is totally unacceptable, such protests require the deployment of up to 750 officers. That is not without cost. It involves additional payments to Strathclyde police to manage the annual protest. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are required to have 750 officers, one tenth of the Strathclyde police number, police the protest.

I would prefer to see police on that day policing the communities that Mr Sheridan professes to be concerned about. I also profess to that concern. Yesterday I was in Govan, talking to people about how to deal with the effects of crime on communities in Glasgow. Anything that distracts the police from that is unacceptable.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No, I am sorry, but I am into my last minute. I was almost into my last minute before I began.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

rose—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The amendment sets out the right of peaceful protest. That is guaranteed in our constitution, as it must be by the Scottish Parliament. Protest must be peaceful. It is unacceptable to block a road and prevent people from getting to work.

I had intended to refer to the matter of jobs in relation to Faslane, but Jackie Baillie, the constituency member, will talk about that issue in her speech.

I move amendment 2633.1, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"supports the right of demonstrators to protest peacefully in support of world peace, but condemns those in a democratic society who abuse this right and act in contravention of the criminal law."

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right that we all recognise. I am appalled that Dr Simpson has diminished the debate by taking it down to such a level. Whether members like it or not, the debate is about idealism and the situation in which we find ourselves.

In July 1998, the Labour Government said that its goal was

"the global elimination of nuclear weapons."

However, new Labour is stuck with Trident. It was notable in the 1998 strategic defence review that the consultations did not include Trident, Eurofighter or Challenger II tanks. New Labour was determined to continue the Tory commitment to nuclear deterrence. I am sure that Tory members in the chamber are quite relaxed about that. Despite the fact that Labour in Scotland votes against Trident when it has the opportunity to do so, new Labour insists on the UK nuclear deterrent. The reason for that is to deter aggression from states in possession of chemical or biological weapons or to deter rogue states.

The appalling thing about chemical and biological weapons is that they are indiscriminate; they make no distinction between service personnel and civilians. I do not understand the argument that says that such weapons can be morally countered by the threat of the use of similar weapons. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate and inaccurate. They contaminate people and land. Long before 11 September, experts had worked out that nuclear weapons would be no deterrent to anybody armed with a lorry-load of explosives or a bottle full of anthrax. It is unfortunate that 11 September proved that to be the case.

When I was young, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians was part of the strategy to defeat Germany, and few questioned it at the time. We now live in an age where war takes place under the microscopic eye of television and in front of a critical media and world population. Images are transmitted into living rooms and people react unfavourably to the deployment of careless force. Minimum force is normally deployed, smart weapons are utilised and civilian casualties are to be avoided. Everybody would agree with that.

Is it not ludicrous that, at a time when we are becoming even more fastidious in the prosecution of war, new Labour clings to a weapon of mass destruction? Does its persistence in that respect not diminish the moral pressure that it can bring to bear on other nations that are thinking of taking on board nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are unusable. Russia's defence budget is a third of the UK's and Putin relies on the support of the west. The cold war is over. There is no threat that merits the possession of nuclear weapons by the UK.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will Colin Campbell give way?

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No. I have only a few moments left.

In a 1996 International Court of Justice advisory ruling, nuclear weapons were judged to be contrary to the rules of international law applicable to armed conflict, but new Labour persists in maintaining the system. Our nuclear capability is a weapon that cannot sanely be used. It is kept by the UK to secure its place in the Security Council, to feed its post-imperial delusions of grandeur and to maintain the illusion that the United Kingdom is still a world power.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Today is pan Tommy Sheridan day, to judge from what I have heard in this morning's debates. It is not my intention to pan Tommy Sheridan for anything other than perhaps actions that I consider criminal. I would certainly not pan him for his views, which I recognise he holds very personally and has the courage to stand up for. I do criticise him, however, on the basis that his views do not hold water in many instances.

When I look at Tommy Sheridan's motion, I have to tell him that it is the kind of motion that would have been tabled at Westminster some 10 years ago by the very ministers who now control such issues as members of the Government. The difference is that those people now have responsibilities. They have to consider the issues realistically rather than through the eyes of those who wish to achieve nuclear disarmament without considering the practical realities. When I consider issues such as unilateral actions, I have to say that the Government is absolutely right, as Mr McMahon said, to reverse its stand on those issues.

There is a change in feelings across the country. I recently attended a University of Edinburgh debate on the retention of nuclear weapons. When I go along to such debates, I usually expect to be heavily defeated. My opponent was Robin Harper, the rector of the university, but the students backed the idea of retaining nuclear weapons. They recognised the practicality of the situation.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Was it a Tory club debate?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No, it was not. It was an open debate at the University of Edinburgh.

Tommy Sheridan referred to the horror of nuclear weapons, and he is absolutely right, but in fact that adds to the strength of the weapons and the reason for their retention. It was said earlier that the Conservatives were consistently wrong, but I suggest that we have been consistently right. The fact that, over the past 50 years, we have avoided a major world war is very important. In the second world war, 15 million people died. That must never happen again. In my view, the horrendous effect of using nuclear weapons has prevented such an event. That is something that we must value very much indeed. Consider the current situation between India and Pakistan. I wonder whether the threat of nuclear warfare is the factor that has managed to keep those two nations apart. I suggest that it may have been a major factor.

I make no apologies for backing Richard Simpson's amendment. He is right to make the point that people are entitled to have views on such important issues and entitled to demonstrate those views, but that they are not entitled to break the law by so doing. The law has been set by legislators such as every one of us in the chamber today, and it lies heavily on our shoulders that we must be seen to protect the law at all times.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will be supporting Richard Simpson's amendment. It is no secret that there is vigorous internal debate in the Liberal Democrat party and in the Labour party on the issue between those who think that we should not have nuclear weapons and those who think that, although it is regrettable, we need them as a deterrent against other less well-intentioned states using them against us. It is quite a fair argument and will no doubt continue.

Putting my party first, as I always do, I would like to make clear the party's position by reading from our manifesto for the most recent general election. It says that Liberal Democrats would

"Work for the elimination worldwide of all nuclear weapons. We will press for a new round of multilateral arms reduction talks, but will retain the UK's minimum nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future."

The manifesto goes on to say that we also oppose the American proposal for a national missile defence system, which we think greatly destabilises the status quo of nuclear weapons. We want multilateral disarmament.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will Mr Gorrie explain why his party's support for the retention of three Trident submarines whose weapons cannot be fired without the agreement of the Americans is an acceptable position but support for the missile defence system is not?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The official argument accepted by the party is that we need to have a deterrent and that missiles with which we can threaten other people must be available so that they do not shoot at us.

The Liberal Democrat position is as I have stated it. My own view is that I am against nuclear weapons, but I am also against the sort of demonstrations that take place at Faslane. It can be argued that such demonstrations draw attention to the issue and create publicity, but it creates bad publicity. The scenes that we see on television deter a lot of other people from supporting the argument.

I used to have exactly the same argument with Peter Hain in the days when he was a radical Young Liberal and went round digging up cricket pitches and golf courses, which I said harmed his case. I still feel the same. Legitimate, peaceful, respectable demonstration can do a great deal of good in shifting public opinion, but I am not prepared to support what happens at Faslane. I hope that the British Government will move more vigorously in the direction of getting rid of our nuclear weapons, but my party's position is as I have stated it.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It is fair to say that there are many activists in the Labour movement, including me, who have campaigned over the years for nuclear disarmament. Let me say at the outset that I will always protect the right of people to demonstrate and to protest peacefully in support of world peace.

World peace and a nuclear-free world are aspirations that we all share. We differ fundamentally on how we achieve those aims, but I know of no sane person, inside or outwith this chamber, who ever wants to see nuclear weapons used, not just here but anywhere in the world. Whether one is a unilateralist or a multilateralist, the ultimate aim is the same. The moral high ground that Tommy Sheridan seeks to claim is not his alone. It belongs to anyone and everyone who opposes nuclear weapons.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that Labour has reduced the number of warheads by a third. That is action, not rhetoric, and demonstrates a clear commitment to reducing arms in Britain and across the world.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will Jackie Baillie give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No. I would like to move on. I shall move from an international perspective to an extremely parochial one, because Faslane is in my constituency.

The onus of thinking through the consequences of every action is put on all responsible politicians. Members might find interesting some facts in an EKOS report that was commissioned in 1998. More than 7,000 people are directly employed at the base, 4,000 of whom are civilians. Some 3,700 indirect jobs result from supplier linkages and income multipliers. Civilian jobs account for more than 70 per cent of the base's employment. The base is one of the largest single-site employers in Scotland and by far the largest source of jobs in the West Dunbartonshire local economy.

Given that West Dunbartonshire is one of the most disadvantaged areas in Scotland and that Faslane is the source of a quarter of the employment in the area, what do we get from a party that masquerades as being on the side of the working man? It gives no real answers and no costed alternatives, only screaming headlines that call for the shutting down of Faslane in that parody of a newspaper that is published by Tommy Sheridan's party. What thought has been given to workers and their families? Unfortunately, Tommy Sheridan would consign them to unemployment and poverty. That is nothing short of irresponsible.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Must we have jobs at any price?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I say to Lloyd Quinan that what I have said also describes the SNP's behaviour. There is nothing on its website because its policy is under review. Perhaps a blank screen is the true indication of what that party offers.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member will not as she is in her final minute.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am winding up.

Perhaps the SNP will enlighten the chamber whether it is in favour of withdrawing from NATO. Will it clarify comments that were made by one of its candidates at the Scottish Parliament elections? He said that we should not worry because when Faslane is scrapped, the Scottish navy and customs and excise can be based there. So far, so good. However, his leader at the time favoured Rosyth rather than Faslane. Does the SNP have one policy for the west of Scotland and a different policy for the east? When a question was put about the size of the navy, an estimate of seven frigates was given—that means 100 jobs. What about the missing 10,600 jobs?

Once again, we are debating reserved matters. Perhaps Tommy Sheridan should stand for the Westminster Parliament. He could then represent his views at Glasgow City Council, the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons.

I urge the chamber to reject the motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Dorothy-Grace Elder has three minutes.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament.

The mornings are dark, but I have not seen Mr Gorrie protesting at Faslane. Indeed, I assume that he has not been at a Faslane protest. The protests are completely peaceful and are made by decent people, including people in wheelchairs who travel all the way from the south of England. Mr Gorrie insults those good people by referring to the protests as violent. That is absolutely shameful. The Liberals are in favour of nuclear submarines, as long as they will not quite be used. The Liberals will take tea somewhere and not notice.

In the Scottish Parliament, members are treated like children in respect of all nuclear issues. We are told, "Thou shalt not ask." There are 161 reserved issues—that is 161 subjects on which the Parliament is gagged—the most important of which relate to the nuclear industry or nuclear defence. All Britain's nuclear weapons are dumped in Scotland, but we are not allowed to ask questions about them. That gives ministers in the Scottish Parliament an easy cop-out. A minister can simply jump up and shout, "Reserved issue." We are gagged. It is no wonder that the Parliament was invaded almost a year ago by peaceful protesters. Some protesters shouted to members, "Why don't you talk about something important such as Trident?" Why not indeed?

