Scottish Parliament, 6 November 2003

448 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Introduction

Sustainable Scotland

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-559, in the name of Robin Harper, on sustainable Scotland, and three amendments to the motion.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The Executive's partnership agreement states:

"We want a Scotland that delivers sustainable development; that puts environmental concerns at the heart of public policy and secures environmental justice for all of Scotland's communities."

That is a truly noble ambition, supported by strong pillars, but what does the Executive offer us? A thread.

Members must not misunderstand me: that thread represents the Executive's commitment, and my Green colleagues and I are delighted that the partnership agreement contains even a little green thread. We are delighted that the other parties incorporated more green rhetoric than ever before into their political manifestos, but—and that is a big but—words are not enough. If one good policy is undermined by another policy, we are no further forward and, occasionally, we might even be worse off.

Again and again, the Executive claims that its fence-sitting on tough decisions is dictated by the restrictions of responsible government. Those claims are increasingly being exposed as shorthand for business as usual. That is not good enough. Part of the Greens' job in the Parliament is to act as a conscience, to hold up green commitments to the clear light of day and to demand serious action. Our job is to outline key areas where the reality on the ground varies so widely from the stated public policy that the little green thread is in knots.

The partnership agreement makes a commitment to reach a target of

"40% of Scottish electricity generation ... from renewable sources by 2020".

That commitment is made to address climate change and to meet our commitments under the Kyoto treaty. However, the partnership agreement contains no target for traffic reduction and is saddled with commitments to build more roads, expand airports and encourage air travel, all of which cause climate change. That is a policy contradiction.

Although the Executive supports renewable energy, it has still not ruled out nuclear power stations or waste-to-energy incinerators. What sort of signal does that send to potential investors in renewables? Meanwhile, the first wave machines could come on stream in Portugal, because renewables receive many times more investment there than is available in Scotland. That is another policy contradiction.

On food and health, the Executive has made commitments to local markets, organics and healthy eating. However, our Government is still sitting on the fence in relation to genetically modified crops. Without a GM-free Scotland, the Executive's positive commitments could be undone. In the debate that will follow this one, we will hear that GM threatens the future of both organic and conventional farming. That is another policy contradiction.

On reducing waste, there is a vague commitment to create significant opportunities for new products that are manufactured from waste—but it is just a commitment. However, the 1 per cent target—only 1 per cent—for the reduction in the amount of waste that we produce seems to have been abandoned. That is another policy contradiction.

At the root of the Executive's contradictory approach to sustainability is an obsession with economic growth as a sort of miracle driver for societal well-being. However, to judge progress on gross domestic product alone is to live in a fool's paradise. Even Tony Blair acknowledges that. He has said:

"focusing solely on economic growth risks ignoring the impact—both good and bad—on people and on the environment ... Now ... there is a growing realisation that real progress cannot be measured by money alone ... But in the past ... We have failed to see how our economy, our environment and our society are all one."

The crisis in the fishing industry is a sad testament to the illusion of the benefits of economic growth at any cost.

Some five years ago, the Executive committed to strategic environmental assessment, which was hailed—and we do not demur—as the most important tool to inform decision making. However, the Executive is only now taking action, to meet the deadline for avoiding legal action by the European Union. The minister has said that he will introduce primary legislation on strategic environmental assessment, which is welcome, but there is still no guarantee that it will cover existing strategies and agencies such as the new transport authority. The Executive is like a dinosaur at work: bang it on the head with a good idea and the tail twitches five years later.

So, what should we do about the green thread? Will we get it to pull all these things together? We need a sea change—a fundamental shift in approach and policy away from the inadequate pursuit of growth at any cost towards the goal of sustainability. An independent commission of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy, which includes Sarah Boyack, agrees with that. It says in a robust and clear report that was published this week that neither the Executive nor the Parliament takes the challenge of sustainable development seriously enough and that failing to meet that challenge would be cheating on our children, cheating on ourselves and cheating on our neighbours.

We need a truly green vision—not just a thread, but an entire cloth in which green threads join with each other to form a coherent pattern, each policy is considered in the context of others and there is truly joined-up thinking. To help to achieve that, the status of the Executive's sustainable development unit within government must be improved. We must have a sustainable development strategy and the Parliament should have a sustainable development committee to monitor progress.

We promised our voters that we would be both constructive and challenging in our role as parliamentarians. We are delighted that the coalition parties and others have adopted some of our language but we now ask them to adopt more of our vision. We acknowledge the Executive's apparent commitment to the environment and sustainable development, as outlined in the partnership agreement, and we will track its progress on those issues.

If we have a collective future, we will achieve it only if we grasp the opportunity that is presented by the Executive's start and if sustainability leads economic development, not the other way around.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Executive's intention of placing the environment and sustainable development at the heart of all of its policy making; notes, however, the policy contradictions, including those in A Partnership for a Better Scotland, which indicate that this goal is not likely to be achieved, and therefore calls on the Executive to integrate sustainable development within all of its policy making and organise government to achieve this end.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am grateful to Robin Harper for acknowledging, at least, that the partnership agreement is full of noble ambition— indeed it is, and quite rightly so. The document was published at the outset of the Executive's term in Government and it was right for us to set out a clear and high ambition. I am sorry that he has to be so niggly about the green thread and that he finds it somehow awkward or difficult. I would have expected him to be more generous, and I would have thought that even he might be keen to acknowledge a green thread that has 78 positive commitments on environmental matters.

Nevertheless, the green thread is there and, in speaking to my amendment, I want to make it clear that that green thread links together clear commitments on actions and policy, creating a clear framework within which the Executive will deliver on sustainable development rather than just talk about it. We have priorities and our emphasis is on resource use, energy and travel. We will measure our progress using the sustainable development indicators, many of which have clear targets.

More important, we are committed to action. Action is set out in the introduction to the partnership agreement, which contains the commitment to sustainable development that Robin Harper was kind enough to quote. I hope that he will quote it often. There is concern for sustainable development and also for environmental justice. Those are key priorities, not only for me as Minister for Environment and Rural Development but for every Executive minister and for every department.

Robin Harper mentioned the economy. Let us be clear that the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department must ensure that growth is sustainable. We must grow renewable energy industries—that is important in terms of what will fuel economic growth. We must assess our economic development policies against their impact on the targets that are set in our sustainable development indicators. It is not a question of having a laissez-faire approach to economic development. We will also return vacant and derelict land to productive use.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister explain exactly how trebling air traffic in Scotland is consistent with sustainable development?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Greens should stop saying that the clock should suddenly be turned back and economic development stopped and that they will fly nowhere, travel nowhere and go nowhere and get themselves into the real world. They must understand that improving Scotland's links to Europe via direct routes and reducing pollution at Heathrow will do much more for the environment than waving flags and telling Scotland that its economic growth must come to a sudden end.

There is a wide range of projects and investment in trams in Scotland. Roads have been mentioned. By 2006, 70 per cent of transport spending will be on public transport, which has never been achieved by any previous Administration. I hope that the Scottish Green Party will acknowledge that achievement.

In respect of health, we will require more efficient use of energy in buildings. On education, we are developing curriculum materials to promote environmental awareness. On social justice, we will reduce the number of people in fuel poverty by 30 per cent by 2006.

We will recycle and compost 25 per cent of our municipal waste by 2006. Members should consider examples throughout Europe. They will then find that even the best and most progressive countries—regrettably—still have to have recourse to landfill and incineration.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

No—I am short of time.

In short, the programme is the most ambitious programme for the environment and sustainable development that has ever been prepared by a Government in Scotland. Our next task is to deliver on those commitments. Cabinet ministers will be responsible for delivering on the environmental and sustainable development commitments in their areas. That work will be supervised by the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland, which met yesterday to discuss the programme and tasks. Over the next months, I shall meet each Cabinet minister to examine and assess with them how their programmes are meeting commitments.

We have the political will to deliver on sustainable development and our ambitious programme will be underpinned by our commitment to deliver strategic environmental assessment. We have set out a two-stage process to deliver strategic environmental assessment—again, I am sorry that Robin Harper carps about the matter. We will introduce regulations to implement the European directive by 21 July 2004, which is the due date. Then, we shall introduce an early and comprehensive bill on strategic environmental assessment. Once the bill is enacted, we will repeal the regulations so that there is a single body of law that deals with strategic environmental assessment, which will take things much further than the absolute requirements that are contained in the directive.

There will be two major benefits. First, the quality of decision making will be improved. Assessing the environmental implications of options will ensure that decisions are based on sound evidence and that we understand the consequences of what we are doing. A culture change will result and environmental factors will be considered at the start of policy making rather than being simply an after-thought.

Strategic environmental assessment gives us new opportunities for public involvement, scrutiny and increasing the transparency of public decision making. Therefore, it is at the heart of our drive for environmental justice.

In summary, we have a clear framework for sustainable development, clear priorities and indicators and challenging targets. We have made a commitment to action to make Scotland more sustainable for the benefit of its people.

I move amendment S2M-559.3, to leave out from "intention" to end and insert:

"commitment to a Scotland that delivers sustainable development, puts environmental concerns at the heart of public policy and secures environmental justice for all of Scotland's communities; welcomes the Executive's commitment to introduce Strategic Environmental Assessment for public sector strategies, programmes and plans, and welcomes the demonstration of the commitment to sustainable development in every section of A Partnership for a Better Scotland."

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

A signal that there is an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to make a huge difference in achieving sustainable development is that our standing orders state that any bill that comes before it must have attached to it an assessment of its impact on sustainable development. That is a far cry from what happened in this country a few years ago. Then, the whole of the United Kingdom was referred to as the dirty man of Europe.

Like people in the rest of the UK, Europe and the world, the people of Scotland face key challenges. Nowadays, many folk live in better housing and there are more cars, videos and personal computers. We take more holidays and enjoy more leisure, but such changes have a massive impact on the environment. The challenge must be to reduce demands on the earth's resources, improve all environments and tackle poverty, which is a key objective of any sustainable development strategy.

The SNP agrees that sustainable development must be a thread through absolutely everything that is done and must not be simply a fad for politicians who now and again turn their attention to the issue. We all remember Tony Blair soon after he was elected in 1997 going to Europe surrounded by Cabinet ministers and dictating what should happen to help the environment, then going to New York and speaking to the United Nations. I do not think that many of us remember him doing much to achieve sustainable development since his warm words and such rhetoric.

In September last year, after his visit to the South African summit, the First Minister made a statement to the Parliament on sustainable development. I cannot remember him talking much about sustainable development since then or making further statements to the chamber. The issue does not seem to be particularly high on the Executive's agenda.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Does the member simply have a short memory or is he not interested in reading about what the First Minister does? The First Minister has made important statements, particularly about sustainable development and social justice, and I am surprised that the member has missed them. Perhaps his mind was on other things.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The key for the Executive is to ensure that sustainable development is a priority. There have not been many ministerial statements or comments by the First Minister about sustainable development in the chamber. If the issue is a top priority, we must hear more from ministers so that the Parliament can hold the Executive to account.

We must change the culture of individuals in Scotland, our communities, businesses and, of course, politicians. As other members have said, the key challenge is to marry economic development with sustainable development.

I was interested in the World Wildlife Fund's saying that, because we do not have a proper green jobs strategy in Scotland, we are missing out on 50,000 jobs. I remind members that there are currently around 150,000 unemployed people in Scotland. Unemployment could be cut by one third in Scotland if we got our act together in implementing a green jobs strategy.

We do not want to be churlish. The Parliament and the Executive have made steps forward. Strategic environmental assessment has been mentioned and I hope that it will change the culture of the public sector in Scotland. Much more must be done in respect of renewable energy and the national waste strategy, but at least we are making a start.

However, we must bear in mind the fact that the impetus for many changes has come from the European Union rather than from Executive ministers; we are simply responding to directives that must be implemented. That said, it is important to continue to emphasise reducing the use of materials and reusing and recycling materials in Scotland.

People must change. That means that education must be the key in chasing sustainable development. I have a leaflet by the North of Scotland Sustainable Development Awareness Campaign. Most people in Scotland do not know what is in such leaflets. Even the New Internationalist magazine—which not many people read; only a few middle-class people in Scotland read it—has produced an excellent poster that shows a 20-step programme to kick habits and improve people's impact on the environment. We must ensure that the people of Scotland are aware of all the steps that they can take.

The Executive's record is not perfect. Robin Harper referred to an issue that was in the press yesterday. A draft independent report by the Scottish centre for public policy commission said about sustainable development that the Executive is cheating on our children, cheating on our neighbours and cheating on ourselves.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Our colleague Robin Harper was gracious enough to amend his speech in the light of a correction that I gave in respect of the exact quotation from the document. I would be delighted to give the member a copy of that correction afterwards. The document does not refer only to the Executive—Parliament and wider society were also discussed. There is collective responsibility. That was the whole point of the paragraph.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will wait and see what the report says, but I gave a direct quote.

The key point that the SNP wants to make is that many key drivers in achieving sustainable development are reserved to Westminster. Many transport issues—which we must get right if we want to address sustainable development—are reserved to Westminster, as are energy and nuclear power issues. Fiscal policy and the carrot-and-stick approach to make people change their behaviour are also reserved to Westminster.

Robin Harper said that if one good policy is undermined by bad policies elsewhere, we will lose its benefits. That is true. If we are to make a real difference, we need cross-cutting legislative powers. There is no point in adopting the best policies that we can in Scotland only to be undermined by what is happening in London. That is why this country needs full financial independence so that we can make a real difference. Scotland is a perfect size—we simply need the tools to make a difference.

I move amendment S2M-559.1, to insert at end:

"and recognises that, by gaining the powers enjoyed by other independent member states of the EU, the Parliament's efforts to achieve sustainable development will be greatly enhanced as this will provide legislative powers over matters currently reserved to Her Majesty's Government that influence sustainable development, the ability to use fiscal measures and direct representation on international bodies dedicated to protecting the environment".

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Conservatives have always supported a sustainable development policy that is aimed at empowering the individual and increasing choice, while reducing the power of the bureaucracies. However, our priority for a sustainable Scotland is not the Greens' centre-down emphasis on arbitrary and often unrealistic targets; rather, it is to offer practical support and encouragement for rural businesses and industries—in particular, the fishing sector, which needs assistance as never before to ensure that fishing communities will have a sustainable future. As Lib Dem minister Tavish Scott put it eloquently earlier this week, what is the point of sustaining Scotland's fish stocks if the communities that have depended on them for generations have disappeared?

It is estimated that 20,000 people in Scotland owe their jobs directly to the fishing industry and that around 48,000 jobs are in some way economically dependent on it—that is twice as many people as were ever employed by the North sea oil industry at its peak. In places such as Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Mallaig, Macduff, Shetland and Pittenweem, fishing is the fabric that binds communities together. The fishing industry underpins other key industries such as tourism and has a massive impact on the local culture and social cohesion. Without a fishing industry, many of those communities will simply die.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The problem is that, because the fish are decreasing in numbers, the industry is not sustainable. Surely, the drive should be to find truly sustainable replacement businesses.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hope to come to that in a moment.