Just 30 miles from Glasgow, each Trident submarine carries 144 nuclear warheads, but we are told that that is a reserved matter and that Trident submarines must not be discussed. The issue will be unreserved and undevolved if there is an undevolved tragedy. Devolved hospitals will have to cope with that tragedy, if any hospitals are left.

Court cases involving the protesters and the decent people who invaded the gallery and who should have made all of us feel ashamed that we had not discussed the subject are still dragging through the courts. The incident happened last spring, but the court cases are continuing well into April. The establishment has its ways of making the peaceful public suffer for protesting. Few members stood up for those people. Many slunk out of the chamber while the most important issue in Scotland was once again not tackled.

Trident has been declared illegal—

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Rubbish.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I am speaking about the threat of Trident, not its deployment. I say to Ben Wallace, who is an ex-soldier, that he should do everything to stop the waste of £1.5 billion a year on Trident and help to put that money into conventional forces, because Scottish command is undermanned and the navy is undermanned outside of the nuclear industry. Trident is a disgrace and it is up to members to join together and do the decent thing: protest against it. Members should join us in February at the blockade.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Dr Richard Simpson has two minutes to wind up.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

My main objection to the debate is that half an hour is not long enough for members to discuss the whole issue of defence. However, that is not the Parliament's purpose. Members are here to deal well with reserved matters.

I am not disappointed that members have expressed strongly held views about unilateral disarmament. They are entitled to express their views. However, they have failed to address the issue of how the protests should be managed. There are some 200 arrests on each occasion, although Dorothy-Grace Elder said that the protests are totally peaceful.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I am sorry, but that is impossible as I have only two minutes.

The chamber must send a strong message that the small number of violent people who create victims in such circumstances must be condemned. The majority of protesters are peaceful and there is good co-operation and understanding between the police and that majority, but we must condemn the hard-line activists who attempt to breach security and who are totally disruptive.

A number of members have indicated that the UK Government takes part in multinational nuclear disarmament. That is appropriate and most members would not oppose it, although some would wish to go much further. The process of reducing one third of weapons and plans for considerable further reductions have been welcomed by Kofi Annan and the United Nations. That is a responsible approach.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Dr Simpson is already over his time. Sit down, Mr Quinan.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I would love to take an intervention, but I cannot.

Kofi Annan praised the UK Government. I hope that the jobs issue will be addressed. Jackie Baillie spoke strongly about that, but it is almost impossible in a debate of this length to address the issue.

I am glad to have participated in Tommy Sheridan's day in the sun.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Given the authority with which the minister spoke about the protests, will he tell members before he leaves the chamber how many he has been to? As he has not replied, I take it that he has not been to any. On the ridiculous and serious accusations—

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

Order. Mr Sheridan, you should not speak for the minister. You have one minute and 20 seconds.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I apologise, but I hope that the minister will tell us how many people have been charged with assault or threatening behaviour in the past three years, given that he talked about harassment and threats to people. He does not say anything; he does not know because there have been no such arrests. He should be careful about what he says about the protests. He knows nothing about them because he has not had the courage to attend them.

I welcome each and every member to the next protest on 11 February. It will be a three-day rolling protest against nuclear weapons, so everyone should be able to fit it into their diaries. Fortunately, some Labour members still have the courage of their convictions and have come along to the demonstrations. Although there have been far too few of those members, I hope that more will attend now that they have been given plenty of notice.

As Colin Campbell said, it is about time that the Parliament had a bit of idealism and vision. Someone has to act first on the issue of nuclear disarmament. Let an independent, socialist Scotland have the courage to stand up and say loud and clear that it will decommission nuclear weapons and create five times more socially useful jobs from the money that would be diverted from those weapons of destruction. Unless someone on the world stage has the courage to take such action, we will continue to threaten the destruction of humanity by stockpiling these weapons. I hope that, by 5 o'clock, some new Labour members will find their courage once again.

Environmentally Sustainable Employment and Recycling

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2635, in the name of Robin Harper, on environmentally sustainable employment and recycling, and three amendments to that motion.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

This debate concerns the massive potential for employment in environmentally friendly economic activity in Scotland, which I conservatively estimate at 50,000 new jobs over the next 10 years. In Denmark, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs have already been created in renewable energy, mainly in the wind industry. In Europe as a whole, 800,000 new environmental jobs could potentially be created. There is no reason to suspect that Scotland should not get more than its fair share of those jobs.

I covered the potential for renewables last year, and things seem to be moving a little on that issue. However, they are still not moving fast enough, especially in research. In public transport, we still need to set targets on traffic reduction, which the Executive has so far steadfastly refused to do. The latest round of funding, with its emphasis on road building, has been a huge disappointment to the Scottish Transport Studies Group. Although road building might create short-term jobs, they are not sustainable in any meaning of the term. It is difficult to assess how many jobs would be created by a more environmental transport strategy, but if we take into account buses, rail staff, stations and signalling, track maintenance, increased economic activity and incremental job increases in areas served by the new or upgraded railway lines in Edinburgh, the Borders, Clackmannan, the central belt, the north of Scotland, Ayrshire and so on, we must be looking at thousands of new, sustainable job opportunities.

The latest organic farming figures show that the Executive is missing yet another trick by completely ignoring the contribution that a greater conversion of land to organic status could make to our environment and to local economies. Organic farming supports considerably more jobs than conventional farming; however, while organic farmers in Scotland may get a few thousand pounds over only two years—which is the meanest support system in Europe—27 landowning industrial farmers in Scotland receive well over £250,000 each in subsidy every year. I wonder how many jobs are created by that huge giveaway.

Furthermore, if the Executive followed the philosophy of environmental and outdoor education that was being developed in the 1970s, we would create more than 300 teaching jobs—and probably hundreds more—by expanding existing outdoor centres and reopening those that have been closed down over the past 20 years.

In the first debate on Green party business in spring 2000, I called on the Executive to step up its efforts to insulate the 30 per cent of Scottish houses that are seriously substandard, and to introduce new building regulations that would compel the house builders of this world to insulate to much higher standards and to incorporate so-called passive ventilation and heating systems. Oddly enough, the further north one goes, the more sense it makes to use photovoltaics and solar heating systems to cut down on electricity and gas bills. Sound research exists to support that assertion. However, there have been very few signs of further activity on that front, despite the fact that new regulation and investment could quickly create at least between 5,000 and 10,000 permanent jobs that would incorporate a very wide range of skills.

The main burden of my argument centres on the looming possibility that we might be throwing away the best opportunity yet for local councils and the Executive to adopt a waste strategy that could create 4,500 permanent jobs, with the knock-on effect of creating many thousands more. I have seen many of the consultation documents that have appeared over the past two years on local authorities' area waste strategies. In some cases, we are presented with five options and absolutely no hint of an underlying drive or set of principles. I cannot understand why the area waste strategy groups did not simply adopt a single set of criteria that would produce the best possible environmental action plans. I call upon the Executive to take the following steps to ensure that we create the maximum number of jobs and choose the best environmental options. The two objectives go together anyway and should be the bedrock on which we plan our strategy and base our funding search.

First and foremost, we need a mandatory target for local authority recycling. Such targets have been set in England and Wales and as a result they are streets ahead of us. Some councils have attained levels of close to 30 per cent recycling, while we languish at the bottom of the European league with 6 per cent of our household waste recycled. New Zealand decided to introduce mandatory targets and attained a level of 30 per cent in eight years. There is absolutely no reason why we should not do the same. Why did the Labour-Liberal Executive not set targets as soon as it came to power in 1999? Was it terrified of upsetting Scotland's Labour-controlled councils by giving them something too politically difficult to do, such as prioritising their spending plans with some favour shown to recycling?

We also need targets for fridge recycling—including chlorofluorocarbons—and the reuse of white goods. There is so much good practice around in that respect that such a measure would be sensible. Furthermore, we must have targets for recycling batteries and other hazardous household waste. Too many people just chuck it all in the bin. Others have little caches of used batteries, garden poisons, unused medicines that have not been returned to pharmacies and so on. Surely it would not be too difficult to set up collection points for those waste streams.

The Executive should set a waste recycling target of 30 per cent by 2010, and it could take at least six steps to assist in meeting that target. First, environment and waste resource co-ordination and advice centres should be set up in all large business parks. Someone's waste could be someone else's resource, and it is always possible for one to find it more cheaply on site than anywhere else.

Next, the objectives for the waste industry must be clarified, with the clear message that there has always been a presumption against the building of incinerators and waste-to-energy plants, except in very special circumstances. How will the Executive solve the problems that might yet appear in the Highlands and in Aberdeen? If Highland Council follows the logic of its consultation document, it will not be building an incinerator or waste-to-energy plant, even though every bid it has received from contractors contains a costed proposal for a waste-to-energy facility. Does the council reject those bids? If so, what will the financial consequences be? The companies concerned will either have to re-bid, in which case they will wish to recover the costs of their initial bids, or not be offered any contract at all, with all that that might entail. It seems bizarre that both Aberdeen City Council and Highland Council have been engaged in a tendering process for huge incinerators well before completing the first stage of the area waste strategy programme. For all I know, there are others in the same situation, because at least 10 other authorities were considering waste burning as an option a few years ago. What a mess.

We should be starting with the foundations. There should be additional support for community recycling projects, which are a valuable source of innovation and could make a significant contribution to the waste strategy. They use a mixture of voluntary and paid help and often provide jobs for people who find it difficult to get into the jobs market. They must also be viewed in the wider context of the huge social contribution that they make. Grants and low-interest loans should be made available to small start-ups, as they are in the US, where many states are already reaching the recycling target of 30 per cent and going beyond it—I have plenty of figures to show members later, if I get the chance.

The distinction between commercial and voluntary activity needs to be clarified. Many small recycling enterprises in both sectors find it difficult to access funds because of problems with the rules. Most of the funding in the voluntary sector comes from lottery, landfill and smaller funds. A new source of funding may be required. However, before we think of that, what is to be done about Scotland's share of the reported £3 billion that is lying unused in the lottery fund, as was revealed yesterday? That is scandalous. Is the Executive going to do anything about that? Will it press for our share of it?

Community recyclers were not included in all the area waste planning processes, which is reprehensible and an insult to the value of their contribution. They must be included as of right in all further planning at national and local levels. We also expect the Executive to set the best example in the use of its resources, through procurement, consumption, reduction, reuse and recycling. I look forward to the publication of the next audit of its environmental performance.

UK landfill companies have been using the landfill tax to ingratiate themselves with local communities and to support their own strategic interests. The landfill tax is intended to provide a foundation for the promotion of the production of energy from waste. However, it has been used to promote research to undermine the case for intensive recycling and glossy booklets have been sent to every council in the UK. The Environmental Industries Commission's waste minimisation group, in evidence to the House of Lords, stated that it had not been able to obtain a penny of the landfill tax to support its research. The access of the big companies to our local authorities and the exclusion of the local community recyclers from the development of the area waste strategy plans means that the process has been fatally flawed.