At a time when countries such as Spain and Ireland are still taking advantage of European Union subsidies to build up their fleets, we are sending ours to the breaker's yard.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I will not at the moment. I have a lot to get through.

No one denies the fact that North sea cod stocks are in trouble. There are many reasons for that—probably involving global warming and the migration of cod elsewhere. However, at the same time, we are seeing bigger stocks of haddock in Scottish water than we have seen for 30 years, and herring and other species are abundant. Cod is not a major Scottish species, yet, to stop its being taken as a bycatch, draconian measures have been placed on all Scottish vessels, which could eventually result in the collapse of the whole white-fish fleet.

Ross Finnie will shortly go to this year's EU negotiations. However, if the result of last year's negotiations is anything to go by, our fisherfolk have never been in greater peril.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I cannot. I have a lot to get through.

Local management, with fishermen at the heart of the negotiations, is now essential. After 30 long years of futile negotiation, Conservatives believe that the only possible way forward is withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. That is now the position of the SNP and, this week, we have learned that it is also the position of certain members of the Liberal Democrats—especially those in Shetland, where the issue is a particular hot potato.

Earlier this year, Tavish Scott accused Tories of attempting to con fishermen by advocating withdrawal from the CFP. Now he says that the CFP is not working and that it should be scrapped. Who is conning whom now, Tavish? How does he propose that it should be scrapped? Does Tavish Scott seriously expect other members to behave like turkeys and vote for an early Christmas? I encourage him in his new-found desire to part company with the CFP. Let us hope that he can persuade his Executive ministerial colleagues, such as Ross Finnie, to follow his lead. I agree that it is a distinct possibility that, within a decade, there will be not only no fishing industry left in Shetland, but, with the running down of North sea oil, precious few constituents either.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am delighted to hear that the Tories are opposed to the CFP. Can Ted Brocklebank remind us who took us into the CFP?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes, I am happy to do that. Ted Heath took us into the CFP in 1973. However, he ceded responsibility only out to the 12-mile limit. It was Jim Callaghan's Government, four years later, that ceded responsibility from 12 miles to 200 miles. If we are passing the blame, let us add that.

As far as Scotland is concerned, the CFP has long been a busted flush, and the only way out of the game is to walk away. There is too much at stake for the other players to say that the game is a bogey and cash in their chips. Member countries will fight like piranhas to preserve the maxim of equal access to the common fishery resource. If we are talking about the long-term sustainability of Scottish fish stocks, that is what makes Scotland's position within the CFP unsustainable.

I move amendment S2M-559.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"but notes that this should be aimed at the individual, increasing choice and environmentally-friendly incentives while reducing the power of the bureaucracies, and further pledges its support for renewable policies as well as supporting rural businesses and industries, including fishing communities and aquaculture."

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am glad to be able to take part in the debate. The debate should be about how we get from where we are to a Scotland that we can truly call sustainable.

There are two things that we need to do. First, we must build on the progress that has been made by acknowledging the challenges that we have overcome, the shifts that there have been and the tasks that remain. Secondly, we must work out what changes are needed. We must raise awareness, develop a commitment to change and then agree on the action to be taken. We have a long way to go at each level. Rather than concentrating on specific policy issues, as a couple of members have done, I will talk about some of the institutional changes that the Parliament needs to make.

I was interested in Robin Harper's attempt to appropriate the whole Parliament's environmental conscience for the Greens. All the parties have made some progress. The Labour party has made huge progress over the past decade, not only since the arrival of the Greens in the Parliament. We have tried to put sustainable development at centre stage, not just by appropriating the language but by thinking about the policy choices and challenges that sustainable development brings. We have grappled with the problems of joining up government on social justice and environmental justice, economic prosperity and environmental justice, and—the really tough task—all three together. We have made the links and we have started to make some progress on developing them. It is also important that we work with other countries and the rest of the UK, as we have a lot to learn. We have come a long way in a short time, but there is still a lot of change that we need to make.

Our huge progress is reflected in the partnership agreement, which builds on the first four years of the Scottish Parliament. We do not need any lectures on conscience, as we have had to make some tough choices. We just heard Ted Brocklebank grappling with the problems in the fishing industry. The Environment and Rural Development Committee has had to make some tough choices. Ironically, it is Labour and Lib Dem members who have been prepared to make tough decisions now to protect the viability of our scallop industry. None of the parties would be 100 per cent perfect in making those tough decisions, including the Greens, and the Greens did not support us on the scallop industry because there was not yet a crisis in that industry. What happened to the precautionary principle?

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, I will not. I have only four minutes, and Eleanor Scott will get another chance to speak.

It is important not to be simplistic. There is not one answer and there is no single green truth on these issues. The challenge is for us all to work together to deal with these difficult, tough issues.

In the report that Robin Harper mentioned, which I was involved in preparing this week, we examined structures at a ministerial level to see what more could be done to give political leadership to implement ideas that are in the partnership agreement. We also looked at the civil service and considered a more integrated approach that builds on the excellent work that has been done in social justice on closing the gap in order to learn the lessons and to translate that into work across the whole Executive. The key issue is how we mainstream sustainable development rather than see it as the preserve of environmentalists.

There is a big challenge for the Parliament, and I do not want us to miss the target. Every bill is meant to address sustainable development principles; however, I can think of only two bills that have done that properly—the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. Sustainable development was at the core of both those bills and was debated extensively in committee, even making it to the chamber for debate. However, no member could put their hand up and say that every bill that we have debated has covered sustainable development and that we have tested all the legislative provisions that the Parliament has discussed.

There is a lot more for the Parliament to do to exert leadership. Let us audit our policies and look at the budget process and our own structures so that sustainable development is not just something that we demand from the Executive, but something that we take ownership of and put into practice. I support the Executive's amendment.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

We have heard a classic opening to the debate, with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development coming out with some of the classic smears against the Greens and Sarah Boyack making a welcome speech that referred heavily to "Working Together for a Sustainable Scotland".

The most important thing about that document is where it starts. It starts in 2030. It starts with a vision of the future and then tries to work back to discover how we can reach that future. There is a growing consensus about the future that we want—a sustainable world. The year 2030 is a long way away and I will be reaching retirement then. It is also the year in which oil stocks will be running out. On current projections, the demand for oil will be vastly greater than the supply.

Tough choices will have to be made and Sarah Boyack was right to talk about them. Let us consider where we are now, in 2003, and what projections we are making for the next 27 years. Ross Finnie said that the Greens wanted to stop economic growth dead. That completely misses the point of what Robin Harper was saying. Economic growth should not be our principal objective. Our principal objective should be a sustainable future that guarantees quality of life for all Scotland's citizens and, as this report reminds us, for people across the world.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Mark Ballard talks about quality of life and I agree with all that he has said. However, how can quality of life be guaranteed for many of our citizens if they do not have economic opportunities and employment opportunities?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Economic opportunities and employment opportunities are not the same as economic growth. The Executive still measures economic growth in terms of net national product and the flow of money through the economy. That is not the same as providing economic opportunities. It is possible to have growth that does not create employment and stores up problems for the future. It is possible to have growth in the number of fish taken out of the North sea that undermines the stocks. Ted Brocklebank is correct to say that we have to preserve the fishing communities; if we do not protect the communities, who will be there to fish? However, if we do not preserve the fish stocks, the communities will fade away.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Why did the Green Party fail to support a statutory instrument at the Environment and Rural Development Committee that will do just what he is advocating? It will protect scallop stocks off the west coast of Scotland.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Eleanor Scott will deal with that question in detail, but I remind people that just because the word "conservation" appears in the title of a proposal, that does not mean that it will achieve conservation objectives. Scallop fishers have argued that the proposal would undermine conservation objectives.

I want to talk about the vision. Friends of the Earth Scotland has offered a vision of environmental justice. In Scotland, the policy agenda has been dominated by efforts to deal with grinding poverty and deprivation in our communities. Friends of the Earth Scotland has developed and promoted environmental justice. We have to link dealing with poverty and deprivation with providing a decent environment for all. I am glad that the Executive has recognised that. We must not take more than our fair share of the earth's resources. That applies to the Scottish context. Some communities consume far more than others. Some communities have access to cars and will use the expensive new motorways that the Executive is promoting, whereas other communities do not have that access and their lives will be blighted by the new motorways. We have to tackle deprivation, inequality and environmental unsustainability. That must be our priority—not an obsession with economic growth.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Some of the language on these issues is very complex for ordinary members of the public. When asked what was meant by sustainable development, only 27 per cent of people knew what the questioner was talking about. However, more than three quarters of people understood that people in Scotland need to change the way they live so that future generations do not live in a rubbish tip. The environment is terribly important. We do not want a smelly, dirty Scotland. Furthermore, the environment is worth £17 billion a year to the Scottish economy, which is £46 million a day.

Let us consider how what we do with waste affects our environment. In Scotland, we recycle less than 7 per cent of our waste. Even with Government targets, it will take 50 years—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have only four minutes; if I take interventions, I will never get through my speech.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Four minutes plus interventions.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

If George Lyon wants the source of my statistics, I will tell him. They are from the Sunday Herald of 13 April 2003. He can look at them for himself.

What do we do with our waste? We put a lot of it in landfill sites, which is one of the most common ways of disposing of it. In Newington and Morningside in Edinburgh, people complain about the big black wheelie bins that are put in their streets and that destroy their environment, but perhaps they should work out why we have to have big black wheelie bins. We should forget about the bins and consider our weekly shop, which we are doing nothing about. We can now buy four baked potatoes on a big blue tray with a plastic top that just about requires a screwdriver to remove it. We could send it into orbit and it would come back intact. We do not need that.

What about carrots, cabbages and turnips? If we turn up at the till with loose vegetables, the man or woman there will look at us as if we are in the early stages of Alzheimer's. They then try to put the vegetables in bags. We can say, "No, I don't want them put in bags." If we go to the fish counter—and herring, by the way, is very cheap and a very good meal, so I will advertise it—where we used to get fish with a wee bit of paper wrapped around it, there is now a gadget to put the fish in foil. We can say, "No, don't do that to the fish! I'm taking it home and I will take it right out of that foil. It will not even go in the fridge in that wrapper. I'm going to eat it tonight." We have to stop people using such wrappers, but they look at us as if we are very strange. [Interruption.] Members should not comment on that. Don't go there!

This is a serious issue. When we put out our rubbish from the Friday or Saturday grocery shop, the bin is full. It is full of stuff that the food was only wrapped in from the moment we bought it until the moment we got to the kitchen. After that, it went straight in the bin. If we try to do something about that, it is impossible. We are thwarted.

We all know why that packaging is there: it is to woo the money out of our purses; it is to make us buy the four baked potatoes when we maybe just went into the shop for two. With bags of carrots, it is buy one, get one free. How often do those carrots perish in the fridge because we really did not want two big bags of them? We buy them because of the marketing strategy. However, it is costing us. It costs us at the till and it costs us as members of society to dispose of the waste. We should all pretend that there is a strike of the bucket men for a week so that we have to live without our rubbish being collected. We might have to fight off the foxes and cats. Our bins would be full and we would soon find out what we should be doing about recycling and an environmental strategy.

We do not have much power in this chamber. However, we could make a start by putting pressure on companies to reduce the amount of packaging that they use. Christmas is coming up. How many parents will end up having a bonfire at the bottom of the garden on Christmas day because they cannot move for packaging? We have to do something, right at the beginning, about getting rid of unnecessary packaging. The last thing that society wants—with its pizza containers and its ironically named disposable nappies, which apparently have a lifetime as long as that of the dinosaurs before they died out—is to leave future generations in a dirty Scotland with landfill sites that are full of all the rubbish that we did not need in the first place. Start there. Start with packaging.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Last May, seven Green members were elected to the Parliament under the assisted places scheme—the scheme under which the majority of members of Opposition parties have been elected. I welcome today's debate. Six months on, it allows us to see what contribution the Greens have made in taking forward green environmental issues. The speeches this morning from the Green members have demonstrated that they lack a clear idea of how sustainability can be achieved or, indeed, a clear idea of how sustainable development can be taken forward in practice.

It is not the Greens' fault that the newspapers are more interested in their stance on same-sex partnerships than in anything that they have said on environmental issues. However, Robin Harper on his own in the first months of the Parliament probably had more impact on environmental issues than the others have had more recently. When I wonder why that is, I look at the Green manifesto and I see that sustainable development is not even highlighted as a priority. That seems to me to be symptomatic of a wider failure of the Green party.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

No. I will perhaps take one a bit later.

I offer the Greens the advice that if they really want to make a meaningful contribution to advancing sustainability, they have to stop posturing and engage in real politics and consider the real choices that Government has to make. That is about marrying the practicalities of introducing environmental policies—rather than the principles of those policies—with policies that will deliver economic growth and social justice.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member talked about real choices. What about the real choices around GM crops?

Why will his Executive not make a choice about GM crops and come off the fence?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

There are real choices to be made about GM crops and real issues to consider. I look forward to the debate on GM crops, which is a debate not just for Scotland but for the world. I certainly want to contribute to that debate.

As convener of the Finance Committee, I spend considerable time—I might be a sad person—scrutinising budgets. However, trying to make sense of the budgetary and distributional consequences of the Scottish Greens' policies leaves me scratching my head. On the one hand it is clear that their taxation proposals are profoundly regressive. The land value tax would penalise poorer people living in cities and the proposal to hike up fuel tax would have adverse effects in rural areas. The Scottish specific waste disposal tax is a disaster tax; it would drive businesses away from Scotland. It beats me how damaging Scotland's economic prospects and the living standards of its people advances sustainability. Evidence worldwide shows that the opposite is the case.

On the other hand, most of the policies that the Greens put forward are uncosted, which suggests that they are likely to be unaffordable. Green health and education policies simply ignore resource issues while housing, energy and transport policies are impractical in the short and medium term. In contrast, the advances that the Executive is making—reducing landfill; tackling fuel poverty; building affordable energy-efficient housing; improving public transport and making it more accessible especially to older people through concessionary fare schemes; and developing a green jobs strategy—testify to a real commitment, through the partnership, to delivering a sustainable future in which our environment is safeguarded properly.

Another flaw at the heart of the Greens' approach is the notion that they are linking their proposals to an independence agenda. What is that about? Environment does not recognise national boundaries. If we want to develop an environmental agenda and improve our environment in Scotland, that is dependent on what other people do around the world, particularly what our immediate neighbours south of the border do. Our objective has to be to influence and work with others to develop a sensible agenda for saving the world. I was a bit perturbed by Ted Brocklebank's contribution on Scottish cod. The idea that there is a tartan flag on each cod in the North sea seems rather strange.