As a start towards ensuring a transition away from a throwaway society, I ask the minister to consider introducing a national mandatory target for recycling in Scotland. I move,

That the Parliament recognises the significant potential to create sustainable employment that will benefit both the economy and local and global environments; further recognises the potential of such employment to reduce the impact of climate change and toxic pollution of air, land, rivers and seas, protect and enhance biodiversity, reduce social exclusion and make better use of natural resources; in particular recognises the potential for new jobs in the sectors of renewable energy, energy efficiency, public transport, organic food and farming, nature conservation, eco-tourism, education and outdoor pursuits and materials re-use and recycling, and calls on the Scottish Executive to stimulate environmentally sustainable employment as a matter of priority, including by (a) ensuring that at least 30% of electricity comes from renewable energy sources by 2010 with further increases to 2050, (b) achieving between a 40% and 60% increase in energy efficiency across domestic and industrial sectors, including the introduction of enhanced building standards regulations for insulation, heat recovery and passive heating and ventilation, (c) developing a strategic plan for organic agriculture that would support conversion of up to 20% of land to organic production within 10 years, (d) setting targets for traffic reduction to further encourage a modal shift from private to public transport and to redress the present imbalance between road and rail funding, (e) setting a mandatory national target for recycling of 30% of household waste by 2010 and further, independent targets for recycling of fridges, re-use of white goods and recycling or safe disposal of batteries and other hazardous household waste and (f) producing, in order to achieve the mandatory national target for recycling, a National Re-use and Recycling Action Plan to include (i) additional support for community recycling, (ii) clarification of objectives for the waste industry including a presumption against incineration and waste-to-energy plants in new guidelines, (iii) a commitment to set an example in all areas of sourcing, consumption, re-use and recycling, (iv) new guidance to developers of composting operations including on methane reduction and recovery, (v) finance for and establishment of Environment and Waste Resource Advice units in all large business parks and (vi) steps to ensure that community recycling operators play a full part in all planning and development of area waste strategies.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I thank Robin Harper for framing the debate in terms of the link that sustainable development provides between the environment, and the economy and employment. As he points out, sustainable development must cut across government, which is why the Executive's response will address a range of issues under different ministerial portfolios. I shall focus on some of the issues that Robin Harper has raised in the areas of employment, enterprise and transport.

There are two good reasons for having the debate. First, it is often forgotten that there is a strong link between employment and the environment and—worse—it is falsely assumed that better environmental standards inevitably mean constraints on business and fewer jobs. Secondly, the Scottish Executive has a good story to tell on employment in general, especially on employment related to environmental improvement. The first principle in ensuring high and sustainable levels of employment is to create a strong economic environment. That has been a priority for the Scottish Executive working in partnership with the UK Government. As a result, the economic fundamentals in Scotland and the UK are good and we have seen the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s. The base rate is at its lowest level for nearly 40 years and the claimant count for unemployment is at around its lowest level for 25 years.

While striving to ensure high levels of economic activity and employment, we must protect the environment and take advantage of the employment opportunities that it offers. One of the key aims of the Executive's "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland" is to promote social and regional development and sustainability. The environment business sector, worldwide, is potentially larger than that of aerospace and pharmaceuticals, and it continues to grow at a faster rate than the economy as a whole. It is therefore vital that we target some of our employment creation efforts at harnessing part of that growth to benefit Scotland. We have undertaken to do that.

The Scottish welfare to work advisory task force has already established an energy and environment sub-group that is chaired by Raymond Young, one of the Scottish members of the Sustainable Development Commission. That group aims to increase the number of long-term unemployed people who are going into industries such as recycling and renewable energy by identifying skills gaps and appropriate opportunities.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

There is a widespread belief that Scotland could be a major manufacturer of renewable energy technology. How will the Executive support firms moving towards that new technology?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Some of the comments that I have made point in that direction. The group that I described aims to develop employer-led routes into employment and to initiate local partnerships to deliver them. There are other aspects of that policy that I shall come to shortly.

The delivery of the group's objectives will be supported by the "jobs in the environment" support unit to be established by Forward Scotland, which has obtained £250,000 in private funding from BP over three years. Forward Scotland is a charitable body, part-funded by the Executive through the sustainable action fund that is designed to promote sustainable development in Scotland by creating such opportunities.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Many small businesses would like to create employment through the safe recycling of fridges. However, the Government has failed to make regulations that would govern such safe recycling. Storage is not an answer. When will those regulations be made? The European Union has produced the policy, but the Government has failed to make regulations that would allow small businesses to participate in safe disposal of fridges. When will the regulations be made?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I understand that regulations are in place, but that there are some issues relating to small businesses that Mr Finnie will address in his wind-up speech. He will give you a response then.

The "jobs in the environment" support unit has prepared an initial report that identifies potential employment opportunities in the renewable energy industries—wind power, biomass, landfill gas, hydro and wave energy—and our enterprise initiatives will assist in pointing people in that direction and supporting the development of the industries that Sylvia Jackson described.

Robin Harper also recognised the importance for the economy, as well as for the environment, of having an integrated transport policy. There are good opportunities in the expansion of rail and bus transport, which are primary tools in tackling the challenge posed by growing levels of urban and inter-urban traffic congestion. The motion mentions an imbalance between road and rail expenditure, which was the position that we inherited from the Conservatives. In 1996-97, motorways and trunk roads expenditure accounted for some 87.5 per cent of Scottish Office transport expenditure. By 2003-04—the end of this spending round—our spending plans will show that that figure has fallen to less than half of comparable spending, even though our roads expenditure will remain at the same level in real terms. In other words, we have corrected the imbalance, not by neglecting our trunk road network, but by massively increasing our spending on public transport and other initiatives to ensure that we strike the right balance. From this financial year onwards, we are also taking on responsibility for the Scottish rail passenger franchise Traffic congestion is an environmental issue, but it is also an economic issue because it has a major impact on competitiveness. Congestion costs Scottish businesses many millions of pounds every year. We are committed to tackling congestion for the sake of the environment and to protect businesses and jobs. For example, we are working towards the target of removing 18 million lorry miles of freight from Scottish roads by March, through the freight facilities grant. Before today, we had announced awards totalling some £27.6 million, removing 13.4 million lorry miles from Scotland's roads. We will continue to build on that. This morning, I have announced a further grant of more than £250,000 to Thurso Business Supplies, which will allow expansion of its premises at Station Yard, Thurso. Although that award is modest in size, compared with some of the really large projects elsewhere, removing those lorry miles from the roads of Caithness will bring immediate benefits to a relatively remote area of ecological importance. There are many opportunities, through the freight facilities grant and other methods, to tackle congestion and remove some of the negative environmental effects of Scotland's traffic system.

Renewable energy is key not only to the reduction of climate change gases, but to industrial opportunity. The same is true for energy efficiency. Through the warm deal and the central heating programme, many jobs have been created and many gains have been made in improving the energy efficiency of Scotland's homes. Those schemes demonstrate our commitment to sustainable development, to helping low-income households, and to benefiting the environment and creating jobs.

Working in partnership with the UK Government, we have created the right economic environment to stimulate employment. We have identified the environment business sector as a key growth area and we are working to encourage job creation in that sector. The Executive has supported and stimulated key initiatives to address social inclusion, employment and the environment.

I move amendment S1M-2635.3, to leave out from the first "recognises" to end and insert:

"congratulates the Executive on the progress made in integrating sustainable development at the heart of its policy-making and supports the Executive in stimulating environmentally sustainable employment."

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As the minister said, we must congratulate Robin Harper on securing the debate. It is important that the Scottish Parliament takes this opportunity to show that recycling, sustainable employment and so on are not woolly concepts, but realities. If we invest in those areas now, Scotland will reap the economic and environmental benefits.

Members will not be surprised that I start my speech by giving some statistics from abroad. As everyone knows, the SNP likes to benchmark Scotland as an independent country against other independent countries.

Before that, however, I will deal with some information from the UK. Waste Watch, an organisation that is sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has said that if we can increase the amount of recycled waste to 30 per cent, we could produce 45,000 jobs. There are only 17,700 jobs in waste management at the moment. That shows that sustainable employment based on environmental practice can reap rewards.

In Denmark, 35 companies recycle 60 per cent of the country's domestic waste. Scotland could do with having 35 long-term, sustainable companies. In New York, a recent study on waste management found that a move to composting and recycling would create 890 permanent jobs as opposed to 350 in conventional incineration and landfill practices. The Bureau of International Recycling tells us that, in 50 countries across the world, 1.5 million people are employed in recycling activities. That business has a $1.6 billion annual turnover. Those statistics show that it is possible to invest in environmentally safe practices and produce sound and sustainable employment.

International comparisons are all very well, but I want to highlight a well-respected local organisation that, in two weeks' time, will tackle the problem that Andrew Welsh raised: the de-gassing of fridges. As we know, from 1 January this year, the process became much more complicated because of European Community regulations. I did extensive research before 1 January and found out that there is no facility in the UK that is capable of de-gassing fridges to conform with the EC regulations. On Monday, I visited Remploy in Clydebank and was told that, in two weeks' time, the new Remploy site that the First Minister opened in Wishaw will start to de-gas fridges from local authorities, beginning with South Lanarkshire Council. Remploy has seen an environmental opportunity and is using it to create sustainable jobs.

That is not the only good news that I heard on my visit to Remploy. I was also told that the company hopes to open new sites in the north and the north-west of Scotland. That particularly excites me because Aberdeenshire Council recently told me that, from 1 January, the only thing that it could do with its old fridges was send them to Manchester for storage. It is absolutely fantastic that a local organisation will provide sustainable employment in environmental management practices in Scotland.

Remploy has based the scheme on a previous scheme that it ran in Leeds that was worth £500,000 and employed 35 people. That scheme involved working in partnership with Comet to recycle white goods by passing them on to needy communities. That is the sort of sustainable employment that we must have in this country.

Sustainable employment is good for the environment. Recycling paper produces 35 per cent less water pollution and 74 per cent less air pollution than making paper by conventional methods.

With regard to the Government's record, I am sure that Labour and Liberal Democrat members are aware of last year's report card from WWF, which said that, in nearly three years of Labour government in Scotland, there has been no progress toward placing sustainable development at the heart of the Executive's plans. How often has the ministerial group on sustainable development met in the past three years? What has it done?

We have, in Scotland, an unsustainable industry that provides unsustainable jobs: nuclear power generation. It has a limited lifespan—our three power stations will be gone by 2015—but the lifespan of the deadly radioactive waste that it leaves behind is unlimited. Does the Government support new build in that unsustainable industry?

Germany has shown that it is possible to help create sustainable employment in environmental industries with the help of interest rates and investment subsidies to companies. Is the Executive prepared to do that? Is the minister prepared to put his money where his mouth is?

I move amendment S1M-2635.2, to insert at end:

", and agrees that these objectives, amongst others, should be considered for inclusion in a national environment plan for Scotland."

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I welcome in part Robin Harper's huge motion. This is an important subject and I believe that there is an exciting future ahead for employment in the environment generally and in the renewable energy, recycling and tourism industries in particular.

There is growing interest, particularly among young people, in environmental matters. The prospect of employment in a related industry is what many are looking for. Many students, in their gap year, pay to work on environmental enhancement projects all over the world. That demonstrates people's growing interest in making a career in such fields.

It is clear that the renewable energy market will continue to grow. Whatever the outcome of the energy review that is being undertaken, there is a looming energy gap. The challenge for the renewable energy industry is to fill that gap as efficiently as possible. That is an exciting prospect.

If the demand for renewable energy grows, the work force must grow as well. One of the factors that limit the growth and development of the industry is the small number of skilled and capable people who are available. If we are to develop renewable energy, we must recognise that training and education must be provided. If we are serious about creating sustainable jobs in the environment, a new range of skills will need to be developed in schools, colleges and universities. That is a vital point.

When the appropriate skills sets are available, we will be able more readily to develop our renewable energy resources, whether in wind farming, wave power, tidal power or the deriving of energy through biomass production. One can imagine a new offshore industry growing up around tidal power generation with on-going construction and maintenance work being required, just as the oil industry requires it. Indeed, as jobs in the oil sector decline, one can imagine that they will be replaced by jobs in wave energy and tidal power generation.

Energy-saving policies will create jobs as well. Encouraging the installation of insulation and double-glazing across the UK would boost the building trades. We should promote that.

Of greatest importance is the technology that will be required to deliver renewable energy. It is important to draw the attention of entrepreneurs to opportunities in that area. We have the brains and we must develop in Scotland and the UK the skills and the technology to enable us to capitalise on what are likely to be enormous markets. If this debate alerts manufacturers to possibilities that would not otherwise have been thought of, it will have served a useful purpose.

I turn to recycling. A particular interest of mine—and of Fiona McLeod and other members—is the recycling of fridges. The fridge mountain grows daily. The Executive must do more than it is with its current policy of sitting, hoping that a solution for the disposal of fridges will appear. I welcome Fiona McLeod's announcement on fridge disposal. The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that 2 million domestic fridges are replaced each year in the United Kingdom. Although 40 per cent of such fridges used to be recycled to developing countries, that can no longer be done under European Union regulations. I am delighted to hear that Remploy is taking up the baton and running with it. I would be interested to know whether it will be able to dispose of all Scotland's fridges, which must be a significant number indeed.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Given that the estimate of the number of fridges that need disposed of annually in Scotland is 250,000 and that Rhona Brankin, when Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, answered a parliamentary question of mine saying that it was up to businesses to dispose of fridges themselves, we can congratulate Remploy, but should the Government perhaps do more to support businesses to dispose of those 250,000 fridges?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I agree entirely.

Household waste is another area in which recycling must be encouraged at local authority level. We must set ourselves realistic targets to recycle more of our waste. On that point, I have total sympathy with Robin Harper's target to recycle 30 per cent of household waste by 2010. Audit Scotland tells us that all councils failed to meet the Government's targets of recycling 25 per cent of waste by 2000. Some recycled as little as 4 per cent of their waste. That we recycle so little of our waste—around 6 per cent—is something of a national scandal when one considers that other EU countries, such as Germany, are approaching a recycling level for domestic waste of 90 per cent.

Incineration should be considered a solution of last resort, so more must be done. Increasing business and employment opportunities within the recycling and renewable energy industries must include solutions that will harness the power of the market, develop and encourage British green technology and give greater autonomy to local communities, as well as protect the countryside.

I move amendment S1M-2635.1, to leave out from "to stimulate" to end and insert:

"to note that the creation of employment opportunities in renewable energy products and recycling industries will require the creation of a broader skills base, and finally notes the need to develop in Scotland and the UK the technology to meet the growing demand for renewable energy, recycling and recycled products."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The debate has already proved to be worth while. Robin Harper's decision—in contrast to that of Tommy Sheridan in today's earlier debates—to have a lengthy debate on the important matter of environmentally sustainable employment and recycling has been successful.

Robin Harper's contribution to the debate will have influence beyond the outcome of the vote at the end of today's proceedings, whatever that outcome is. I congratulate him on his motion and the various issues that it raises. I also say to him that he betrays tell-tale signs of his former Liberal credentials, not only in the worthiness of his motion, but in its lengthy and convoluted prose. He must be aiming at a mention in "The Guinness Book of Records" for the longest sentence.

A sustainable environmental policy is of enormous and growing importance. There is now wide acknowledgement that part of sustainability is sustainable jobs and that radical environmental policy can create a lot of jobs. Acknowledgement is one thing; public policies that put sustainability at the heart of government are another. In Britain and Scotland, we have a long way to go.

Ross Finnie inherited the environment brief at a time when he was burdened with the foot-and-mouth disease crisis and the various other rural issues that make the Liberal Democrats' group meetings so enjoyable for urban members. Ross Finnie is doing a lot to equip his department to tackle the environmental challenge and the new First Minister has also undertaken to give a new urgency to something that has to be applied not just in the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department, but throughout the Government as a whole.

We must put effective policy drivers in place to deliver challenging targets for organic farming, recycling, harnessing natural energy sources, energy efficiency, waste and packaging. I do not know whether Robin Harper's targets are realistic; that is a an expert issue into which we need more insight. We have a national waste strategy for Scotland and we are declaring 11 area waste plans. It is about time too.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does Robert Brown agree that, as state after state in the United States has managed to surpass targets of 30 per cent recycling of waste within eight to 10 years and New Zealand has achieved a target of 30 per cent within six years, it is only sensible to suggest that we could do the same? There is no essential difference between our economy and those economies.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

My point was not about the desirability of setting effective and challenging targets; it was about whether the targets in the motion are the right ones and whether they should be greater or smaller. That requires more expertise than I have to offer.

In Scotland, we produce 16 million tonnes of waste a year. With 10 tonnes of resources, we create a tonne of so-called product. Two million tonnes of the 16 million tonnes are domestic waste, of which 80 per cent is recyclable. We recycle, as I think Robin Harper mentioned, 6.6 per cent, which is one of the worst records in Europe.

The area waste plans have no national targets to work towards and are, in essence, voluntary for local authorities. Even worse, local authorities are tying themselves into unsustainable policies, with which they will be stuck for years. Aberdeen City Council, for example, has signed a 25-year contract with a private company of which the main component is the production of a large incinerator.

Such a strategy gets the jobs potential the wrong way round. A study by Friends of the Earth identified that, per million tonnes, landfill creates 40 to 60 jobs; incineration creates 100 to 290 jobs; composting creates 200 to 300 jobs; and recycling creates 400 to 590 jobs. Good environmental policy is also good employment policy, but local authorities have missed that challenge throughout Scotland. The performance of Glasgow City Council, which recycles 2.4 per cent of its waste, or North Lanarkshire Council, which recycles 1.8 per cent of its waste, is quite simply lamentable. How can they be so far behind Dundee City Council, which manages to achieve a recycling level of 8.6 per cent?

Incineration is a bad way of dealing with rubbish. It emits heavy metals, dioxins and acid gases into the atmosphere. That damages human health as well as the environment. Estimates suggest that incineration leaves 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the volume of the original compacted unburnt waste, which contains some nasty substances.

We must take recycling seriously and use the levers of public policy to support, encourage and require it. Recycling creates permanent jobs and has the potential to create more. The Scottish Executive cannot create the jobs, but it can do a good bit to create the potential.

We are at something of a pivotal point. I hope that the minister will tell members when he sums up that the momentum is growing and that the opportunities that Lewis Macdonald mentioned in his somewhat underwhelming speech are being seized with both hands by Parliament, the Executive and Scotland.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I will try not to underwhelm my colleagues. I will start, as all members have done, by stating that, although the motion is an Opposition motion, I welcome the debate as useful and timely. Many of us also have a great deal of sympathy with the general thrust of the motion but, like me, disagree about how it should be translated into policy commitments.

On the surface, there is a lot of support among politicians and the general public for the principle of sustainable development. However, we also know that, when push comes to shove, that support can be little more than lip service. People are often frightened that support for environmentalism could threaten their economic prosperity. Many of us are happy to be a little green, but not at the expense of our well-being. Rather than addressing that concern, the motion exacerbates it. It is full of uncosted commitments. It is perhaps radical, but it is definitely unrealistic.

The only way to deliver sustainable development is to take people with us and to show that support for the environment can mean more jobs, not fewer, and that it can lead to greater prosperity, not less. We in the Labour party learned the hard way that, to be trusted to deliver social justice, we have to be trusted to deliver on the economy. The economic stability that we have now achieved and the reduction in unemployment that that has meant would be undermined if we were to go down the route that Robin Harper suggests.

I said that the debate is timely. Later this year, the world summit on sustainable development will take place in Johannesburg. Our record will be put to the test there. I also know that many of my Labour colleagues will recently have seen the Socialist Environment Resources Association pamphlet on sustainable jobs, which I welcome for the emphasis that it places on making sustainable development a political priority. I am sure that many more members will quote from that pamphlet.

I welcome the Executive's reinvigorated commitment to sustainable development. I am particularly pleased that the First Minister has joined the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland—I do not know whether that is a direct result of some of my questions on the issue. In the past, much of the Government's good work has been undermined by ambiguity and the lack of a clear message from the centre. Perhaps the First Minister will take his cue from another written question that I submitted and will lead our delegation to the world summit in Johannesburg.

Although I sympathise with many of the policies that are detailed in Robin Harper's motion, I feel that it overemphasises the need for sustainability at the expense of development. People must be able to develop while not abusing or overusing the world's physical resources. I will give an example from the developing world. In rural areas in the Philippines, people lived sustainably, if not in luxury, for generations. They grew what they needed and enjoyed a measure of independence and autonomy. When the multinational companies came along, they bribed the people to part with the land—to which they had no formal titles—and planted thousands of acres of bananas and pineapples. The corporations turned people into wage earners with no choice but to work for the corporations at the rate that they chose to pay and under the working conditions that they chose to apply. That is the opposite of sustainable development. I do not claim that people do not have the right to progress and to try to better themselves, but that must happen in a just and sustainable manner and with respect for democracy.

We do not have to look abroad for examples of sustainable jobs or excellent initiatives. The warm deal is probably the best known of such initiatives in this country. It shows that it is possible to create thousands of jobs and simultaneously tackle fuel poverty and ill health. It improves the lives of many pensioners, while keeping money in their pockets.

My final point is on renewable energy and the sustainable jobs that result from our commitment to it. This week, Scottish Power submitted plans to build the biggest wind farm in Britain, in my constituency of Eastwood. That investment comes because of our Government's commitment to renewable energy. The plans will help us to meet our targets of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and will benefit the national and local economy by providing jobs. The turbines for the wind farm will almost certainly come from the Vestas plant in Campbeltown, which provides 150 jobs in a remote rural area.