As Sarah Boyack pointed out, the Executive partnership, rather than the Greens, has delivered on environmental issues. I got sustainable development into the water bills to which Sarah Boyack referred and her work on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill advanced that agenda. Substantial change is taking place. Part of the reason why we have achieved that is not an ideological commitment to environmental issues and improvement but the link between our environmental agenda and our social justice agenda. We see environmental justice and social justice as inextricably linked. They are both linked to improving standards for our people, given economic and fiscal realities, which include people's aspirations to economic betterment and high-quality services. That is where we stand. People will get real, practical environmental improvement from the Executive; from the Greens they will just get hot air.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Robin Harper's speech demonstrated how black and white green can be. Life is not like that; we have to deal endlessly in shades of grey. Ross Finnie outlined the Executive's programme and its ability and commitment to deliver that programme. Richard Lochhead seemed to be asking for more talk. Although he showed us helpful posters, he criticised the Executive for not getting the message across—there is an inherent contradiction there. Ted Brocklebank seemed to be speaking in a different debate. Apparently, withdrawing from the CFP will deliver all we need on sustainability. Sarah Boyack made a clear-thinking and relevant speech. Mark Ballard, when challenged, drew a helpful distinction between economic growth and economic opportunity. We might have laughed at Christine Grahame's contribution, but she was right that the shopping basket is a good place to start making changes. Des McNulty made constructive criticism of the Greens' manifesto and spoke about the links between social justice and environmental improvement.

The Liberal Democrat constitution states:

"We believe that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long-term continuity of life in all its forms."

Environmental sustainability has always been at the heart of the Liberal Democrat policy programme. In 2001, we were the only political party with a green action section in every chapter of our manifesto, integrating environmental thinking into every area of policy. Not only do we propose policies with the aim of contributing to environmentally sustainable development but every commitment we make is designed with an awareness of its impact on the ultimate goal of sustainability. Environmental sustainability is not an optional add-on to be tacked on at the end of the existing policy platform but a core commitment.

In April 2002, sustainable development indicators were published as an essential step in embedding sustainability considerations throughout the Executive. The main priorities identified were renewable energy and conservation of energy; reducing the impact of travel; and examining where resources come from, how they are used and where they go. Political leadership at the highest level, as well as input from civic society, is critical if we are to move towards sustainability. The Cabinet sub-committee on a sustainable Scotland, chaired by the First Minister, is a good start. The recently created sustainable development forum will help to oversee full engagement on sustainable development issues throughout the Executive.

Empowerment is a fundamental concept in encouraging sustainable behaviour by all. A recent British social attitudes survey showed that public opinion on sustainability has changed little in the past 10 years. Concern about environmental degradation remains high, but the sense of personal responsibility is low. Concepts such as the Executive's slogan "Do a little, Change a lot" indicate the importance of individual action. It is essential that individuals feel that their action makes a difference. When people feel that their participation is making a difference, we will be moving successfully towards sustainability.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

This is somewhat unusual, but we have a lot of time in hand. Jamie Stone was down to speak in the debate, but he was not here when the Presiding Officer was going to call him. He is back now, so I am happy to let him speak at this stage.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I hope that Jamie Stone will talk about cheese.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Curiously enough, I might talk about cheese. The key point that I want to make is that sustainability is about sustainable business. That was the reason for my intervention on Ted Brocklebank. I will speak from a Highland perspective. I said this last week in the chamber and I will say it again: there is recognition in communities such as Kinlochbervie that the fish are not going to come back for quite a long while. I salute the way in which the people of Kinlochbervie have recognised that one of a few long-term sustainable business opportunities is tourism.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Last weekend, I spoke to fishermen from Kinlochbervie who told me that they were unable to fish for deepwater species from that port, because they could not get a licence. Does the member think that it is unbelievable that Scotland has only 2 per cent of the quota for deepwater species in her own waters?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am sorry, but I do not want to get on to that subject. I want to talk about the future and sustainable business. There is a clear recognition that we have to get business into areas such as Kinlochbervie to help those communities; otherwise they die. The community's proposal to build a marina to attract the pleasure-boat trade makes an enormous amount of sense.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

No, I do not have much time. I declare an interest in my brother's cheese business. When I was a wee boy, we milked 18 cows on a small dairy farm. My mother decided to make cheese called crowdie. She got her figures wrong—instead of using 5 gallons, she used 50 gallons—and ended up with a truly astronomical amount. From there, the little business grew—it is not a big business and it will never make my brother rich. It really did start in the bath, and I went unwashed for a considerable time at about the age of 6. The business still exists and is, I submit, a small example of a sustainable business, because it uses a natural product from the Highlands—milk—adds value and sells it on. We sell it on the back of the image of Scotland, particularly the Highlands, as having an unspoilt environment, and the word Highland is itself a great selling point.

I have had good dealings with the Scottish Executive on matters such as Kinlochbervie and sustainable small business, so I fully back Ross Finnie's amendment. The Executive is doing its level best to acknowledge that sustainability is about sustainable business and is putting resources into that. I therefore applaud the Executive's actions and ask members to support Ross Finnie's amendment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We now go back to closing speeches.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Last week, I spoke in the debate on integrated rural development, and much of what I said then applies to the debate on a sustainable Scotland. The previous Rural Development Committee identified the road infrastructure and transport in the Highlands as major priorities, but the Green party's transport policy seems to be based on bicycles and wind, and I sometimes wonder whether its highly popular leader, Robin Harper, travels by TARDIS like Dr Who. Unfortunately, we mere mortals have not reached the age of "Beam me up, Scotty," and until we do, we will have to rely on the internal combustion engine to get around, especially in areas with few trains. In urban areas, we want first-class public transport, but in the region that I represent, the private car is a must. Low fuel costs and a good road infrastructure are essential to sustain life in rural areas. They are important for local businesses, particularly tourism, which is an important Scottish industry—and the environment matters for tourism.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Jamie McGrigor's use of the word sustain reminds me that so many people misunderstand what sustainability is. In fact, his colleague Alex Johnstone admitted only a few moments ago that he does not understand the concept. Will Jamie McGrigor define sustainable development for us, please?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will do that in a minute, because it appears later in my speech. I assure my friends in the Green party that caring for the environment is central to Conservatism, because Conservatives believe in good biodiversity, which means recognising what is around us and making the most of it without damaging it for future generations. However, to do that, we need people who have confidence to populate and look after the rural areas. They need to know that they can make a living and that their children have a future. Transport is a key to that, as are happy and confident people.

I have a haunting fear that a slow nationalisation of nature is taking place. It is driven by environmental bodies and quangos that may have good intentions, but appear to have limited practical experience of the realities of living in Scotland's countryside. If we want a sustainable Scotland, we need a profitable Scotland, and it is often local people's activities, livelihoods and pastimes that have protected species of flora and fauna that thrive in certain places. All too often, the practical views of local people are not taken into account when Scottish Natural Heritage decides to impose the designations special area of conservation and site of special scientific interest. In many cases, those designations are forced through against the wishes of local people, without enough consultation and without a thought to how so-called conservation measures will affect the sustainability of people's livelihoods. We must reverse depopulation, or we will not have a rural culture, and culture, as well as Scotland's landscape, is important to tourism.

In Scotland, we are lucky to have a beautiful, open landscape and prodigious wildlife. We have bigger herds of red deer than any other country in western Europe. They are a priceless national asset, but are being demonised by so-called conservationists who appear to want to create a different landscape of so-called native woodland. Members might think such a woodland lovely, but the reality of such an experiment in the hills in the northern hemisphere is often a landscape comprising stunted scrub and tick-infested shin-tangle, which is unpleasant and impossible to walk through as well as being species poor.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Jamie McGrigor said that he wanted good biodiversity. Would he call more land where an overpopulation of deer nibbles away any chance for the natural climate species of the Highlands to regrow "good biodiversity"?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Overgrazing is not good, but Mark Ballard would need to tell me what he thinks is a proper level of good grazing. Good grazing can be achieved by good management, and it is perfectly possible to grow woods of beautiful deciduous trees—such as oak, ash, beech, birch, Scots pine and rowan—in the sheltered glens without having to slaughter huge numbers of the beautiful red deer.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will Jamie McGrigor give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No, I will not give way now.

Along with sensible, sustainable numbers of sheep, the red deer keep Scotland's hills properly grazed, thus ensuring easy access for people who enjoy hill walking. We simply put a fence round the trees, which will keep the deer out—that way, we serve the trees and the deer—and manage the deer herds, taking a harvest each year to maintain the sustainability of a herd.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Wind up, please.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

When the trees are mature, the fences can come down.

On the sustainability of a good tourism industry, the Executive must reassure us that a proliferation of wind farm towers will not be detrimental to tourism. I have lived in Scotland most of my life and have seen the erection of electricity pylons and hydroelectric dams, all of which caused opposition and furore at the time, but which have not affected tourism in the long term and obviously benefit those who receive the electricity. The Conservatives are in favour of renewable energy, but ask that wind farms be sensitively situated so that they are not offensive to local people and do not spoil Scotland's wild and beautiful countryside.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Wind up, please.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

How am I doing for time?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have now had six of your three minutes, Mr McGrigor.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

A sustainable Scotland relies heavily on small businesses and is underpinned by good infrastructure. It is up to the Executive to provide that infrastructure.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I can give a degree of latitude to Stewart Stevenson, who is closing for the Scottish National Party.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

That is a dangerous offer, Presiding Officer, but thank you for it anyway. I sometimes think that Jamie McGrigor knows what he is thinking only when he hears it and I sometimes wish that he would not share it with us quite so generously.

"Sustainable development is not an optional extra. Our social, economic and environmental ambitions are interlinked and we must work to deliver all three if we are going to deliver the quality of life we want for ourselves and for future generations."

I hope that those words are familiar to the minister, because they are, of course, his. I suspect that almost all members will find themselves agreeing with those words and I hope that the Greens will recognise that one of the legs on which sustainable development must stand is economic sustainability.

Personal experience always informs political debate and as I drive each week back home from Aberdeen to Peterhead and am treated to the rather unsightly view of four major tips—which not only service the local area but bring waste to Peterhead from all over Scotland, including from Inverness—the point of sustainability is reinforced: we must eliminate waste.

We have heard a number of interesting speeches. Robin Harper described the fishing industry as wanting economic growth at any cost. He needs to get out and speak to some fishermen, because they are desperate to have a sustainable industry and to ensure that the science that assesses the stocks in the sea is good so that their sons and their sons' sons have a future. It is the regulatory regime that has failed.

Ross Finnie said that the Executive had 78-plus commitments and that 70 per cent of the transport budget would be spent on public transport in the future. That is all very good, but I believe that there is a practical difficulty with that—and I am surprised that the convener of the Finance Committee, Des McNulty, did not bring it to our attention. There are 145 targets in the budget for 2004-05, but how many of them meaningfully address sustainable development? In my estimation—the minister can tell me otherwise—the answer is 10. Furthermore, they come under only three policy areas. Two of the targets come under the communities budget. Seven of the 17 environment and rural development targets could be included—well done, minister—whereas only one of the seven targets for tourism addresses sustainable development. The rhetoric does not necessarily translate into the budget and into the Executive's main targets. There is therefore much more work to do.

As Nora Radcliffe pointed out, sustainability is not an add-on. Even in the Parliament, there are some little, simple things that we do not do or that we do not do well. I was disappointed to discover, on returning to the Parliament for its second session, that, for some reason that I do not understand, we all had new personal computers on our desks. Why are we scrapping equipment after only four years' use? When I retired from my professional life in computers, we had a PC that we had been using for 20 years—we bought it in 1980 and were still using it when I retired in 1999, because it was still working and it still did the job for which it was bought. We do not need to be spending money in the Parliament on things that will last only four years if they actually have a lifespan of 10 years.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member is in the final minute of his speech.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Jamie McGrigor referred to forestry. I agreed with a lot of what he said, but his party's track record on sustainable forestry is not terribly impressive. Throughout Scotland can be seen banks of distressed and unmanaged forests, which were introduced for tax reasons. They are sub-economic: the value of harvesting the forests is less than its cost. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.

On renewable energy, we welcome support for wind farms, although we are cautious about the unmanaged way in which they are being developed. We have to make progress in that area but, in doing so, we are following the lead of many other European countries, rather than being a leader ourselves. Similarly, we are not doing enough on wave power, where we could be a leader. We could be selling our technology to the rest of the world. There is not a lot of economic benefit for us in wind power, but there is sustainable development benefit.

We have a choice between being leaders and followers. I say to the Executive that we need to be leaders and not—as is suggested under its current plans—followers.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

This has been a wide-ranging debate, as we might expect on the subject of sustainable development. The majority of contributions have been positive, upbeat, stimulating and interesting. I would, however, exclude a couple of speeches from that description. Mr Brocklebank's contribution, interesting as it was and concentrating as it did on fishing, failed to address the biggest sustainable development issue facing the fishing industry, which is the decline in stock and biomass and how that can be addressed to maintain a sustainable fishing industry and sustainable fishing communities.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

If the member does not mind, I will move on, as I do not want to get bogged down on fish—yet again.

Christine Grahame gave us a stream of consciousness, describing a capitalist conspiracy by the packaging industry to make us buy more baked potatoes. I understand from what she said that an independent Scotland would be a terry-towelling Scotland. I have good news for her: through sustainable action grants, we have provided funding for the Scottish nappy network, which has been set up to promote renewable nappies. [Applause.] That is a significant step forward. However, the Scottish Executive has set its sights a little higher than simply promoting renewable nappies.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am feeling particularly stigmatised, as someone who used disposable nappies. If I had a child tomorrow, I would probably use them again. I do not think that we should be guilt-tripping women when they are doing their shopping.

I wish to ask the minister about a separate point. Could he comment on the Executive's view of the urban environment and the importance of sustainability issues to cities? Too often, the focus in such debates is entirely on rural areas, but the issue is significant for people in communities in my constituency.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As the member knows, I agree entirely with those sentiments. We have put at the heart of our environmental agenda and our agenda for sustainable development the question of environmental justice. That means that communities in urban environments that have been put upon through environmental degradation have the opportunity to improve their environment and their quality of life by embracing the principles of environmental justice.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

rose—

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

If the member does not mind, I would rather make progress. The Greens' basic criticism of our policy was that there were inconsistencies in what we had to say. One criticism was that we put economic growth at the heart of our agenda for sustainable development. I make no apology for that. As I have said, I believe that economic growth and the creation of sustainable employment, giving economic and employment opportunity to some of the poorest people in our community, is at the heart of building sustainable communities.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

When I recently attacked Scottish Enterprise about its apparent lack of commitment to sustainability, it said that the Executive tasks it solely with economic development. Is that the case, or does the Executive, with its new ideas, intend to revise Scottish Enterprise's remit?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As my colleague Ross Finnie has just said to me, we set targets and indicators for Scottish Enterprise as we do for every Government agency.

To turn to a point that Richard Lochhead raised, we are committed to a green jobs strategy. My colleague Jim Wallace will be launching the draft strategy for consultation very soon. However, we will take no lessons from nationalists or Greens on creating employment opportunity. The United Kingdom Government's record on creating employment opportunity and addressing the economic inequality that is caused by unemployment is second to none over the past century.

I say to Robin Harper that economic growth does not have to be at the expense of the environment. We will work with business to develop and implement the green jobs strategy and we will assess economic development policies against their impact on our sustainable development indicators. We have a whole range of measures in place to help business to be more sustainable and to drive the economic benefits that that can bring.

That does not include banning low-cost air fares. Tourism is a key driver of our economy and creates employment opportunities throughout rural Scotland.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will continue, if the member does not mind.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister is in his last minute.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Tourism is increasingly dependent on low-cost air travel, so that even tribunes of the people, such as Tommy Sheridan, can commute back and forth to Havana at relatively little cost.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The minister has obviously never done it.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I have spent many a happy hour in Havana, it has to be said. The point is that depriving ordinary working people of the opportunity of air travel is not the way to create a sustainable economy.

I do not have the time to go over all the points that have been raised, but I will, as ever, make myself available to discuss them with members. I am pleased that the Scottish Green Party welcomes the Executive's intention to place the environment and sustainable development at the heart of our policy making. As I have explained, the commitments of the partnership agreement are not contradictory, nor are they in conflict with sustainable development. The Green party needs to take a more holistic view of what sustainable development means and it needs to come on board with the Executive.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Eleanor Scott to wind up the debate.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Presiding Officer, I hope that you will be generous with me as well, because some members have had quite a long time to say their piece.

I thank all the members who have taken part in the debate, which I have enjoyed. It is heartening to hear words such as "sustainability" and "environmental justice" being spoken in the chamber by people other than Green members.

Because I was asked to, I will mention scallops and get the subject out of the way. I did not vote for a proposed scallop conservation measure because I did not think that it would work. I voted as I did not because I did not think that there was a potential problem with scallop stocks, but because I did not think that the measures would address the problem. It is interesting to note that stocks of scallops, which were hitherto unregulated, were in a slightly healthier state than stocks in other, heavily regulated, sectors of the fishing industry, which suggests that, when we try to regulate, we do not get it right. I felt that the proposed measures would just increase pressure on scallops. The minister and others took a different view. Time will tell who was right. However, I will not vote for something just because it is labelled "conservation"—I have to think about whether it will work. I agree with Stewart Stevenson that, in the past, we have not got that right. That does it for the scallops.

Greens are delighted by the increased awareness of the environmental challenges that face Scotland and by the increased recognition that we have to change things. As Robin Harper stated, there are many positive commitments in the partnership agreement and we support them. We are pleased that some Green party policies, such as moves on green jobs and the polythene bag tax, are now being picked up by other parties. That is a sign that the Parliament is starting to share a vision and that the Greens are having an impact. Sarah Boyack said that all parties have moved and that a green conscience is not just the prerogative of Greens. I agree with that. However—and I do not want to sound sanctimonious—other people see us as the conscience, which is why there are now seven Green members.

As Robin Harper made clear, if one good policy is undermined by something that is environmentally damaging, we are no further forward and we might even be worse off. That would be the case if, for example, the 70 per cent of the transport budget that is for public transport includes the projected increase in air travel. I reassure the minister that the Greens are not saying that we must stop all flying today. We are simply saying that flying three times as much tomorrow is environmentally irresponsible and not sustainable.

Des McNulty tried to engage us in debate—in fact, he talked at us, but at least he talked about our agenda as opposed to his hobby-horses. I have our manifesto here and I reassure him that, on page 4, which is the first page of text after the contents, sustainable development is mentioned twice:

"Greens also believe that Scotland has the potential to be a leader in sustainable development, demonstrating new ways to live within the planet's means."

I will not read out the whole passage, but sustainable development is mentioned twice on the first page. I am sure that it is mentioned elsewhere, but I was listening to the debate and could not go through the manifesto. I reassure Des McNulty that sustainable development is mentioned in our manifesto.

Des McNulty misunderstands Green politics, which is probably why he finds our commitment to independence a bit difficult. We are committed to radical democracy and to people making decisions at the most local level, as near as possible to where decisions are enacted. We are committed to social justice, one aspect of which is the proposed civil registered partnerships bill. We are also committed to sustainable development and environmental responsibility. We are, after all, a political party; we are not an environmental pressure group. We want to shift tax on to resource consumption. The simple truth is that the rich consume more than their share. Unlike Mr McNulty, I do not believe that a land value tax—which is being extensively debated at the moment—would impact more on the poor. Our citizens income scheme would be a powerful tool for the redistribution of wealth, which is an issue that other parties have to take on.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Eleanor Scott will know, as she lives in the Highlands, that there is a serious problem with the idea of raising tax on diesel and petrol. Does she concede that that is a problem in the Highlands and that a VAT derogation would tackle the problem? If the price of fuel goes up any further, we will strangle our communities.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Fuel is only one of the costs of motoring in the Highlands or anywhere else. In the Highlands, insurance is considerably cheaper, for example. Few people say that having taxed, insured and paid for their car, they will not run it because fuel is so expensive. We have to look at the whole picture. I would be happy to debate that issue further.

We agree with Richard Lochhead's amendment that having our own fiscal and other powers would enable a Scottish Government to take more effective action. After all, that is Green party policy. Of course, those powers in themselves would not deliver sustainability—that would depend on what we did with those powers. I am sure that Mr Lochhead agrees that we must do our best for Scotland and the world with the powers that we have now and not sit back until independence day. That said, we are happy to accept the amendment.

I have more of a problem with the Tory amendment. I do not accept that a sustainable economic policy will necessarily be more bureaucratic than an unsustainable one. Equally, I do not believe that laissez-faire will ever deliver sustainability—it certainly has not done so so far. I wonder why the Tories think that sustainability and the environment are purely rural issues. I agree with Johann Lamont's point that the urban environment is crucial.

As to the minister's amendment, well, he would say that, wouldn't he? We welcome the Executive's pledge on strategic environmental assessment and agree with the minister about its importance. Strategic environmental assessment was promised in the previous session and only now is it being brought forward to comply with the European Union directive that is due to come into force in July. That suggests that the Executive is moving grudgingly towards sustainability and that it is doing so only when it is forced to, instead of truly embracing the concept. Having said that, I welcome the measure. I do not want to be niggly—I know that Mr Finnie thinks that we are being niggly. We will be supportive. However, as Robin Harper said, once strategic environmental assessment is in place, it might not cover or review existing strategies, such as transport policy. I would welcome reassurance from the minister on that point.

The report by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy commission, which has been mentioned several times, proposed a sustainable development committee that would work in the same way as the Equal Opportunities Committee—it would scrutinise the work of other committees and Government bodies to ensure that sustainability is mainstreamed into their work. That is a good idea and I hope that it can be taken forward. I hope that the report will be extensively discussed, because there is a lot in it that we could support. That particular proposal would be one way of achieving the integration that our motion calls for.

In conclusion, I hope that members agree that sustainability is about the world that we bequeath to future generations and about how those generations will judge us. I ask members to support the motion.

Agriculture

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-560, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the future of Scottish agriculture, and three amendments to that motion. Timing will have to be a bit more precise in this debate, because we are a minute or two behind the clock.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When I was thinking about the motion for this debate, I found no better form of words than that put forward by the Scottish National Party's sister party, Plaid Cymru, last month in the National Assembly for Wales. That motion was passed unanimously by the Assembly—the Tory party supported it, the Liberal Democrats supported it and the Labour party supported it. Many of the issues—in fact, all of them—regarding genetic modification in Wales are the same issues that we face in Scotland.

In many ways, the motion that I lodged defends the Executive's document "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture" and the partnership agreement. Under the heading "The Vision", on page 1, "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture" states:

"We want a prosperous farming industry, one of Scotland's success stories, which benefits all the people of Scotland. It should ... be focused on producing food and other products that the customer wants".

The Executive is pushing for market-led agriculture—I have heard the minister reiterate that many times—but where is the market for genetically modified foods? We have just had a "GM Nation?" public debate, which did not show much public support for GM. Several surveys on the subject have been carried out over the past five years in Scotland. In a MORI poll in April 1999, 69 per cent of people agreed that the Scottish Parliament should ban the production and sale of food containing GM crops. Another MORI poll in April 2003 showed that only 14 per cent of people support GM food. Perhaps the most remarkable poll over the past five years was the ICM Research poll in October 2000, in which 56 per cent of people thought that public protests involving the destruction of GM crops were acceptable. The majority of the public in this country not only does not want GM, but agrees with unlawful activity to remove GM crops from fields. It is clear that there is no market for GM.

The problem that we face is that, if commercialisation goes ahead, Scottish farmers will be unable to supply GM-free produce to the market because of contamination. Yesterday, the Parliament received a visit from two Canadian farmers who spoke about the problems not only of the effectiveness of GM crops but of market loss through contamination of GM-free produce. One of them was an organic farmer but the other was a conventional farmer and a representative of the Canadian National Farmers Union. Those farmers simply want to grow food to meet market demand, but they are unable to do so because of contamination. We know that, between 1999 and 2001, contamination in the United States has cost the American economy $12 billion through economic loss and lawsuits.

According to the partnership agreement, the Executive wants to develop an organic action plan to help to grow the infrastructure to meet market demand. That is a laudable aspiration, for which we lobbied hard during the first session of the Parliament, but how can the Executive be serious about that aspiration when it does not seek to rule out the commercialisation of GM crops? We heard yesterday that organic farmers in Saskatchewan are mounting a class action against Monsanto and Aventis because farmers there cannot grow GM-free oil-seed rape because of contamination. That market is gone—it is gone for ever—but that is the reality of GM commercialisation. I ask members in the chamber whether that is the reality that they want for Scotland.

Let me quote a Labour party minister. I will be interested to hear what our Labour party minister says later, but this is what Michael Meacher said:

"The issue ... is that if it is impossible to separate off organic oilseed rape in the vast spaces of the Canada prairies, it is inconceivable that it can be kept separate in the very much smaller land area of Britain where farms exist cheek by jowl together."

The reality is that we will see a collapse in the Scottish market for organic and GM-free produce if we commercialise GM crops in Scotland. All the science and field trials can never tell us about that economic reality.

The partnership agreement states that the precautionary principle will be applied for GM crops. However, the notion that it is safe to test whether something is safe to release into the environment by releasing it into the environment must be questioned, as we have done all along. The field trials were never looking for wider environmental impacts beyond the biodiversity within the little plots in which the testing was carried out. The trials were never looking for contamination, despite the fact that we knew that contamination occurred, as The Sunday Times showed when it investigated the Tayport beekeeper David Rolfe and found GM contamination of his honey. We know that contamination occurred, but the trials did not test for it, so we do not have that as part of the results.

The field trials give us the narrowest of views, which only hint at the environmental impact that could occur as a result of the commercialisation of GM.

I want to mention briefly the call for a GM-free Scotland, which we have always supported and will continue to support. For the past four years, the Executive has had, under part B of European Union directive 2001/18/EC, powers over the field trials. For the commercial growing of GM crops, which comes under part C of the directive, the United Kingdom has to consult the Executive and other devolved Administrations. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh minister are exercising their power and responsibility by making the case for a GM-free Wales to the Westminster Government, so that Westminster can, in turn, make the case to the EU for a GM-free Wales and a GM-free UK. What line is the Scottish Executive taking with Elliot Morley? We know the line that Wales is taking; we want the Executive to take the same line for Scotland.

Regardless of whether we achieve a GM-free Scotland and a GM-free zone within Europe, we know that contamination has already occurred. Contamination could occur even if we had a GM-free Scotland. We have already seen how farm supplies have been contaminated before we have even considered commercialisation. That is why we need to shore up the law in Scotland and use our full powers to introduce a GM liability bill. I invite all parties in the Parliament to submit their responses to my consultation.

To conclude, GM technology does not contribute to the aims of the partnership agreement, just as it does not contribute to the objectives of Welsh policy. I urge all members to secure the future of Scottish agriculture by voting for the motion to send a consistent line on GM from all the devolved Administrations.

I move,

That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Executive to apply the precautionary principle and adopt the most legally restrictive policy, regardless of Her Majesty's Government's position, in relation to GM crops in recognition of the significant danger that they pose to GM-free conventional and organic farming and the potential risks to human health, animal health and the environment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Allan Wilson to speak to and move amendment S2M-560.2. You have a very tight five minutes.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Fair enough—I will do my best.

Today's debate, which is headlined as being on the sustainable future of Scottish agriculture, should identify important issues that the Parliament needs to address. Indeed, the forward strategy for Scottish agriculture has as a key aim—I am grateful to Mr Ruskell for referring to it—which is the protection and enhancement of our common environment.

However, as we have heard, the Green Party has chosen today to single out GM crops for special consideration and to suggest that the Parliament should—I quote from the motion—

"adopt the most legally restrictive policy, regardless of Her Majesty's Government's position, in relation to GM crops".

I was pleased to hear Mr Ruskell's explanation of where that text came from, because it is not consistent with either what he said or what the Greens have said about the creation of GM-free zones.

Let us be clear on one point: GM crops, whether they are in Scotland, the rest of the UK—including Wales—or Europe, are restricted. They are subject to a strict regulatory regime that is specifically designed to protect human health, animal health and the environment. They cannot be grown in Scotland or elsewhere in Europe—including Wales—without prior approval. That approval will be secured only where we are entirely satisfied, on the basis of our expert scientific advice, that growing the crop is safe.

We are neither for nor against GM as such, but we are committed to safeguarding human health, animal health and the environment. We are committed to a precautionary and evidence-based approach to policy making. We are committed to transparent and proportionate regulation and to legislation where that is necessary. We are committed to consumer choice. Those principles have guided our policy on GM organisms to date and I recommend that they should continue to do so.

Ministers are very much aware of, and sensitive to, the real and understandable concerns that, as Mr Ruskell mentioned, the wider public have about GM. That is why we have made a commitment to move forward on a precautionary basis. We will act cautiously but, equally, we will not turn our back on progress where that can be supported by sound science.

The most important question is whether a GM crop will pose any more of a threat to human health or the environment than a conventional crop will. That question is considered in depth each time an application to release a GM variety is made. During the past few months, I have considered six such applications, all of which I have sent back for further information without approving a release. No individual crop can be authorised for cultivation unless it has satisfied a rigorous assessment of potential impacts on human health and the environment.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does the minister accept that such assessments can only ever produce a result that says that a specific threat has not yet been identified? Does he agree that the assessments cannot give an assurance that a specific crop poses no threat to human health or the environment?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

No science can do what Mr Harvie demands of it. It was interesting that, throughout Mr Ruskell's speech, no reference was made to the scientific advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment or its statutory function in that regard.