As Sylvia Jackson mentioned, we can do more. Scottish Enterprise is seeking to highlight renewable energy to Scottish companies and to encourage them to invest in what is a growth industry. We have come a long way since our reliance on heavy, smoke stack industries with mass low-paid and disempowered work forces. The future lies in building a sustainable, knowledge-based economy and work is well under way.

Robin Harper's motion is commendable in some respects, but it would risk much of the work that has been done. I urge members to support the minister's amendment.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

It has been mentioned that some people pay lip service to environmental principles. I agree—we need positive, practical action. The Accounts Commission report entitled "Environmental services: Comparing the performance of Scottish Councils" reveals Scotland's poor recycling record. In 1999-2000, 5 per cent of household waste was recycled, but 93 per cent was dumped as landfill. Only six councils reported a recycling rate of more than 10 per cent of household waste. I am delighted that SNP-controlled Angus Council was one of them and has one of Scotland's best recycling rates. In one Angus initiative—the Angus community recycling opportunities project—a trainer leads new deal trainees in all types of recycling work, such as servicing community glass and can banks, bailing of cans, collection and shredding of quality paper and refurbishing and adding value to articles such as bicycles and furniture. That practical work provides employment and a valuable community service.

Recycling creates more jobs than other types of waste disposal. For every million tonnes of waste that are processed in New York, landfill produces up to 60 jobs, whereas recycling creates up to 590 jobs. The UK Government estimates that the 30 per cent recycling target by 2010 could create 45,000 skilled and unskilled jobs. We should all aim for that target.

The clear message is that recycling is better for the environment and for creating employment. Up to 80 per cent of household waste can be recycled. There is huge potential, but no Scottish local authority has reached the Government's 2000 target of recycling 25 per cent of household waste. That is simply not good enough.

Holland and Austria have overall recycling rates of more than 40 per cent, compared with Scotland's pitiful 6.6 per cent. A practical job of work has to be done, with a great reward at the end of it, if the Government manages to achieve the target. There is no reason why, by implementing changes and examples of best practice from elsewhere in Europe, Scotland cannot match the best in Europe.

Last July, the Scottish Government launched its £1 million "do a little - change a lot" campaign to raise awareness of what we can all do to protect the environment. Doing little sums up the Scottish Executive's environmental policy. It is time for a more dedicated and radical approach. By expanding recycling facilities such as kerbside collection and having a comprehensive education and advertising programme, Scotland could shed its shameful recycling record and create much-needed employment.

Good, sustainable environmental practice must start in the hearts and minds of every individual citizen, with each citizen voluntarily shaping an attitude of mind that looks to the public good and a better environment for all. With a people freely persuaded of the benefits of such a system, the best is achievable for Scotland. That is the way it should be.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am particularly interested in creating sustainable employment in any way possible. I recently supported Alasdair Morrison's debate on wind energy. I pointed out the huge significance of the new wind farm turbine manufacturing plant at Machrihanish, both for its benefit to local employment in Kintyre and because of the technology transfer to Scotland from the Danes, who are world leaders in the field. I supported the concept of the enormous wind farm project on Lewis, with its implications for jobs in the Arnish yard, and suggested that similar projects should be initiated in other parts of Scotland, with the important provisos that every possible precaution should be taken to avoid noise and visual pollution and that the views of local people should be listened to.

For those projects to go ahead, it will be necessary to substantially improve the grid, so that the electricity can be carried to where it is needed. That would provide more employment. Significant local projects will be windfalls from wind farm projects, which will in themselves create extra local employment. The Executive must introduce a fast-track planning system so that applications can be more speedily processed. Individuals have been wrestling with applications for seven or eight years. That is hopeless if the Executive is to meet its targets by 2010.

I applaud the creation of small hydro schemes—provided that they do not block the passage of migratory fish—as the financial benefit will again bring more income and thus more employment to remote rural areas. People involved in hydro schemes smile when it rains.

I will now focus on recycling. According to Audit Scotland, every Scottish council failed to meet the Government recycling targets, but there is not a council in Scotland that would not trumpet recycling in evangelical terms if they were given the funding. I have one thing to say to the Executive, which sets the targets: no targets without markets. It is unfair of the Executive to snipe at councils. Recycling at any cost is not a sound policy. No target figure should be set by this or any other Parliament until there is a full economic and environmental rationale for achieving such a target. Currently, especially in the Highlands and Islands, there is a lack of reliable, sustainable and expanding markets to pass or sell collected materials to. In other words, the councils can easily afford to collect the rubbish but they cannot sell it.

Two institutions—Remade, which is based in Scotland, and the Waste and Resources Action Programme, which is UK-based—are meant to identify markets, but I have been told that that is not happening. Remade and WRAP should be given the task of identifying the precise way in which targets can be met. Councils in the Highlands suffer extra costs because of the long hauls to transport collected materials outwith their areas. New incentives are needed to encourage local production of goods from waste, which would also achieve Robin Harper's target of extra employment.

It is stupid to put all our eggs in one basket. We should not exclude technologies by making presumptions against incinerators and waste-to-energy plants. We should consider the policies of such countries as Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria, which lead the European field in waste management. Those countries use every means at their disposal to manage their waste and we should do the same.

It is essential for Government and local councils to work hand in hand. Orkney Islands Council's record of recycling 20 per cent of waste is commendable and Argyll and Bute Council's subsidised home composting scheme, which was advertised by leaflet drop, has been impressive. The council sold 3,500 home composters, which equates to one each to 10 per cent of all households. Thanks to its pollution prevention and control arrangement with Shanks, the council is well ahead on its targets. However, the council is faced with the expense of having to lift 1,200 scrap cars each year. Those are not counted as household waste because the nearest scrapyard is in Helensburgh.

To improve local marine environments and coastal employment, we need profitable aquaculture industries in our sea lochs to co-exist with wild fisheries. Sea lochs should play a big part in future employment in diverse aquacultures. If fish farming is profitable, conservation is far more likely to fall into place.

Although I share Robin Harper's wish for better public transport, I re-emphasise the fact that the private car is still essential in most of the Highlands and Islands. In that area, any movement of timber and other heavy freight from road to rail or to sea transport is most welcome.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I congratulate Robin Harper on securing the debate and for his thoughtful speech, which raised a number of important issues—so many that it is difficult to address them all in a debate of this length. Perhaps that is why the debate has concentrated on waste plans and recycling. I would not want to disappoint, so I too shall cover that area but I want to mention one or two other matters first. The environment is a topic to which the Parliament has perhaps not given as much attention as it should have, and we should be giving a bit more time to it, with a few more debates on how we can improve on our environmental record.

Robin Harper's bringing together in the motion of the environment and employment is positive. The issues are not, as is often said, in competition; they can be addressed together. The environment is central to employment in conservation, the agri-environment, woodlands schemes and tourism, but we should also be developing other opportunities, such as those that are brought by renewable energy, including research into and the development and manufacturing of renewable energy technologies, energy conservation and community recycling.

The Liberal Democrats are recognised as being at the forefront of environmental policies in the United Kingdom. At the general election in June last year, Friends of the Earth gave the Liberal Democrat manifesto nine out of 10 for its green policies, which was the same rating as Robin Harper's party. I do not think that the SNP or the Tories even registered on the scale.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Iain Smith is lauding the Liberal Democrats as a UK party, but does he consider that the Scottish Liberal Democrats have failed in regard to their 1999 partnership agreement with Labour? The agreement states:

"We will set targets for recycling in public and private sectors".

The Government has not yet set mandatory targets. Will the Scottish Liberal Democrats, within the coalition, be pushing for those targets to be set?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We have put sustainable development at the heart of the Government's policies. It is, rightly, at the heart of all policies and should be considered across the board. We have a Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development, who I believe will help to deliver that policy, although I agree that much more needs to be done to improve the work of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament in that regard. The Parliament and the Executive need to work much more effectively with environmental groups to develop better policies for the future. We need to develop environmentally based support for agriculture, and we require much more support for research and development in renewable energy.

It is important to recognise the work that has been done by industry to develop good environmental practice. The paper industry, for example, has done a great deal to reduce the amount of pollution that is caused by its manufacturing process, and we should ensure that the industry's work is rewarded rather than punished in relation, for example, to water extraction and waste water directives.

On recycling and waste plans, we do not yet have good policies on reduction and reuse, which, in terms of the scale of the waste involved, are more important than recycling. However, we need to do much more on recycling. The recycling record in Scotland is pathetic—I will, perhaps, recycle an old speech.

We used to lead the way in recycling in Scotland in North-East Fife—North-East Fife District Council was, of course, Liberal Democrat controlled. We had campsite paper collections and civic amenity sites, which offered opportunities to recycle glass, cans, plastic and clothing. We had composting schemes; fridges were collected for recycling purposes; battery and oil recycling were being considered; and there were bins for glass from licensed premises. All those schemes contributed towards an effective policy. Unfortunately, the collapse of the recycling market led to many cuts in local government recycling services.

The landfill tax was another issue. If the tax is used as it should be, it can support new policies. However, although areas that did not have kerbside collections could use the revenue that was raised to support such collections, areas that already had kerbside collections could not use the money to continue to support them. The tax should be used to promote the environment, and not simply to put more money in Treasury coffers.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I agree with those other members who have stated that this is a useful and important debate. Sadly, I cannot agree with Robert Brown's criticism of Lewis Macdonald's opening speech, which I thought was a good exposition of the job opportunities that will be available if we grasp them. I believe that Lewis Macdonald focused on all the relevant areas.

Robin Harper's motion rightly

"recognises the potential for new jobs in the sectors of renewable energy ... organic food and ... eco-tourism".

We all appreciate that renewable sources of energy can and will make a vital contribution to combating global warming, and I am delighted by the commitment of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to the domestic development of renewables.

We have a lot to offer in the Highlands and Islands. We have the highest average wind speeds in Europe and some of the best wave and tidal resources. Coupled with that, we have a long track record of renewables development. As far back as the 1890s, monks at Fort Augustus abbey installed an 18kW turbine on a hill burn near the village. That made Fort Augustus one of the first communities in the world to have a supply of hydroelectricity. Some six years later, the Fort William Electric Lighting Company followed the Fort Augustus lead. In the same year, 1896, the world's first large-scale hydroelectric power station started operation at Foyers on Loch Ness-side.

As some members present will recall, 50 years later came the pioneering efforts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Then, the potential of our lochs and rivers was exploited to help bring mains electricity to almost every household in the Highlands and Islands. For the record, the home in which I was brought up, in North Uist, was first to be supplied with electricity in 1970. The inordinate delay was thanks to the lords and lairds who then ran much of the Highlands and Islands through Inverness County Council, one Lord Burton of Dochfour being one of the great men of that era. Lord Burton is still with us, it is good to hear— wittering inanely about our land reform proposals.