Because we are a responsible Government that is involved in a responsible decision-making process, our decisions will be based on advice from the statutory body ACRE on the implications of the farm-scale evaluation trials. Our establishment of those extensive trials and the open and deliberative consideration of the results underscore our commitment to the environment.

The results will inform the position of the Executive and the UK Government and will be forwarded to all other EU member states and the European Commission, which, too, will want to consider carefully the results of what has been the most extensive study of its kind. It is clear that the results also raise a number of wider questions about modern intensive agriculture and its impact on farm land wildlife and wider biodiversity.

The Executive will continue to work within the strict EU regulatory framework for GM crops and consider each application on a case-by-case basis. The blanket ban that appears to have been suggested—or a blanket approval, for that matter—would not be compatible with EU law.

Members will be aware that several European regions have attempted to declare GM-free zones. However, the legal advice that I have received is quite clear. It would be contrary to the directive's single-market objective to adopt a blanket policy of the type that the Green party's motion calls for or to seek to impose conditions that cannot be justified on the ground of protection of human health or the environment in order to make Scotland or any part of Scotland GM free.

I move amendment S2M-560.2, to leave out from "calls" to end and insert:

"notes that in accordance with A Partnership for a Better Scotland the Scottish Executive will apply the precautionary principle in relation to the planting of GM crops; notes that no decision has been taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops; recognises that it would be premature to do so before the results of the farm scale trials and the GM dialogue have been fully evaluated, and notes the Executive's continuing commitment to protecting human health, animal health and the environment."

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Notwithstanding today's debate, the minister's remarks about the European Union exemplify the serious issues about democracy in the EU that have to be addressed.

I can add to Mark Ruskell's opinion poll evidence about the public's attitude towards GM. He missed out the Consumers Association research in May 2002, which showed that less than one third of those who were surveyed found the idea of food that was produced from a genetically modified plant acceptable. We know that the public are not happy.

Why? There is a huge leap in cause and effect from selective breeding to the sort of genetic modification that is being done in laboratories today and which has resulted in field tests at various sites throughout Scotland. The public do not believe that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure the future safety of our seed stocks and food supply. For example, few will have been surprised by the Scottish Executive's recent revelation that an investigation of the GM seed used in farm-scale trials has uncovered further evidence of the use of unauthorised GM material that was not covered by the release consent. That puts the minister's comments about regulation into perspective. How many times does that have to occur before the minister realises that the great theory about managing to contain GMOs is completely impossible? Of course, that was the thrust of the Green party's opening speech.

Important as it is to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge and endeavour, we must acknowledge that when we are dealing with such sensitive and emotive issues as our ability to feed ourselves safely in the future, it is essential that the public can trust those involved. The Executive should know by now how the public feel about GM food.

Some companies deserve praise for their stance. In 1998, Iceland became the first retailer to remove GM ingredients from its own-label products, and the Co-op has recently banned GM food and ingredients from its business. It is clear that those businesses are responding to the message from their customers.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I agree with what the member has said about consumer resistance and the fact that there is no demand, but surely that is a separate issue from whether the product is safe. Surely the correct response is for Scottish farming plc to take a collective decision that there is no market demand and that it will not grow the crops at all.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I do not believe that the two issues are entirely separate. The Liberal Democrat position on GM food is clear, at least in the countryside if not when it comes to making decisions in the Executive. The two issues cannot be easily separated because there is no public confidence in the science. Simply taking a scientific view and pushing ahead will not help the situation.

When we are dealing with the unknown, or even the uncertain, in an area that has the potential to affect every individual in the world, it is obvious that the precautionary principle must be applied. That is particularly true in the case of GM crops, in which once a certain line has been crossed there will be absolutely no going back. The fear is that that line is already being crossed deliberately to pre-empt consumer resistance.

The GM issue is not just a question of whether the technologies involved are safe. It is about allowing choice and ensuring that consumers retain the ability to purchase non-GM foods if that is their wish. It is also about ensuring that farmers who want to continue producing non-GM crops are able to do so. Application of the precautionary principle must ensure that such producers are not disadvantaged. All the evidence suggests that proceeding with the technology will mean choice being removed.

We know that Tony Blair is in favour of GM foods, but the Liberal Democrats' position is appalling. Their leader opposes GM crops. At their Scottish conference last year, in my constituency, they passed a motion calling for an immediate moratorium, but it was a Liberal Democrat minister in the Scottish Executive who approved the trials in the first place.

The Parliament must assert its right to speak out on the issue and we have to accept the public's views. The risk of pollution is too high, the risk to our high-quality reputation is too great, and the future of Scottish agriculture depends on our being able to maintain the integrity of GM-free crop production.

I move amendment S2M-560.3, to leave out from "calls" to end and insert:

"recognises the massive public opposition to GM crops; believes that the precautionary principle should be applied to any further development of GM crops, whether on a trial basis or for commercial planting, and considers that the future of Scottish agriculture lies in maintaining the integrity of GM-free crop production."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In dealing with today's motion, I begin to wonder who the conservatives are. Certainly the Green party is taking a very conservative line. I wonder sometimes whether, if Mark Ruskell had been born a couple of hundred years ago, he might have been a member of the Flat Earth Society.

When we talk about GM technology, we have to remember that it is not new. Fifty years ago, experiments were being done with the irradiation of cereal seeds. Much of the barley that is grown in Scotland today, including that which is being grown on many organic farms, can trace its ancestry back to those experiments. Cereal seeds were irradiated in a nuclear pile and the deformed or mutated seeds were then grown and tested for desirable characteristics. Those characteristics have been bred through to the plants that we have today. Technology is something that we have experimented with before and we have to understand the issue in a broader sense.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am afraid that I have only four minutes, so I have to press on.

The field trials that have been done were completely pointless. They carried on a characteristic that is undesirable in the Scottish environment. The proof is that the general regime that was applied during the tests was not beneficial to wildlife, the environment or the production of the crop. I suggest that we have been barking up the wrong tree.

The debate demonised GM technology and then had the effect of leading public opinion. We should remember that if the technology is allowed to develop, there will be huge opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry for the production of materials in a more environmentally friendly way than can be done at the moment.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I cannot, because I am very short of time. Mr Harvie will have a chance to speak when he winds up at the end of the debate.

If we applied the technology and research abilities that are available to us to producing a cereal seed that was resistant to fungal infection, or perhaps a maize plant that could resist a spring frost, that would benefit the farming industry in Scotland. We have the ability to search for those answers.

The biotech industry in Scotland is being threatened by the debate that is now taking place and the tone of that debate. Work at the Scottish Crop Research Institute in Invergowrie is being undermined by the failure to grasp the concept of biotechnology and genetic manipulation as it could benefit us in the future.

With one qualification that Alex Fergusson will mention, we are happy to accept Ross Finnie's amendment to the motion. We have more of a problem with the SNP amendment. Although I am almost prepared to agree with everything in that amendment, I do not believe that we are quite at that stage, so we might have to abstain.

We must be prepared to be broadminded on the issue. I believe that GM organisms are not popular with the public because we have been barking up the wrong tree for the past four years. The time has not come for commercial release of GM crops in Scotland, because none of the crops that have been produced for testing is of any potential benefit. The qualification that I must add is that if we turn our backs on the technology forever, we will have undermined our biotechnology research base in Scotland and we will have passed the industry to less scrupulous people in other parts of the world.

I move amendment S2M-560.1, to leave out from "apply" to end and insert:

"give an assurance that any decisions relating to future development and exploitation of GM technology shall be made on the basis of best scientific advice."

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I am sorry to see that the wide title of the motion, "Future of Scottish Agriculture", narrows down in the text to GM crops only, but I will come back to that. Undoubtedly, the question whether GM technology presents a threat or an opportunity is fundamentally important, but it is one to which we do not yet have a thoroughly researched answer.

At this point, I insert my usual caveat on the topic. We may deplore the way in which some global companies operate, but we have to disentangle that issue from the evaluation of the technology itself. In addition, GM covers a hugely wide and diverse technology, and we cannot simply lump it all together and condemn it. Each application must be considered separately and on its own merits or demerits. Furthermore, we should not forget the importance of biosciences to the Scottish universities and institutes. Many are currently world leaders, but a Parliament that projects an anti-science attitude could soon undermine their ability to attract international research funding, and their pre-eminence in a fiercely competitive field could quickly be lost.

The farm-scale field trials of the past three years were the logical and necessary step after laboratory testing and plot trials. Conducting those trials, however, is emphatically not to prejudge whether commercial growing will be the eventual outcome—certainly not before the trials have been properly evaluated. The technology is still very much under examination; that examination should be fair and objective, but it must also be thorough, and the early indications from the series of trials that have just finished are that further work must be done.

Setting the pure science to one side, moving operations into the real world meant that there would be a test of the potential for human error. It is important to evaluate that aspect. That the seed companies demonstrated their inability to provide seed consistently within their own acceptable purity standards is an important outcome, which must be given serious consideration in future decisions on whether commercial use should be allowed.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I am sorry—I do not have time.

We cannot simply declare a ban on GM. However, EU directive 2001/18/EC says:

"No GMOs, as or in products, intended for deliberate release are to be considered for placing on the market without first having been subjected to satisfactory field testing at the research and development stage in ecosystems which could be affected by their use."

"Satisfactory" is the key word in that sentence.

The GM science review panel concluded that there are several areas of concern in which further research is needed. That research should be undertaken before consideration of any decision on the commercialisation of GM crops. It would also provide an opportunity for more conclusive work on concerns about health risks.

GM may be the problem of the future, but the future will depend on how we deal with the problems of the here and now. In "Custodians of Change", published in 2002, the agriculture and environment working group concluded:

"the priority environmental issues for Scottish agriculture, for the next 5-10 years, are:

1. Diffuse pollution to water;

2. Biodiversity and habitat protection;

3. Landscape change".

Diffuse pollution is a problem of the here and now. We must give serious consideration to the effect of the nitrates that we let loose in the environment, and possibly even more serious consideration to what phosphates are doing. The example of the Ythan nitrate vulnerable zone designation illustrates how difficult that is to do. The first farm-scale trial was at Daviot in my constituency; the Ythan is just over the hill from there. The Ythan estuary has an extraordinarily rich variety of habitat and birdlife. Aberdeen university has had a field station there for many years, and scientists and students have studied the area and collected data going back 30 years. Even so, when the catchment was designated because of eutrophication it was not possible to say with absolute certainty what the causes or the remedies were. That made me very conscious of the complexities of environmental monitoring. There are no easy or simple answers.

Whatever the eventual outcome, the right approach is one of sound scientific evaluation, with the health of the environment and the consumer firmly established as the fundamental priority.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am happy to take part in a debate about the future of agriculture. Crofting has been, is, and hopefully will remain an integral part of life and work in the Western Isles and beyond the shores of those isles. Any discussion on what the future holds is of importance, because it allows us to focus on the issues that matter to those who have maintained and continue to sustain the environment in which they work and in which their forebears worked. A discussion about the future of agriculture should focus on the issues that matter and not the sideshow that is the GM debate.

First, I will deal with the reform of the common agricultural policy.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Not at this moment.

Decoupling is the central feature of CAP reform. Subsidies will no longer be paid on the basis of what is produced. We know that the link between subsidy payments and production has led us down a road that is far from sustainable, and we now have to play our part in dismantling that link. To realise that aim, the European Union must focus on modulation. More money has to be transferred from the flawed direct payments method to a wider range of rural development measures. I firmly believe that we should review the national modulation rate to establish whether it can be increased from what I believe is the agreed 3.5 per cent rate to production-related subsidies in 2003, to 4.5 per cent in 2004. Perhaps the minister will enlighten us about whether that is the case when he sums up.

I appreciate that the Executive is still consulting all the relevant players, and I urge the Executive, crofters and farmers to consider again the rate of modulation and establish whether we can go further than what is currently suggested. If that were to happen, it would help to turn round an unacceptable level of subsidy payments—payments that are firmly linked with production— and help us to move to a system that would truly help the future of agriculture in Scotland. That would allow us to promote a range of meaningful rural development and environmental programmes that would pass every sustainability test that anyone would care to apply to them.

On GM crops, I firmly believe that the approach that is being adopted by the Executive is correct. As the minister has stated, the Executive is focused on its primary objective of safeguarding human health and protecting the environment. If there is any evidence of danger to human health or the environment from any GM crop, the crop will not be approved for release. As other members have said, we cannot turn our backs on what is happening within our scientific community. If a crop can be modified in a way that helps to put food in the mouths of the hungry of this world, I will be the first to applaud it, as would any right-thinking individual. We all know that crops can be designed or modified to survive in certain environments, or so that fewer pesticides have to be used. Those are welcome developments. The Labour Party believes in responsible science and responsible policy making. The precautionary, step-by-step approach is the correct one.

The issue of scallops, in relation to conservation, was raised in the previous debate. The crofters of the Western Isles will most certainly not be looking to the Green party to help them secure a sustainable future. They know that although the Green party can talk a good game about conservation, when it is asked to deliver it is always found wanting. The Environment and Rural Development Committee discovered that a few weeks ago, when a conservation measure—as a statutory instrument—was proposed and the Green party refused to support it. The SI was a credible proposal to reduce the number of dredges that boats use from 14 to eight—a conservation measure in anyone's language. The semantic convulsions of Eleanor Scott and the other Green members do not impress the progressive fishermen who supported the measure.

On that constructive note, I urge everyone to support the Executive amendment.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I want to talk about two issues: science and democracy. Alex Johnstone indicated that genetic modification is some sort of development from the selective breeding that has gone on before, and the methods that have been used to achieve that. GM is qualitatively quite different. It uses a new, young science—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member accept that GM is akin to the process of nuclear irradiation, which was used in plant breeding in the 1950s?

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

No, I do not. Nuclear irradiation imitates what happens in nature when mutations arise in genes. Bombarding a plant with genetic material, including the desirable gene, the promoter gene to switch it on and a virus that is used as the carrier, is a different process, which may not be stable and may result in transfer from the target organism to other organisms. It is a qualitatively different technology.

I am saying neither that GM is a technology that will never have a benefit for mankind nor that it is a technology that should not be researched. I am saying that GM should not be researched using our open environment as a laboratory, especially without our being asked first. That is the big issue; I will come to the democracy issue in a minute. First, I will say a bit more about the science.

Nora Radcliffe said that we should not appear to be anti-science. I certainly do not to want to appear to be like that. I have not said that biotechnology research, which has the potential to produce pharmaceutical benefits in some respects, should not be done; I said that it should be done in a closed situation. The crops should not be produced in our open environment until we know the potential long-term effects. We are talking about a young science and the advice that the scientists can give will be based on incomplete evidence.

There is also the issue of who owns science. Science is owned and financed by large companies, which means that it tends to move quickly from theoretical science and discoveries to applied science. That is happening nowadays at a rate that would not have happened before. Somebody has to put on the brakes: just because we can do the science does not mean that we should do it. Certainly, it does not mean that we should do it in the open environment in a way that cannot be undone if anything goes wrong.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Does not Eleanor Scott recognise the reality that, for a good number of years, huge swathes of the United States of America, Canada and Latin America have been under such crops? The horse has well bolted out of the stable.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

That is right. It would have been salutary for George Lyon if he had been able to talk to the two Canadian farmers whom we spoke to yesterday. The farmers, who are having tremendous problems with contamination, are finding unexpected effects from simple things such as pollen from maize. The maize was modified to contain an insecticide and the pollen landed on plants that are the food of the big butterfly, of which people in California are so proud. I have forgotten its name.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

It is the monarch.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you. The monarch butterfly is being killed off by the insecticide. Side effects cannot always be foreseen and they cannot be undone once the modified crops are out there.

That point brings me back to the democracy issue. We had a field trial in the Highlands, which was universally opposed by all the democratically elected representatives in the area—from community council members to Highland Council councillors, to members of the Scottish Parliament and the member of the Westminster Parliament, who in this case was Charles Kennedy.

Alasdair Morrison said that GM was a sideshow. That might be so for the Western Isles at this point in time, as GM has yet to come there. However, if the door is left open for GM crops to be grown in Scotland, they will be coming soon to a field near him. Crofters in Alasdair Morrison's constituency will look to him to protect them from that development. GM threatens the livelihood of those crofters because of their dependence on the image of a clean environment and natural production methods.

We need to protect the reputation of Scottish agriculture and take into account people's wishes. People have said that they do not want GM crops growing near them and that they do not want to be part of an unwitting experiment. We have to respect the wishes of the people. It is up to Government to enact those wishes.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Last night, we had a debate on what to do with nuclear submarines once their lives are over. None of the options that we discussed for decommissioning the radioactive rods and other parts of the submarine is safe; every option in the proposal poses a threat to the environment and our health. The situation will get not better but worse as more submarines are decommissioned. From the Scottish Socialist Party's point of view, the decommissioning of nuclear submarines is a floating time bomb that this generation will have to deal with. The point that I am driving at is that, if those who opposed the development of nuclear submarines years ago had won the argument, we would not be dealing with the issue in our environment today.

Today, we are debating GM crops and the GM technology that will have a fundamental effect on our planet for generations to come. I do not support GM, but the Executive supports it. What effect will GM have in 50 or 100 years time? We do not know the answer to that question. I do not know and the ministers do not know—indeed, nobody knows what the effect will be.

Members have said that we should have scientific research, but the jury is out on that. The situation is not clear. I have a real problem with scientific research, when companies like Monsanto sponsor the laboratories, universities, scientists and all the equipment that produces the research to say that GM is safe. I am sorry, but the SSP does not believe that. I do not think that the public believe it either. Roseanna Cunningham made those points.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I am not prepared to take an intervention.

Why are we rushing headlong into this technology? What is the haste? Why do we have to go at a rate of knots towards it? The members who think that the agenda is solving world hunger should not kid themselves. One per cent of the research into GM technology is aimed at the crops that are used by poor farmers. The agenda is being driven by four multinational companies that have cornered the market. In 2001, 91 per cent of the seeds for GM crops in use across the planet came from Monsanto seeds. Those seeds do not meet the needs of poor farmers who rely on affordable, readily available supplies for a range of crops. GM seeds are aimed not at eradicating world hunger, but at large-scale commercial farmers who grow cash crops.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does Frances Curran agree that one of the impacts of the growth of GM crops in America has been to increase the ability of American farmers to dump cheap, subsidised crops on the markets of developing countries? That point underlines the social justice aspects of her argument.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Absolutely. I will make a quick point about that in my last minute.

I ask the minister when he sums up to explain the rationale behind the genetic use restriction technologies—the so-called terminator gene. Why would anyone want to have a crop in which the seed is sterile and the farmer cannot replant it year after year?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

No. The member is in her last minute.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

No. I have only a few seconds left to me.

We are talking about world hunger and sustainability. Next week, I am going to a meeting in Europe where representatives of Indian farmers, who represent millions of people who work on the land, are coming to Europe to ask us not to go along with GM technology. People from the landless organisations in Latin America will also ask us not to do that.

Allan Wilson said that the Executive is neither for nor against GM technology—his bum must be sore from sitting on the fence. Please do something. Have a bit of bottle. It is not as if it would cost the Executive any money. Future generations will thank him for it.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Until yesterday, I though that the debate was going to be about sustainable agriculture and the future of agriculture in Scotland. I was going to welcome that debate, as it is important to many of my constituents. Unfortunately, the title seems to have been something of a Trojan horse to sneak in a GM debate. For the life of me, I cannot see why, if the Greens wanted to talk about GM, they did not lodge a motion on GM and not raise expectations.

The motion is ill-informed. As the minister demonstrated, the Scottish Executive believes in applying the precautionary principle. Back in March 2000, the then Minister for Health and Community Care, Susan Deacon, led a debate in which public concerns about the development of genetically modified foods and crops were acknowledged and the precautionary approach was commended. I am tempted to replicate the speech that I made on that occasion three-and-a-half years ago. I will not do so, other than to repeat my view that we cannot assess the threats or benefits of GM without informed scientific and medical opinion. That opinion has to be informed by rigorous, controlled and independent research and not by prejudice, ill-informed fears or anxieties.

I have to pick up Eleanor Scott on the idea that nuclear irradiation is akin to something that happens in nature. Intense nuclear radiation causes fundamental genetic mutation. If there were to be a nuclear war, that is one of the reasons that I would sit on the roof with a bottle of wine—I would not want to survive it.

Research is necessary, not only to evaluate whether GM commercialisation is desirable, but because—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

No, I am sorry. I cannot take any interventions, as I do not have time to do so.

The fact is that GM commercialisation exists in other places. As George Lyon said, the horse has well bolted and by now it is not just out of the stable but galloping halfway round the field.

I remind members that foot-and-mouth, which devastated agriculture in my constituency, might have been introduced into this country by illegally imported meat in a sandwich. We have to know how to react and behave if we discover that material has been introduced into this country from overseas sources. That is another reason why we have to get on with the research in this country.

The actual title of the debate is "Future of Scottish Agriculture", and I really wanted to talk about some of the things that are happening in that respect. Indeed, I would have thought that the Green party would welcome certain measures. For example, the rural stewardship scheme was launched with the publication of "Rural Scotland: A New Approach" back in 2000. In August 2002, conservation awards worth £14.6 million were made to 196 farms that covered a total of 75,000 hectares; about 20 per cent of those farms were in southern Scotland. A year later, awards worth £23.6 million were made to 1,078 conservation projects covering 360,000 hectares of Scottish countryside. Surely that should be welcomed if we are talking about the future of Scottish agriculture.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

The Executive's "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture", which was published in June 2002, stated:

"farmers are better able to care for the environment if they are economically successful and if they continue to farm in our remote areas."

The document said that land management contracts would be explored. I am pleased by the progress in that respect with the establishment of a working group and a modelling exercise in which model land management contracts were drawn up for 21 farms, three crofts and a common grazing. Indeed, the model contract that was drawn up for a farm in Dumfries and Galloway identified 15 agriculturally and economically sustainable projects that would bring in more than £11,000 per annum.

I would have welcomed the opportunity to examine what was being done to bring together Scotland's agriculture and environment and to consider a way forward for both.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Government has to answer some questions about how it might handle the mass public opposition that will break out if there is any suggestion of further field trials or GM crop development. It should heed a Cabinet Office report which, according to The Guardian , said:

"if farmers and protesters thought organic or conventional farming would be damaged by GM crops, and there was no proper legal redress, it would be an invitation for anarchy and the destruction of GM crops before they caused damage."

We know from the GM vigil on the Black Isle that people have very strong views about the way in which this technology is being foisted upon us. Unfortunately, the minister has been silent in the debate—indeed, he has left the chamber. In that case, perhaps his deputy had better tell us why the Government in Scotland has been so supine and has not taken on board the feelings of people in this country.

The responsible science that members on the Labour benches talk about does not take account of the disgraceful links between members of regulatory committees and the industry from which they have been chosen. In fact, Michael Meacher and Lord Whitty have pointed out the links between many members of the committees that make certain decisions and those that advise the UK Government. That Government will not answer questions on the matter, and the Scottish Government is once more supine when it comes to the links between the people who advise and those who make the decisions. A spokesman from Friends of the Earth has said:

"business is setting the agenda right at the heart of government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made transparent."

How is this Government making the situation in Scotland more transparent?

In the report from The Guardian that I mentioned earlier, a spokesman from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggests that, when the European Union decides next year on whether to open up GM commercialisation,

"every country, including the UK, will decide what conditions suit our particular circumstances for each crop—if any."

Will that allow the Government in Scotland to go to London and say that no GM crop that has been proposed is suitable to be grown in Scotland or will the minister tell us now whether any such crop has been found to be suitable in that respect?

The Government has to address the question of liability and the separation of crops, because that is where GM crops can affect conventional and organic agriculture. Mr Head-in-the-Machair-Sand Morrison refuses to consider the fact that feed from the mainland could easily be GM-contaminated. Will he join me on the picket lines on Stornoway harbour when that feed is being taken off the ships? After all, the GM-free status of Western Isles crops will be directly affected.

The debate asks us to consider the question whether Scotland could follow Wales. I think that Scotland should be setting a lead. It is disgraceful that the Government ministers who have dealt with the issue have been so supine. Mr Finnie is not even prepared to listen to the criticisms that he deserves. I ask members to support the SNP amendment because the future of Scottish agriculture lies in maintaining the integrity of a GM-free crop production system.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

It is not often that I begin a speech by agreeing with the Conservatives—and particularly with Alex Johnstone. As someone who is still very wary of GM technology, I think that he at least brought a sense of balance and realism into the debate.

The minister mentioned the importance of the precautionary principle. I believe that the issue is at the heart of the debate. In fact, we already met that principle in the Scottish Parliament when we debated the issue of telecommunication masts. One important aspect is public consultation. In my speech, I will consider some of people's concerns about GM foods, one of which is the amount of their involvement in the consultation over field trials. Although I know that we are trying to meet such concerns through the dialogue that has been established, I have heard reports that the last set was not as good as it might have been.

I remember highlighting other concerns about GM crops during our first debates on the issue. For example, North American research on buffer zones shows that they represent a significant issue and that we need to keep an eye on the matter. I agree with some of the Green party members' comments that the transfer of pollen to non-GM crops is also a big issue.

Another concern centres on the long-term effects of GM crops on humans, the environment and the food chain. Elaine Murray is correct to say that science can only go so far in that respect. However, it is important that we carry out longitudinal studies to keep an eye on what is happening year on year and to ensure that GM material is not affecting the food chain adversely.

People are also very wary of big interest groups and multinationals such as Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta. I take on board some of the Scottish Socialist Party's points about that issue, particularly since I gather that the European Commission will most likely have a vote that might put GM sweetcorn and field corn on European shelves. I believe that Syngenta and Monsanto are pushing the issue and that it might sneak in by the back door before the EC is able to introduce its legislation on processed food and animal feed next year. That sort of thing makes people wary.

However, returning to Alex Johnstone's point, I believe that we must accept that GM technology will have huge benefits for medicine, pharmaceuticals and so on, and I agree with Margaret Beckett that the farm-scale trials are the biggest that have ever been conducted in the world. There is a genuine desire to make the trials as good as they possibly can be and it is important to feed the results into the European dimension.

Finally, we must agree with the minister that the right way to go is to take a balanced view of the matter, follow the precautionary principle, take on board public concerns, make adjustments as needs be and consider the wider UK and European agenda.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I have managed to call all the back benchers who wished to speak, so I now move to wind-up speeches, but I must ask all speakers to stick strictly to their time limits. Mr Lyon, you have three minutes.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I shall do my best to keep to that limit, Presiding Officer.

I begin by welcoming the minister's statement that any decisions on the commercial planting of GM crops will be taken on the basis of the best scientific evidence available. That principle is fundamental in shaping policy where human health and potential environmental damage are involved. If we buy the conspiracy theory put forward by Frances Curran and Rob Gibson that all scientists have been bought and paid for, the progress of mankind stops here today, because we could never develop new drugs to tackle cancer or other new medicines or health measures without an independent scientific evaluation of whether they were safe to use.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not think that anyone has suggested that all scientists are bought and paid for. Will not George Lyon acknowledge our argument that multinational corporations will bring to market only those products that can turn a buck and put back into their pockets the vast investment that they have made, and that that money can come only from poor communities?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Executive is right to wait until that evidence is available before coming to any final decision.

As a farmer, I personally believe that Scottish agriculture plc should reject the use of GM crops, for three reasons. First, as Roseanna Cunningham and other members have said, there is no market demand for such products. Consumer resistance to GM products is strong, and some of that resistance is due to the intemperate language used by those who are opposed to the technology.

Indeed, politicians in this Parliament have used such intemperate language. Nevertheless, the reality is that there is no market demand for the product, so it is a pointless exercise even to consider growing those crops in the first place.

Secondly, we should note the experience of commercial farmers in the United States of America. They were promised that GM technology would lower production costs and that it would be somehow to their commercial benefit, but that promise has not been realised. There is no sustainable long-term benefit to the farmers from using that technology. The argument that one spray of Roundup is all that is needed has been proved wrong; in many cases, farmers have to go in two or three times with Roundup because the first application has not worked.

That brings me to the third, and probably most important, reason. Mother nature is not benign in the process. There is a reaction to every new product that is developed. Mutation takes place, and resistance builds up to every new drug and chemical that we use in the farming industry. That will also happen with Roundup—it is already happening in the USA, which is why it takes more than one spray to kill off the weeds.

It seems foolish in the extreme to go down a road where we are utterly reliant on a handful of multinationals—the Monsantos of this world—to produce and sell us the seed and chemicals that control the world's food production. That is an illogical position to take and one that should be resisted. However, I repeat that the decision must be taken on the basis of the scientific evidence presented to ministers, and I support the minister's view on that.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Like other members, I was somewhat confused by coming to debate the future of Scottish agriculture but finding the debate confined to the fairly narrow but very emotive subject of GM crops. That said, I think that it has been a good debate, and substantive points have been made on all sides of the chamber.