Obviously, I am delighted that my constituency is playing a pivotal role in the exploitation of renewable energy. Last month, the chief executives of two blue-chip British companies came to Lewis to announce, with the Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment, a £600 million wind farm development. All three gentlemen supported the proposals, with equal vigour. Not only did they represent the largest inward investment in the Western Isles; they represent what is potentially the largest wind farm development in Europe. I was also delighted when the Executive clearly committed itself to the Arnish yard in my constituency.

As Robin Harper notes in his motion, there is great potential for jobs in the organic production of food. Crofting, a non-intensive form of agriculture, is now recognised across the European Union as a viable and sustainable form of agricultural production. It is sympathetic to the environment and should be rewarding to everyone who is involved in it. Will the minister consider doing more to assist crofters who are involved in the organic production of both vegetables and meat?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

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

The member is in his last minute, Mr Harper. We are running out of time.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am sure that the minister is well aware of the success of the crofters' markets, which ran for the first time last summer in Stornoway and on the island of Benbecula. That has to be a welcome development, but I ask the minister if he will consider further support for the crofters who are involved in such production, further assistance for crofting townships and advice on soil husbandry and how to access markets. It is important that the minister uses his good offices to ensure that the Soil Association becomes less cumbersome and more accessible.

It is regrettable that Robin Harper's motion does not recognise what has been achieved since 1997 at UK level or since 1999 in Scotland by Labour in partnership with the Liberal Democrats. I urge members to support the Executive's amendment.

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

We have time for brief speeches from Colin Campbell and John Farquhar Munro.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

My green credentials are very modest—my bottles and newspapers go to Renfrewshire Council's facility in Bridge of Weir. Renfrewshire Council provides glass and paper recycling facilities and pays a paper recycling company to remove the paper. In Elderslie, the council is running a pilot scheme that provides recycling boxes into which cans and plastic can be put. In Bridge of Weir, Brookfield and parts of Ralston in Renfrewshire, the council is collecting and composting garden waste, along with shredded Christmas trees, to produce top dressing for its parks and to cover land that is being reinstated. One hundred per cent of what is collected under the pilots is recycled; unfortunately, those pilots are running in only three wards out of 40. Execution is running behind the council's noble intentions.

Listening to Jamie McGrigor's speech, I was reminded of my recent visit to Islay where, with European money, a farmer was shredding all the island's used newspapers and converting them directly into cattle bedding. The material was moved from one shed to another, which is probably an ideal version of recycling.

Robin Harper's comprehensive motion calls for

"a modal shift from private to public transport".

I spoke last week about rail transport and will not expand on what I said then. We all appreciate the benefits and disadvantages of the private car. Car ownership grows daily and the car industry sustains a huge work force that is involved in building, selling, servicing and fuelling vehicles. The tax-earning Government and all the individuals who are involved in the car industry have a huge vested interest in increasing car output. The advertising power of the car and the car fuel industry far outweighs any funding that Government produces to educate people in environmentally sound solutions.

How do we tackle that problem? The environmentally generated jobs may have to be in place before any political party will take the courageous step of really getting to grips with moving people out of private cars and on to public transport. A bus can move 80 people who would otherwise be using 80 cars. A shift from cars to buses would lead to a reduction in the number of people who are employed in manufacturing cars. We all understand the challenge of persuading people to forfeit their personal travelling space, to cut back on unnecessary car journeys and to walk a mile to the bus or train. As yet, the missing ingredient is a sense of commitment and urgency from every citizen in relation to that challenge.

Everything that I have said emphasises the need for a national environmental plan for Scotland, which is the substance of the SNP amendment. I hope that members will support it.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

Anyone who was in doubt about the availability of tidal and wave power in Scotland had only to visit the west Highlands last week to see the tremendous potential and power of those elements.

Scotland's renewables resources are the very best in Europe. We have a constant tidal, wave and wind resource. Surprisingly, most of the development in this area is undertaken in Denmark, where 18,000 people are employed in wind turbine manufacture alone. That is more people than are employed in the entire UK coal industry. If we can develop wind, wave and tidal technologies, the prospects for employment in Scotland are good.

Lowering the threshold for renewables obligation certificates to units of 1kWh would be an extremely useful way of creating jobs in smaller communities. Smaller projects would have the advantage of creating and dispersing a large number of new jobs throughout the rural economy. A secure, cheap energy supply for the future would be created, run and managed closer to the source.

The Executive needs to send a clear message to the developers of small renewables schemes of all kinds—biomass schemes, methane recovery schemes, small hydro schemes, solar cell schemes, and wind, wave and biofuel schemes—that they will receive maximum encouragement through facilitated capital funding from lottery grants, landfill grants and the renewables obligation Scotland scheme, and under local authority planning guidelines. Developers need all the help that the Executive can provide from those or other sources.

The Executive must not pass up this opportunity to support an industry that, in the long run, could provide jobs throughout the north of Scotland, perhaps using the oil fabrication yards of Ardersier, Nigg and others. Alasdair Morrison has already mentioned Arnish. We have all the required skills and experience of designing and building for the hostile conditions of the North sea. That means that we have the research and expertise to become world leaders in wind, tidal and wave power generation. The possibility of providing ourselves with a sustainable green power supply, supporting a variety of jobs, is within our grasp.

I suggest that we harness the elements to our mutual advantage and demonstrate that we are prepared to put Scotland at the forefront of this exciting development. All we need is a crucial financial push forward. The Executive and the Westminster Government must give a firm commitment to making available capital backing for the projects to which I referred, as well as for some of the vital new infrastructure developments attached to those. It is in their hands. Time will tell whether their commitment is real and sustained.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Like other members, I welcome today's debate, which has been of high quality. That does not mean that I agree with all the points that have been made. However, it is clear to me that members have done their research and thought about how the issues that we are debating affect their communities.

Robin Harper has proposed a huge topic for this annual Scottish Green Party debate. In my speech, I would like to acknowledge how far we have come and to flag up some of the key areas in which we need to go much further.

We in the Labour party have come a very long way in a very short time. If we go back to the party's roots, we find that it has always been interested in people's working and living environment. That concern has driven the Labour and trade union movements since their very early days. However, only in the past decade, since the Rio conference, have we directly linked our commitment to the environment to our economic ambitions.

Ken Macintosh mentioned the superb pamphlet by the Socialist Environment and Resources Association, Labour's environmental pressure group, on the opportunities that we need to grasp in Scotland. In 1997, and again in 1999, Labour committed itself to greening government; we can now see the benefits of the work that is being done in the coalition coming through in Scotland. Big investment is being made in renewable sources of energy. Today's debate is about not whether we are in favour of renewables, but whether those constituencies that could accommodate renewables schemes have them; in Edinburgh Central, we will pass on those.

The standards of energy performance that are required in our building regulations have been increased to bring us further into line with the northern European countries, but we need to do more in that area. In the next round of changes, we may want to consider photovoltaic technology. We are not yet quite ready for the mass application of that technology, but in very few years we should be.

Lewis Macdonald described the massive shift that we have begun to make in transport policy. We are seeking long-term investment and a better balance in how money is spent. Investment is being made in safer streets, safer routes to school, walking, cycling, buses and trains. We need to ensure that we cater not just for longer trips, but for short trips, too.

Almost everyone who has spoken mentioned the national waste strategy, which local authorities are beginning to implement. Robin Harper is absolutely right to say that we are at the bottom of the European league table on waste and that that has to change. That means making some difficult changes, such as reducing the amount of waste that we produce in the first place—few members have spoken about that this morning—and making maximum use of recycling and composting. The Parliament should welcome the first two area waste plans, which emphasise recycling and composting. Recycling and composting offer the most potential for job creation and provide opportunities for local companies.

While incineration is likely to be part of the solution to our waste problem, it is vital that it is not seen as an easy short-term replacement for our dreadful reliance on landfill. That is why we need to promote recycling and learn from pilot schemes, such as those in Edinburgh, which have shown that people will act sensibly if we make it easy for them to do that. That means providing local access to recycling facilities.

There is much in Robin Harper's motion with which we could concur, so I am a bit disappointed that the Executive's amendment leaves out the motion's first proposition, on which we could all have agreed. However, the test is what happens in Government. Since Labour came to power in 1997, there have been huge shifts in UK and in Scottish Government policy.

Fiona McLeod's suggestion that our waste problems stem from the fact that Scotland is part of the UK is laughable. The fact that Germany, Denmark and Sweden have made huge progress has much more to do with the political composition of their Governments. In the debate, we should be positive about what we have achieved instead of using the opportunity to be negative all the time. We need to tell the non-governmental organisations, such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF, that we take them seriously and that we are making progress.

We have an awful lot more to do. The report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution stated that we need to cut our CO2 emissions by 60 per cent within the next 50 years. That is a huge challenge. I believe that we have made the right first steps in Government. We need to welcome what the Executive has done. We need to ensure that sustainable development hits the whole of the Executive and does not simply focus on the environment. That is what sustainable development is all about and that is why I support the Executive amendment.

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

I call Keith Harding to wind up for the Scottish Conservatives.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. I too welcome the opportunity to contribute to it.

The problems of environmental improvement and recycling often fall to Scotland's local authorities to resolve. Many local authorities have taken steps to encourage recycling, but often there are considerable difficulties in their path. The greatest problem is that, despite the landfill tax, sending material to landfill is often easier on the councils' restricted budgets than recycling. Considerable costs can be involved in separate doorstep collection of recyclables, especially given Scotland's sparse population. There are also problems if the value of the recyclable material is low or if it has a negative value. However, many councils should, and could, do better than they do at present.

The real problem is funding. It is time that the landfill tax was used much more proactively to fund councils to promote more recycling schemes. For a start, we need to change the culture in our councils and in the Scottish Executive. Much though ministers may protest, Government at all levels has a duty to reduce the number of glossy brochures that are produced. In view of what Sarah Boyack has just said, I trust that she would support such an initiative. Such a move would mean much less waste. From the parliamentary questions that I have asked, I know that the costs of producing such publications are considerable. The money that was saved could be diverted to schemes to encourage recycling.

Ultimately, if we are to do better, we need more markets for recyclable material. I believe that there are new markets. We need to encourage Scots entrepreneurs and inventors to harness our natural resources and skills to exploit them. Let me quote from the briefing paper that WWF helpfully provided for today's debate:

"The natural resources of Scotland - and the potential for industrial development that is environmentally sound - offer the key to a successful and dynamic economy. Further, in many areas such as energy, forestry, agriculture, fisheries, waste management and transport - recovery of depleted or damaged resources together with responsible stewardship and investment in new opportunities could lead to increased productivity, growth in employment and job security."

Indeed, there is great potential for recycling to be increased and developed to create employment. Today we have heard from various members about different and successful initiatives throughout Scotland. If we make better use of our financial resources, and if the Chancellor frees up some of the proceeds from the landfill tax, we can encourage more Scots to take up the challenge and start up the enterprises that will have a growing future in protecting our environment and increasing employment.

I support John Scott's amendment.