In introducing his motion, Mark Ruskell gave an eloquent and impassioned speech. I cannot agree with it all, however, for the following reasons. Scotland has, as Alex Johnstone said, a proud tradition of plant breeding and research. Whether that is GM under another a name is probably the subject of another debate altogether, but we have always been at the scientific forefront of that type of technology. When we come to the science, we have to accept that the jury is still out on GM technology. Evidence is still being taken and, until it is all gathered and examined, the jury cannot possibly deliver a verdict. I do not believe that we can turn our backs on the science or on any scientific advancement; nor, indeed, can we decide on the issue, or expect ministers to do so, until those evaluations are complete.

Roseanna Cunningham's amendment is carefully worded, and it is tempting to agree with it, but I cannot do so because of the last sentence. The amendment asks that we consider

"that the future of Scottish agriculture lies in maintaining the integrity of GM-free crop production",

but surely that is what the debate is all about. The decision that has to be made is whether that is the case or not and, as I have said, the jury is still out.

I can agree with the Executive amendment, with one proviso, and I hope that the minister can clarify that point. In the past, I and my colleague John Scott have spoken of the need to apply the ultra-precautionary principle on the issue of GM crops. The Executive amendment says that decisions cannot be made until the GM dialogue has been fully evaluated. I hope that the minister can confirm that, at that stage in the process, he and his advisers will apply the ultra-precautionary principle in evaluating the results of those processes. As well as evaluating the science, ministers must also evaluate the effect on Scotland's position in the agricultural marketplace. Will the introduction of GM commercial crops ruin for ever the niche markets that our agricultural producers are becoming ever more efficient at supplying? Will the position only accelerate under common agricultural policy reform, which we are to debate this afternoon?

Such questions must receive substantive answers before ministerial decisions are taken. If the answers are provided within the ultra-precautionary principle to which I referred, the Executive position can and will receive our support. If GM crops are approved, I would take the unusual position of agreeing entirely with George Lyon and expecting all farmers to choose not to grow them.

In closing, I must say that I hope that Stewart Stevenson will be summing up for the SNP, because that will be the first appearance in the chamber of what must be a genetically modified tie.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank Mr Fergusson for those warm and unexpected words.

I would like to address the subject of scientists, politicians and the wider public. Scientists are objective. If they are not, they are not scientists. Their job is to inform the decisions that others make. Let us not pretend that the scientists make the decisions. Sometimes in this debate, it has seemed as if the scientists are making the decisions and we are simply to fall into line with them. Let us go back to basics: the scientists must inform the decisions that we make.

If the public are opposed to GM crops, they may express their opposition rationally or they may do so irrationally. Frankly, it disnae matter. We still have to take account of the public's view.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will Stewart Stevenson give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sorry, but I have only three minutes.

Of course, we have had genetic modification over thousands of years, in animals and in crops. That was done by using the natural processes of evolution but speeding them up, by denying a future to those animals and crops that were not heading the way that we wanted and by selecting and promoting those that were. Now, however, we are using technology that brings new risks. We see from the example of Dolly the sheep that the modification of genetic structures can create weaknesses in the resulting organism that have adverse effects. The same will undoubtedly be true of crops. We breach the cell wall to introduce viruses and genetic modifications, and doing that leaves a weakened structure. That is the source of some of the difficulties that we undoubtedly face.

We and the broader public have difficulties with the subject of risk. Statistically, how likely is it that something adverse will happen, and what will the impact be when it does? Is there a management plan for when that impact is too great? In this debate, there are huge issues around those questions. How would we manage a situation in which Scotland goes down the GM crop road and then concludes that doing so was the wrong answer? There is no such management plan—no one has come up with one. That is why, while the jury may be out on this particular debate, the burden of proof has to lie with the prosecution, and the case of those who prosecute the benefits of GM crops has not been made. We must not proceed.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Although I can agree with much of what Mark Ruskell said, I must say that the Green motion is both misguided and mistimed. We are obviously aware of the public concerns that Sylvia Jackson and many other members have referred to but, as our amendment states,

"no decision has been taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops"

That is not because we are sitting on the fence, but because our decisions on those matters are evidence based.

We are not supine or anything like it. We acknowledge—Stewart Stevenson raised the issue—that generic lessons are to be learned in relation to the communication of science and risk. Consider the example of herbicide resistance, to which many members referred. That can develop through conventional cross-breeding and through genetic modification. That is why we established the farm-scale evaluations, which the Greens and others oppose. It would be irresponsible to take decisions before we have received scientific advice from our advisers on their statutory assessment of the results of that evaluation process.

I noticed that Stewart Stevenson distanced himself from the demeaning comments of his colleague Mr Gibson about the scientists concerned. The people who are at the cutting edge of the development of the new technology are independent of Government and of industry. It is naive to suggest that because industry may have given some research funding to scientists those scientists are consequently in the pay of industry.

Our primary objective is to protect human health, animal health and the environment. That is the basis of the strict European Union regulatory regime to which I referred. No crop can or will be approved without its having first satisfied that rigorous risk assessment. If there is any evidence of harm, that approval will not be given. I say to Alex Fergusson, Sylvia Jackson and others that we will continue to adopt the precautionary approach in risk assessment.

Wales is regularly pointed to—as happened today—as an example of where there is a successful restrictive GM policy in action. However, let us be clear on one point—Wales is not and has never been GM free. The joint paper that it has presented along with other regions effectively acknowledges that the power that they seek to declare themselves GM free is contrary to the single market and therefore, as I said, such demands cannot be met.

We recognise that GM crops could affect the interests of conventional and organic farming and that measures will be required to ensure the sustainable co-existence of the regimes. We will receive evidence from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and we will examine those co-existence issues. We look forward to the Greens and others having an input in that process.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will Allan Wilson give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

No. I am sorry, but he is in his last minute.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I stress that no decision has been taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops. It would be premature to do so before the results of the farm-scale trials are known and the GM dialogue fully evaluated. We will need to reflect on all the relevant information. We will not be bounced into making a decision by either Mr Ruskell or the biotech companies. We believe in responsible science and responsible policy making. We should proceed with care on the basis of scientific fact rather than on the basis of prejudice and misinformation.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The debate is about the future of farming in Scotland. Do we want farming to be dictated to by a few companies with a specific financial agenda, or do we want an open agenda that puts at the forefront of the debate the needs of not only the wide variety of interests represented in our farming community but the consuming public?

The partnership agreement specifically mentions a market-led vision for Scottish agriculture. Nobody here has produced any evidence to show that there is a market for genetically modified crops. As a farmer, I am delighted to hear three farmers say they have made the decision that they will not grow GM crops. That says it all.

The supermarkets do not want to sell GM food, the people do not want to eat GM food, and many more farmers are extremely wary about growing the GM crop. Even NFU Mutual has come out clearly against providing cover for cross-contamination. That is a serious point to make.

Where is the future for the GM crop? Roseanna Cunningham made an important point when she mentioned the lack of trust in the biotech companies and commented on the line that has been deliberately crossed to force us to go down the GM route. Sylvia Jackson repeated that point. The companies—there are only four main companies—are forcing us to take on board the GM crop.

The farm-scale trials have already shown that there is a reduction in biodiversity. We do not need any more discussion. The GM nation dialogue showed that people are overwhelmingly against the crop. We have heard about the experiences of Canadian farmers. We do not have room in our small country to have sufficiently safe buffer zones, even if such a thing genuinely exists. If the wide Canadian prairies have been so contaminated that there is no chance of growing GM-free—never mind organic—oil-seed rape, what chance do we have of doing that?

Although members have talked about buffer zones, not much has been said about one of the most important aspects of GM pollination—bees. It has to be emphasised that bees fly up to 3 miles, so one bee can fly in one direction for three miles to a field and another bee can fly in the opposite direction for three miles to another field. We therefore need buffer zones of 7 miles between crops. Where in Scotland can we have buffer zones of 7 miles? The whole idea of growing GM crops is nonsense.

The Canadian National Farmers Union representative from whom we heard yesterday acknowledged that GM oil-seed rape covers the whole of Canada. What really concerns him is that wheat is the next crop that is being genetically modified. That has a serious implication for Scotland, because we grow a lot more wheat than we do oil-seed rape. The Canadian NFU is concerned that if it is so easy for contamination to take place, their wheat crops will not have a market anywhere. They are already being told by American, European and Asian markets that there is no market for GM wheat. We must not go down that road. We must declare ourselves GM free and concentrate on our top-quality, world-renowned local food.

The debate is not only about the future of farming in Scotland, but about a technology that could seriously damage our countryside. It is about the people who live in villages and farming communities who are surrounded by oil-seed rape fields.

The Executive amendment does not go far enough. We need a firmer commitment and real leadership from our Liberal Democrat Minister for Environment and Rural Development. What is he waiting for? The debate has taken place and the people have spoken. No other decision needs to be made. The scientific advice is irrelevant when we can see the reality in the fields in Canada. That is the bottom line.

Far more members are in the chamber now than were present throughout the debate. All members should discuss what has been said in the debate. We need to vote with our conscience for the people of Scotland. I want members to vote the way that they really feel about the motion—I want them to support it.

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I ask members to join me in welcoming to the public gallery Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado. [ Applause. ]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-317)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Next week's Cabinet will receive a report on the success of tonight's MTV Europe music awards, which will take place in Edinburgh. Maybe I will suggest to the Cabinet that, rather than telling the Brits to get off, we will campaign to get the Brits to come to Scotland, too.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am sure that the First Minister will enjoy his evening of entertainment at the MTV awards.

In an article that appeared on Tuesday in The Shetland News under the masthead "Great is the Truth and it will Prevail", Tavish Scott, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services states:

"Fishing is not a main priority of the UK Government. It hasn't been under successive Tory or Labour governments."

Is that the Scottish Executive's position and, if not, why is Mr Scott still a minister of the Scottish Executive?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Scott clarified that position yet again this morning. The issue is not about personalities or trying to misquote people; it is about the importance of the Scottish fishing community and industry and the work that is under way to ensure that they have a sustainable future. The priorities that we have for that remain in place and will be pursued relentlessly by Mr Finnie and other colleagues in Scotland and London in the coming weeks. We are fully determined to secure an outcome at the Brussels council meeting in December that will sustain the future of Scotland's fishing industry.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The problem with that answer is that it does not square with what Mr Scott said in the newspaper. Over the years, the First Minister has told members that Scotland's fishing industry is a priority for the UK Government, but his view has been fundamentally undermined by a member who remains in his Government.

If Mr Scott's humiliating rebuff to the First Minister's policy is not enough, I inform the First Minister that the Liberal Deputy First Minister, the Liberal Minister for Transport and the Liberal fisheries minister believe that, contrary to what the First Minister has told Parliament, giving the European Union exclusive control over Scotland's fishing industry

"is both undesirable and unworkable".

Will the First Minister explain why half of his Government believes that his policies on fishing are undesirable and unworkable?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In the middle of last year's fishing negotiations, the Scottish nationalist party tried to misrepresent the position of the Executive and the interests of the Scottish fishing community at the heart of Brussels. That was a shameful episode that Mr Swinney has yet to repudiate. It now looks as if the same pattern is emerging all over again.

The priority for the Executive and for ministers in the coming weeks is to ensure not only that we have the strong negotiating position that we require at the Brussels council meeting in December, but that we pursue the issue relentlessly and win some success. Those, like Mr Swinney, who advocate a complete end to any common fisheries policy are fundamentally wrong. The end of the common fisheries policy would mean the end of the Shetland box and the protection that it provides; and the end of the Hague preference and the minimum guarantees that it gives to Scottish fishing communities. It would also mean that Scotland would be involved in a free-for-all in which we would have as much to lose as to gain.

We will continue to work, within the framework of the common fisheries policy, for a fundamental change in that policy—we secured changes last December and further changes are to come—to ensure that Scotland has a sustainable fishing industry for a long time to come.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

This morning, the First Minister has accused me of misrepresenting and misquoting Tavish Scott and the Liberal Democrat party. Let me give him the details, chapter and verse. In The Shetland News , under the masthead "Great is the Truth and it will Prevail", Tavish Scott says:

"Fishing is not a main priority of the UK Government. It hasn't been under successive Tory or Labour governments."

That is the quote, with not a word deleted and not a word inserted.

Secondly, I quote from the Scottish Liberal Democrat Conference, which took place in Dunfermline on 1 November:

"Conference however believes that: making the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy an exclusive competence of the EU is both undesirable and unworkable".

That is the position of the First Minister's junior coalition partners.

Let us be clear. The First Minister tells us that the United Kingdom Government will make the protection of our fishing industry a priority and Tavish Scott says that it will not. The First Minister supports the handing of exclusive control of our fishing industry to the EU and the Liberal Democrats do not agree with him. Will the First Minister now do the right thing and change his policies and fight to save the Scottish fishing industry? So far, he has failed to do that.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I state again that Mr Scott has clarified his position. He stated very clearly again this morning that simply to repatriate the CFP to the UK or to Scotland would not be in the best interests of Scottish fishermen and would put at risk features of the current policy, such as the relative stability in the Shetland box, that we want to preserve. The partnership agreement and the work of this Executive have been absolutely consistent on the matter.

On a day when representatives of Scottish fishing communities are in Edinburgh to put their case to us—I do not always agree with what they say, but I respect their right to come here to argue on behalf of their families and communities—it is wrong simply to score political points again.

We need a strong Scottish position in the debate and we need to argue hard, not just for fishing but for sustainable fishing in the North sea and in the rest of the waters around Scotland. We need to ensure that Scotland does not take all the pain in any decisions that are made in December and we need to use scientific evidence to back up our position that other countries, in particular those that are involved in industrial fishing, should take that pain as well. We need to see through the fundamental changes that were agreed last December as speedily and effectively as possible. That is in the best long-term interests of Scotland's fishing industries and all parties in the chamber should get behind that.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-323)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expect that I shall meet the Prime Minister at least twice before Christmas. I have not yet decided whether I will ask him to support our campaign to bring the Brit awards to Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister seems to have an obsession with popular music today. If he is looking for something to wear to the MTV awards, I suggest a Shetland isles jumper.

This week I was amazed to hear a minister agree with the Conservatives that the common fisheries policy should be scrapped. Well, he said that, then he did not say that, and then he said that again, all in the space of 36 hours. From a typical two-faced, all-things-to-all-men Liberal Democrat back bencher, that would be perfectly acceptable behaviour—even normal or, frankly, mandatory behaviour. It should not be acceptable behaviour for a minister in the First Minister's Government but, astonishingly, Mr Scott remains a minister. I am sure that, like me, many people will be confused about the situation. If Mr Scott will not resign of his own volition on this occasion, will the First Minister explain why he does not dismiss him?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said earlier in answer to Mr Swinney's questions, Mr Scott has clarified this morning that he wants us to negotiate hard within the framework of the current common fisheries policy—as he should, and as everyone in the chamber should—to ensure that we move towards the regional management system for EU fisheries policy that we have consistently supported.