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

Excellent. We have picked up the bit of time that I was looking for. I call Adam Ingram to wind up for the SNP.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

At the core of Robin Harper's motion is the simple message that if we are to build a society and a world in which the standard of living and the quality of life can be improved for all, we can no longer misuse finite natural resources in unsustainable consumption.

If I may borrow a concept from welfare economics, we are very far from a Pareto optimum—making everyone better off, without making anyone worse off, by moving down the road of sustainable development. It will pay us all to think globally and act locally, to use the catchphrase.

Robin Harper's motion is certainly ambitious but, given the level of cross-party support for most if not all of its targets and aspirations, is there any good reason for us as a nation not to take up its challenge? A national environment plan, as the SNP advocates, is required. We can lead the world in this form of economic development—we have done so before. More than 200 years ago, this city and country developed the philosophy of economic rationality; we were at the forefront of the industrial revolution, which changed the world beyond recognition in the century that followed.

In resource terms, we are a fabulously wealthy country. I am not referring to our reserves of fossil fuels but rather to our sources of renewable energy—the wind, water and wave power that Alasdair Morrison mentioned earlier. As John Farquhar Munro suggested, marry those sources of energy to our expertise in engineering and offshore technology and we could and should make rapid progress to shrug off our current nuclear dependency.

Although I acknowledge the steps that the Executive has taken in the direction of renewable energy, we must get rid of the timidity and we must strengthen the political will to move forward faster. Clearly, such developments would create jobs in both the construction and the operational phases and would reach parts of the country where employment opportunities have been thin on the ground.

As for energy efficiency, for the life of me I cannot understand why, given the similarities in our climates, we have not adopted the Scandinavian approach to insulation and building standards long before now. In this area—as in so many others—the British way has not been best for Scotland.

As many members have said, on the key problem of waste management Scotland trails a long way behind best practice elsewhere. We are limping along at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, throwing most of our waste into landfill. Given the failure of voluntary codes, mandatory targets are clearly required. Although it is important that a 30 per cent recycling target be achieved, how it is achieved will also be important. Robert Brown spoke about the problems involved with incineration.

I do not want to see huge waste management facilities, to which waste is transported from all over the country for treatment and disposal, and the carrot of local jobs being dangled in front of planning authorities in economically disadvantaged areas. Such proposals are in the pipeline for Killoch in East Ayrshire and Westfield in Fife. They seem to me to be designed to gain control of the waste stream rather than to minimise disposal to landfill or by burning. They may represent a quick fix for many councils but the receiving communities will be further blighted. When it comes to waste management, the discipline of the proximity principle must obtain to ensure the achievement of best practice.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

This has been a very worthwhile debate and I congratulate Robin Harper. As others have suggested, he is the only person who can get something like two thirds of his manifesto printed on the business bulletin. That is a significant achievement.

In his opening remarks, Robin Harper focused on waste—a topic that was discussed by almost every speaker—and on renewables. I would like to tackle him on some of the points he made. I would have been happy to agree with much of the sentiment in his motion, but I regret the slight fixation with targets and I was surprised at his condemnation of having local strategies. Perhaps he did not mean to, but he seemed to suggest condemnation of local area waste plans.

The Executive is totally committed to tackling the problem that many members identified. Almost everyone quoted the Audit Scotland figures, which are not in dispute. The issue is what on earth we do about them. We have a lamentable record and, regrettably, in the years before the Parliament—I hope it has not been in the past two years—we rushed to the cheap option of landfill. Landfill was the simple solution. That is why we are taking a bottom-up approach and creating a national waste strategy for Scotland and 11 area waste plans. We are well advanced on those plans and have been encouraged by the response of local authorities in trying to develop plans that focus attention.

The area plans will be brought together to create a national plan, which will require each area to demonstrate that it is employing the best practicable environmental solution. In answer to a point raised by Fiona McLeod, I can say that those in the north, in Ayrshire and elsewhere who want to put the case for incineration will have to demonstrate—before the plans are adopted—that incineration is the only available and best practical solution. There is no question of our sitting back and simply accepting that as a solution.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the minister comment on the £50.4 million strategic waste fund, which works out at about £1.5 million for each area waste plan each year over three years? Is that enough to encourage those areas to move away from the initially cheap quick-fix solution provided by incineration?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The first point that I want to make—to Robin Harper—is that we are totally committed to tackling the problem. The second point is that there is only one published target, which is to reduce biodegradable municipal waste by something in the order of 25 per cent. I do not regard that as good enough, but I cannot set further targets until I have a plan in place. We cannot say, suddenly, that we are going to double, treble or quadruple the amount of recycling if we do not know how we are going to do it. The whole purpose of the national waste strategy is to enable us to find that out. In other words, the next stage is to start looking at elements in waste disposal and, when we know that we have the capacity and ability, to move towards more definable targets, such as those that members have called for.

The £50.4 million over three years is a reasonable start. Much is being done. Local authorities recognise that. I am not saying that it is enough—we can always argue that point—but I think that that valuable contribution shows the Executive's commitment to stimulating a debate about a national waste strategy.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I must move on to talk about renewables—although I want to take up a point that Jamie McGrigor raised about recycling targets. There is a question about stimulating the market; there is no doubt that WRAP has a lot to do in trying to answer that question.

Robin Harper and Adam Ingram raised a question about building standards, but I think that the point was incorrect. The regulation on building standards that we have just promulgated, which came into force in March, should improve the thermal performance of new construction by between 25 and 30 per cent. The Executive is taking that issue seriously across its portfolio interests.

Alasdair Morrison and other members based in the north, who have experience in such projects, mentioned renewables. We are wholly committed to that. Issues about consuming organic purchases were raised. I am happy to say to Alasdair Morrison that I am conscious of the need to get the Soil Association and others to work with the Executive in providing advice.

Fiona McLeod asked what the ministerial group on sustainable development has done. The policy that has moved much freight off roads and on to rail is a direct result of the Executive's commitment to sustainability. The introduction of building regulations, embedding structural funding in sustainable development, the national waste strategy and our commitment to renewables development are all projects that have been pushed forward.

We must use our resources better and we must use less of them. We must put the environment and sustainable development at the heart of the Government's programme. That is what we are doing.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I express my heartfelt thanks to all members in all parties who have contributed to the debate. Much has been said that is encouraging and that I can take to heart.

I will begin by addressing the Executive's response. I was disappointed that the Executive's amendment seeks to wipe out my entire motion and substitute for it a self-congratulatory set of platitudes on how well the Executive is doing at the moment and how well it hopes to do in the future. Not until the Executive's winding-up did it confront the centre of the environmental argument, which is the setting of targets. It may be a chicken-and-egg argument, but if a target is set, it is something by which one can measure success. If a target is set, one can go back to an area waste strategy and say, "The strategy will not meet the target. You have to do better." At the moment, there is nothing against which to measure area waste strategies.

I will lay to rest a misconception. I am not against area waste strategies, but they do not go down far enough. They do not go down to community recycling, where most of the recycling in Scotland is happening at the moment. The people who really know something about it have not been involved in the discussions at the level that they should have been. That is another point that the Executive did not address. It has not addressed in detail any of the advantages of setting targets for the areas that I have proposed; they have simply dismissed them. The Executive has not won the argument.

I welcome Sarah Boyack's speech. I am sure that she was invited to respond to disarm me. She is a member of SERA—the Socialist Environment and Resources Association. In one its pamphlets that I read she called for 25 per cent renewables by 2015. I welcome that. Freed from the shackles of ministerial responsibility she can express herself in the way that she likes.

Alasdair Morrison did not address the real problem in farming, which is the fact that the Executive will not introduce tapering, which would mean that small farms and crofters would get their share of the money that is available for support. He was a little bit coy. I recommend that he read the same SERA pamphlet that Kenny Macintosh quoted from, and the contribution by Hugh Raven on organic farming. Kenny Macintosh must have been writing his speech during the second half of my speech, because my fundamental point was that we should start at the bottom and not hand everything over to big business.

That brings me to John Scott's point about giving money to big business so that it can train more people. It may surprise him to know that Scottish Enterprise has already identified more than 70 firms that have the technical expertise to contribute to the wind energy industry.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Robin Harper may have misheard me. The point of my speech was to encourage the market to take up the opportunities that undoubtedly exist, not to give money to big business. My position is that the situation should be entirely market led.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I take John Scott's point and many of the other points that he made, which were most welcome.

I have a quotation from a book on making money from waste that addresses what John Scott and Kenny Macintosh said. It states that "the consolidation of power", which means handing it to big business,

"can easily run into conflict with innovation and innovators. Innovation from below will become halted when it becomes successful enough to threaten existing structures of authority ... While large scale technologies provide administrative solutions to those at the centre, they create real problems at the base."

I also thank Robert Brown for his contribution. He said that 500 collection jobs per million tonnes will be created. I add that a further 2,000 jobs will be created in remanufacturing.

One of the chicken-and-egg arguments is that we cannot recycle until there is a market and we cannot set up a market until we have the recycled material. The problem has been solved all over the United States, in Europe and in New Zealand. The answer is to bring the two projects along together over a period of eight years. Can we not remember that it is being done elsewhere?

Members said that I am being negative. I do not think that there is anything negative in my motion. My motion is positive. I am saying that the environment is not a problem; it is an opportunity to be grasped as soon as possible.

I have notes on almost everyone else's speech, but I am sorry that there will not be time to mention them. The Executive says that the environment is at the heart of all its policies. That heart is beating a little bit faintly. I prescribe a diet and some exercise—a diet of the best available information on the environment and recycling and an exercise of the mind to ensure that we get the right solution.

I have already moved my motion and wish to indicate that I am happy to accept the SNP motion.

Business Motion

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

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-2634, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees the following programme of business— Wednesday 30 January 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill followed by Debate on Adoption and Children Bill - UK Legislation followed by Executive Motion in respect of UK Legislation followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2302 Dr Sylvia Jackson: Introduction of a Pollution Inventory Thursday 31 January 2002

9.30 am Stage 1 Debate on the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman Bill followed by Procedures Committee Debate on its 5th Report 2001 (Changes to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament) and 1st Report 2002 (Changes to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament)

followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Debate on the Local Government Finance Order followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-2528 by Mr Kenneth Gibson: Young Runaways Wednesday 6 February 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 3 Debate on the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 7 February 2002

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Stage 1 Debate on the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business.— [Euan Robson.]

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

Fiona Hyslop has indicated that she wishes to speak against the motion and has up to five minutes to do so.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I speak against the motion with some regret, but I want to share with the chamber my anxiety and disquiet at what I see as a dumbing down—it will be evident to members who look at the business motion—of some of our procedures and the debates we are having in the Parliament.

We will spend as much as an hour and a half debating the abolition of fur farming, which is hardly the most contentious issue facing the people of Scotland, whereas a debate on the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) (Scotland) Bill, which is about the abolition of cronyism, will not receive a sufficient amount of time.

Although we must debate bills that have been approved as part of the Parliament's legislative programme, we are spending too much time on non-contentious issues—issues that are not the big burning issues that face the people of Scotland. We should spend time debating health, education and transport. Significantly, the only occasions on which ministers debate those issues in the Parliament are during Opposition party debates. There have been Opposition debates on the economy and on transport—which the Scottish National Party secured—and on the environment and council tax, which were debated today.

Over the past few months, the Parliament has not had the opportunity to debate the big issues that we should debate. There is a danger that the Parliament is being dumbed down as a result of spending excessive time on issues that I feel do not reflect public opinion in Scotland. Because of that, I regret to say that the SNP might have to vote against business motions in future.

It is essential for the working of the Parliament that we have consensus in the Parliament and in the Parliamentary Bureau. I made those points in the bureau this week. I make them again in the Parliament. I sincerely hope that in future the SNP will not be put in the position of having to vote against business motions because they do not address the issues that the Parliament should address. I will not force a vote on the business motion, but I want to express my disquiet and concern.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The SNP business manager has not fully understood what will happen next Wednesday afternoon. The business motion clearly states that the Sewel motion will follow debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill. If that debate finishes early, it is perfectly possible that more time might be devoted to the Sewel motion.

The claim that a legislative programme that includes debate on the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill is dumbing down the Parliament beggars belief.

It is important that debates are held on some more minor measures. The measure may be minor, but the prohibition of fur farming is quite important. Anybody with experience of trying to eradicate escaped mink will know how important it is for rural communities that some practices do not continue. Although such measures may not seem particularly important to the vast majority, they are important to groups, and the legislation involved must be passed.

We note what the SNP's business manager says, but the legislative programme must progress. I have no hesitation in commending the motion to the Parliament.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — scottish executive

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is promoting amateur football. (S1O-4516)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I thank Donald Gorrie for his question, which gives me my first opportunity to answer questions at question time.

The Executive promotes and supports football at all levels in Scotland, including amateur football. Generally, that happens through a number of sportscotland initiatives, such as the sports facilities programme, the junior groups programme and the awards for all programme.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Given that a large amount of public money has gone, and is going, into top-level football, will the Executive promise to give more money and support to amateur football? The number of amateur football clubs is falling and clubs have great difficulties with the quality and quantity of football pitches and with the increasing expenses that they must meet.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

If Donald Gorrie has in mind a particular football club that has particular problems, the Executive would be interested to hear more. I assure him that the Executive remains committed to amateur football. He will have noted the First Minister's statement yesterday on Euro 2008, in which he made it clear that, in going for six stadiums, we want additional investment to go into amateur football and into football for young boys and girls in Scottish schools. The Executive's commitment to football at all levels has been made quite clear over the past couple of days.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Will the Executive ensure that both amateur football and professional football benefit from our bid to stage the Euro 2008 championships by stipulating that public investment in football stadiums should be combined with community use of such facilities? Does the minister agree that, whatever preferences some people may have had for a solo bid, it is now absolutely essential that the entire football community in Scotland—and all Scotland's politicians, irrespective of political persuasion—unite behind the joint bid, so that it turns out to be a winner for Scotland and Ireland?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I thank Mr Canavan for his question. I agree entirely with the points that he made. I refer him to the statement that the First Minister made yesterday, which I hope will offer Mr Canavan some reassurance. The First Minister said that he wanted

"part of the bid to present competitive bids for"

the additional stadiums to

"maximise the benefit to ... communities.—[Official Report, 23 January 2002, col 5653.]

Therefore, community benefit will be central to our bid for Euro 2008.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am pleased to hear the minister's support for amateur football. However, I make a plea on behalf of the many women's football teams and their supporters. For far too long, women's football has been the cinderella of the sport. In her discussions with sportscotland, will the minister stress the need to encourage women's football teams? After all, many women followers of the beautiful game are much more knowledgeable than the average male supporter.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I know that Trish Godman was a footballer previously and I realise that the sport is of particular personal interest to her. Although I have never been a good footballer, I, too, have an interest in women's football.

Trish Godman might be aware that specific funding is available from sportscotland for women's football development officers and that women's football is probably the fastest growing sport in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister clarify that such participation will not be mandatory?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I assure Annabel Goldie that neither she nor I will be forced to play football.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether mental health is still a key clinical priority. (S1O-4508)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Mental health is one of the three clinical priorities. The Scottish Executive is strongly committed to implementing the framework for mental health services, to developing mental health services in primary care and community settings and to promoting mental health and well-being as part of the broader health improvement agenda.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer. However, does he accept that that will be cold comfort to the 47 people who have been trapped in the state hospital at Carstairs—some for as long as three years—despite their having been assessed as able to leave? They have been unable to return to their communities because of a lack of appropriate beds and staffing locally. Will he agree to visit Carstairs and to meet the patients concerned? Will he agree to intervene personally to stop that infringement of human rights?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am scheduled to visit Carstairs at the beginning of March. It is clear that there is a problem with people who need more appropriate accommodation in local forensic units.

I am very glad that one such unit opened recently in Edinburgh—the Orchard clinic. We all know the controversies that have surrounded such local forensic units in Glasgow and other parts of the west of Scotland. The important thing is that planning for those local forensic units goes ahead as quickly as possible. That is the solution to the problem. We are strongly committed to that and funding will be provided for it.

I hope that a solution to the case of the individual to which Shona Robison referred can be found soon. I know that work is being done on that case as a matter of urgency.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

What steps is the minister proposing to lessen the correlation between mental health problems and social deprivation?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I was pleased this week to chair the first meeting of an advisory group on the promotion of mental health and well-being. That is an important new part of the health improvement agenda. As part of that, we are considering the wider issues of social justice and social deprivation, which is a broad and exciting new part of the mental health agenda that has not been covered before. Along with the expansion of services in primary care and community settings, it complements the more traditional mental health agenda as embodied in the framework for mental health services.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware of the Scottish Health Advisory Service report, "Review of Mental Health Services in Ayrshire and Arran September 2001", which says that services for mental health in Ayrshire are among the best in Scotland?

Does the minister acknowledge the importance of the Arrol Park Resource Centre in Ayr to the provision of services for mental health, and particularly for people whose health has been profoundly damaged? Will he join me in congratulating the staff and all who are associated with what is happening at Arrol Park?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will certainly join Phil Gallie in congratulating those people and thank him for drawing attention to the centre. I congratulate the staff there and acknowledge the great effort that has been made in Ayrshire. It was not so long ago that Ayrshire was being criticised for not spending enough of its budget on mental health. Ayrshire has made big improvements in mental health because of the work of the mental health and well-being support group and other monitoring arrangements.

I commend the work of the Scottish Health Advisory Service. It does vital inspection work that is critical in improving standards in mental health and other services.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

How would the minister respond to concerns that have been expressed to me to the effect that Executive support for public health and awareness campaigns that are associated with mental health—such as those that he mentioned—although welcome, merely give the illusion that mental health is a priority? However, in practice national health service boards continue to fund mental health services sparingly in comparison with other services?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I accept that there is an historical problem in relation to mental health spending. However, I remind Adam Ingram that expenditure on mental health in the NHS increased by 9 per cent last year.

People will welcome the £4 million over three years from the health improvement fund, which is going toward the new work that I described. That is no threat to the massive amounts of money that are, in comparison, spent in the service sector. I believe that that agenda—which I am sure Adam Ingram supports—including the work on addressing stigma issues on mental health, will be welcomed widely by service users within the mental health system and the wider public.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and what issues were discussed. (S1O-4473)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Officials are in regular contact with DEFRA on a variety of issues. I met Mrs Beckett—the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—on 16 January at a meeting of agricultural ministers at which a range of agricultural matters were discussed.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Can the minister estimate the impact on those discussions of George Lyon's comments? He said:

"Labour want to get rid of 50 per cent of crofters and farmers. Beckett herself"—

I assume that he means Margaret Beckett—

"has made it clear that support to crofters and farmers will be slashed if she gets her way in Europe".

Rather unfortunately, George Lyon went on to say:

"Labour could trigger another Highland Clearance".

Could the minister tell us on behalf of the Lib-Lab Executive whether George Lyon is right?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am sure that Duncan Hamilton recognises that there is a perfectly legitimate place for party-political contests and politicking. However, when I represent the Executive at meetings of agricultural ministers, I represent the Scottish Executive, the Scottish people and the interests of Scottish farming—I do not debate narrow party-political points. The points that I make at such meetings are in the interests of ensuring that there is sustainable agriculture throughout the crofting parts of Scotland and all Scotland.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

When the minister met Margaret Beckett on 16 January, did he take the opportunity to back calls from his party colleagues in Westminster for a full public inquiry into foot-and-mouth disease?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Glasgow airport link and the Glasgow crossrail projects are among its transport priorities. (S1O-4497)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Executive gives high priority to a safer, bigger and better railway network. We have already started work on a detailed analysis of the case for rail links to both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive is looking at options for Glasgow crossrail and we will consider any formal proposals when they are received.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the minister accept that we have had study after study on both projects and that it is entirely unacceptable that passengers to Scotland's largest city cannot travel there—or to other parts of Scotland—by rail from the airport? Will he take more of a leading role and agree to meet British Airports Authority, SPTE, Glasgow City Council, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and other interested bodies to discuss not whether the projects can be done, but how and when they will be carried out?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

It is important to recognise that the studies that have been done on the projects and the studies that are currently under way are essential in identifying which options offer the best value for money. We will pursue those options on the basis of well costed and well-argued cases. We will consider those cases when they are presented and take matters forward from there.

It would not be appropriate for us to act without understanding the choices that are before us. We have made our priority clear, particularly in the strategic plan that was published last week by the Strategic Rail Authority. That plan identifies rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports as being of strategic importance from a UK perspective as well as from a Scottish perspective.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I notice that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning is not here—perhaps her portfolio is as overloaded as the transport infrastructure. Does the deputy minister agree that the Government has failed in respect of the lack of progress on the airport direct link and the crossrail link? Will the Government find the time to ensure that progress is made toward implementation of those vital long-awaited schemes?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We will find the parliamentary time that is required to make progress on such schemes when they come in—I assume that that is the essence of Sandra White's question. We have said that they are strategic priorities. We are not prejudging the studies on rail links, which will consider several options in relation to both airports. It would not be right for us to prejudge that work.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware of the considerable anxiety that is shared by bodies such as Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and the Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council, about the fact that no movement is being made in respect of the rail link to Glasgow airport? Does he realise that there will be considerable resentment if, at the end of the day, the project does not go ahead despite the airy-fairy promises that he and previous ministers have given?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am sorry that Mr Aitken takes the view that no progress is being made. We are expecting the consultants' initial report on the rail links to airports in the next few weeks. We expect to receive their final report in the course of the year. We will make rational judgments that are based on the evidence before we make choices about which strategic priorities will deliver the best value for money for the Executive and the best services for passengers throughout Scotland.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of Perth and Kinross Council. (S1O-4476)