The difference between the coalition parties and Mr McLetchie—on this issue as on so many other European issues—is that he does not believe that there should be a fisheries policy at all. In advocating that position, he must think very hard about what he supports. Mr McLetchie is advocating a policy that would lead to the ending of the Shetland box, the Hague preferences and the guarantees that Scotland has under the current common fisheries policy. He is advocating the creation of a free-for-all in the waters of the North sea and elsewhere in which Scotland would have as much to lose as to gain. That is the dangerous route that Mr McLetchie would like us to take. We will not take it.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

As the First Minister knows perfectly well, there was no free-for-all before 1973. These matters were well regulated on an independent, bilateral basis. I have no doubt that they could be regulated on a similar basis in the future, without a disastrous common fisheries policy.

It is interesting that the First Minister is in such difficulty on this issue with Mr Scott. The First Minister failed to deal with the then Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Mr Watson, when last year he publicly disagreed with the Executive's policy on the Glasgow hospitals review. At the time, the ubiquitous Mr Scott described that dispute as having "a corrosive effect" on Government. How does the ministerial code differentiate between a minister speaking as an individual MSP and a minister speaking as a member of the Government? Have we reached the stage at which the ministerial code is simply not worth the paper on which it is written? Is it not time to put an end to the double standards and mixed messages that are bringing the Administration into disrepute?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not accept that analysis. I recall that, rightly, last year Mr Watson supported the Executive's position in the debate in the chamber on the Glasgow acute health services review. Contrary to all the predictions that Mr McLetchie made at the time, Mr Watson went on to win his constituency seat again handsomely in the election in May this year. I congratulate him on doing so.

As I have said before in the chamber, we need a mature democracy in Scotland in which individual MSPs, including ministers, represent their constituencies, but in which the Government acts in a united fashion and ensures that it represents Scotland's interests at home and abroad. That is exactly what we intend to do. Despite distractions from Conservative members, between now and December we will pursue the long-term interests of the Scottish fishing communities. We will ensure that the outcome of the fisheries council is fair and equitable and that other countries bear the pain of preserving stocks in the North sea as much as Scotland does. We will ensure that we in Scotland have the appropriate international agreements in place and that we retain those agreements, to avoid the free-for-all that can only damage rather than assist Scotland's long-term interests.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the First Minister join me in welcoming the creation of a joint school campus in Dalkeith in my constituency of Midlothian, which brings together St David's High School, Dalkeith High School and Saltersgate School? Will he join me in congratulating the staff, parents and pupils of the schools and Midlothian Council on having the vision to create an integrated campus and for working so hard to break down the barriers that still too often divide us?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Shared campuses are right in certain circumstances, where they are appropriate for local communities, have support and would lead to improvements in the education of the youngsters involved. Shared campuses will not be right in all circumstances, but where they work they should do so in the best interests of the children. In all of their management arrangements, they should put the interests of the children first. I hope that in the course of the next few days and weeks any difficulties that have been experienced in Midlothian over the past few days can be not just ironed out, but turned around to ensure that the community makes a positive contribution to the future of the youngsters involved.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Does the First Minister share my concerns about recent events regarding the firefighters' pay settlement? Can he confirm that the Audit Commission has stated that

"the pay award remains a matter for the employers to consider individually and collectively"?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, I condemn utterly the attacks in certain parts of Scotland last night on firefighters who were doing their jobs in dangerous and difficult circumstances. I am sure that the whole chamber will agree with me on that.

Secondly, as I have said before, the negotiated agreement that was achieved between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union on the future of fire service pay and conditions should be implemented by all sides, which should move forward in the way in which they have agreed. I hope that current difficulties will not result in prolonged action over the next few weeks.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made by the working group on hate crime. (S2F-334)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are determined to send out a clear signal that crimes that are rooted in prejudice are unacceptable in 21 st century Scotland. The Minister for Communities announced the establishment of a working group on hate crime in June. The group has met four times since then and we expect to receive a report from it soon.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

On Friday, in The Independent , it was revealed that the Labour Government in London will introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill for England and Wales to include as hate crimes homophobic crimes and crimes against people who are suffering from disabilities. Can the First Minister reassure us that the report of the working group on hate crime will be brought to the chamber for discussion, for us to formulate legislation, and that he will not introduce yet another Sewel motion by the back door to incorporate the forthcoming Westminster legislation into our legislation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy to do all that I can to ensure that, when Patricia Ferguson brings the next Sewel motion to Parliament, she does so by the front door rather than by the back door. The Sewel motion procedure is a transparent way in which to ensure that, should Westminster ever make a decision that covers our responsibilities, the Scottish Parliament agrees that in advance. That procedure has worked well for us, as a Parliament. There are no plans to introduce a Sewel motion on this issue. There are, however, plans for the working group to complete its business and for its report to be widely debated.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The First Minister has still not reassured us that the Executive intends to introduce legislation on the matter. Does the Executive intend, subsequently, to introduce legislation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

With respect, that was not the question that Mr Harper asked me, so I could not give that reassurance. I am happy to say again that we have established a working group that has wide representation on it. It is right and proper for that working group to conclude its business before we make any decisions or further recommendations.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Has the First Minister made arrangements to ensure that the legal system and the police are dealing well with hate crimes involving, for example, racial and sectarian hatred, for which there is existing legislation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes. I am just checking the figures that are involved. My understanding is that more than 50 cases involving an aggravation of religious prejudice have been brought since the commencement of the relevant provision that was agreed in the Parliament last year. We said at the time that that was a key element of our long-term strategy for tackling sectarianism in Scotland. I believe that the police and the authorities have taken that seriously.

Such motivation is not easy to prove in a courtroom and I am sure that, in individual circumstances, we will need to ensure that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service pursues the cases in a thorough way. It is appropriate that we now have that law in Scotland and I hope that, in the years to come, it will not only have an impact on those who carry out such crimes, but that—much more important—it will prevent those crimes.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Can the First Minister confirm that the working group on hate crime will address the issue of homophobic hate crime, and does he agree that there can be no place for homophobia in a modern Scotland? Does he agree that, although work on that area in the criminal justice system is to be welcomed, the key issue is to reduce the incidence of such crimes? Will he, therefore, set out what steps the Executive is taking to tackle homophobic attitudes wherever they occur?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

A whole package of work is under way, and I will be happy to ensure that the Minister for Communities writes to Susan Deacon with the detail of that. We have included that very important issue in the remit of the working group and we expect the group to produce recommendations on it.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Executive intends to ensure that Scotland gains the maximum benefit from the MTV music awards in Edinburgh. (S2F-327)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The MTV music awards were worth attracting to Scotland just for the worldwide audience of 1 billion and for the contribution that they will make to the local economy. We have maximised the benefits for Scotland by also working with MTV and agencies of local and national Government to develop many supporting projects—including video advertising to promote Scotland and Edinburgh; ensuring that over half of the suppliers for the event are Scottish; and distributing an information pack promoting Scotland to those who attend the awards.

I am confident that tonight's awards will provide Scotland with invaluable global exposure and will boost our reputation as a high-quality destination that delivers excellence. I wish all those involved the very best.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Ask him for a ticket.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I thank the First Minister for his answer and I could not help but overhear the leader of the Scottish Conservative party mention tickets. Should the First Minister happen to have a spare one about his person, I would be very grateful for it.

The First Minister has mentioned, quite correctly, the economic benefits of these awards. Will he share his thoughts on how those benefits can be spread more widely throughout Scotland, rather than just to Edinburgh city centre—welcome though that is?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The financial benefit to Edinburgh and the Lothians has been estimated to be in the region of £4 million. However, as we can see from the fact that at least one star is staying in Gleneagles, the benefits are already being spread elsewhere in Scotland.

This was an opportunity for us to showcase Scotland, not just Edinburgh. That is why we have done something that has not been done on similar occasions in the past. We have been involved in television advertising and a video promoting Scotland and Edinburgh across the globe. We have also ensured that, in the run-up to the event and afterwards, we will convince people that not only can they come to Edinburgh and have one of the best parties in the world, but they can come to Edinburgh and see a very professional and properly organised event that others should follow.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will doubtless be tucking into a dinner tonight at the MTV awards while the rest of us tuck into our fish and chips. Why is that dinner being produced by a south British company when there are so many excellent catering companies in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I was not even aware that there was a dinner tonight, but I am delighted that more than half the suppliers supporting the event are Scottish. That is good news for the local economy and good news for the reputation of those suppliers in the years to come.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will now review its policy of not allowing NHS Scotland to provide single vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella. (S2F-319)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Expert medical advice, both here and internationally, confirms that the MMR vaccination remains the safest and most effective way of protecting children from these very serious and potentially fatal diseases. We have no plans to change current policy and I urge parents to ensure that their children are vaccinated to protect them and any others with whom they may be in contact.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I draw the First Minister's attention to Executive figures that came out last week. They show a 27 per cent increase in the incidence of mumps, a 22 per cent increase in rubella and an 18 per cent increase in measles. At the same time, there has been a 3 per cent drop in vaccinations. As long as some parents believe that there is a possible connection between MMR and autism, the figures will continue to show that trend. We should recognise that fact. Rather than take the risk of causing an outbreak or epidemic of measles, mumps or rubella, would it not be safer, as well as potentially more cost-effective, to offer parents the possibility of single vaccinations for their children?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We debated this issue during First Minister's question time about 18 months ago. It was a serious issue then and it is an even more serious issue today. We are better informed today. One of the authors of the scientific paper that sparked off this whole debate and created many of these concerns—Dr Simon Murch—has made his position absolutely clear in recent days. He says:

"There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism—this statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis ... No other vaccine has ever been studied in such depth, and the evidence for its overall safety is comprehensive."

He understands, as I do, the genuine concern of parents about immunising their children. However, all the medical evidence throughout the world is that providing the joint vaccine is the right thing to do. By not taking the joint vaccine, parents put not only their children in danger, but other people's children, specifically those who cannot have the vaccine for reasons of their own, for example because of other conditions that they have. Those children are then left in a position where they might develop measles, mumps or rubella, which might be fatal. The issue is deadly serious and I urge parents throughout Scotland to take it seriously and to take the vaccine.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister accept that the way in which he answered the previous question illustrates the problem? He said that this was a serious issue 18 months ago and it is an even more serious issue now. The overwhelming majority of parents in Scotland want their children vaccinated, but an increasing number do not have enough confidence in the triple vaccination. The First Minister promotes choice in many other areas of Scottish life. Is it not time to promote vaccination of all children, but to provide choice for parents on whether they select the MMR vaccination or single vaccinations?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That always sounds like an attractive option. However, the evidence and the advice that we have taken from those in the scientific community and, more particularly those in the Scottish medical community who are responsible for this issue, is that to go down that route would be more dangerous, would put more children at risk and would ultimately be counterproductive. It is vital that we maintain the current policy, not for some dogmatic reason but for real evidence-based reasons why that is the right thing to do for children and particularly for those children who cannot have the vaccine but need everyone else to have it. There is a critical level at which the vaccine must be in place and it is vital that we return to that level as quickly as possible.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister how the plans he announced on 3 November 2003 regarding reforms to comprehensive education will affect equality of opportunity. (S2F-332)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I want real equality of opportunity to realise ambitions, nurture talents and motivate all to work hard and succeed. Greater flexibility between and within schools, encouraging and empowering head teachers, staff, parents and pupils will help to achieve that.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that offering diversity and a broader curriculum in our schools is possible only if there is a significant reduction in class sizes? Will he give us the assurance that there will be no break-up of our comprehensive education system?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I reiterated on Monday my absolute commitment to the principles of the comprehensive education system and my strong belief that that system needs to be reinvigorated for the 21 st century. It cannot be a uniform system in which the same standards, conditions and curriculum are applied to all; it must be a system in which each child is allowed to prosper and reach their full potential. Flexibility in the classroom, in the curriculum and in the choices that children and their parents are offered is fundamental to achieving that goal. In certain classes, the size can make a difference. However, I also believe that what happens in the classroom makes a big difference. One of the liberating features of Scottish education in recent years has been the massive increase in the number of classroom assistants in primary schools. They have transformed the classroom atmosphere and the opportunities and support available to youngsters, who get much more from a room in which there are two adults than they would from room with slightly fewer children, but only one adult. We have to be flexible about how we staff our classrooms to reduce class sizes where possible and to make education in the classroom as good as it can be.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree that part of the flexibility that children should be offered includes the proposal that older pupils in particular should have the opportunity to get work and college experience in the context of the overall school umbrella? That is one of the biggest moves towards enhancing the educational opportunities that are available. Will the First Minister make that aspect of the partnership agreement a priority for his Administration?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is an extremely important part of the education section of the partnership agreement, as Mr Brown is aware; it is one to which I am absolutely committed and that the Executive is pursuing with some pace. It is important, not only that some children have the opportunity to exercise options at college, but that, even more successfully, children are able to exercise the opportunity to access college lecturers and others in the school environment, with their peers, and to exercise more options for courses. That good practice is working successfully in many Scottish schools, and I want it in many more.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for the future funding of the care commission. (S2O-694)

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

The policy on future funding of the care commission remains that the commission will be funded through a combination of registration fees for all services and subsidy of fees for child minding and day care for children. The Executive will shortly consult on maximum fees for next year.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the future self-funding of the care commission, at the estimated cost of £95 per care home place, will, once again, have more financial implications for service users and will add to the continuing confusion about the true cost of nursing and residential provision, which the Scottish Executive has so far failed to resolve?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

I do not agree at all with that assertion. The current annual fee for care homes is £95 per place, or £1.82 per week, which represents about 45 per cent of the current cost of regulating the service. That is a small proportion of the overall cost of the services that are regulated both in care homes and elsewhere. As is the case with many other services that such organisations provide, they will have to consider how they absorb the costs.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I hear what the minister says, but I refer him to a publication from the National Association of Inspection and Registration Officers in Scotland, whose members inspect care homes. The association's position is that the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care should not be self-funding and it urges that funding should be

"spread across the whole community, including funding via direct taxation."

Is the minister taking into consideration that comment from experienced people on the ground?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

A large proportion of the care commission's budget—something like £19.5 million out of the £25 million that it costs—comes from grant in aid from the Scottish Executive, which comes from direct taxation.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what grants are available to assist disabled people to achieve barrier-free housing. (S2O-714)

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

A range of grants is available, including support from local authorities and Communities Scotland, across the range of tenures. In 2002-03, more than 96 per cent of new-build houses that were funded through Communities Scotland's housing association grant scheme were built to barrier-free standards.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree that there is a tendency for support for barrier-free housing to gravitate towards the rental sector and that there is a lack of support to enable disabled people to buy barrier-free housing, especially since the special needs capital grant was removed? In the European year of disabled people, disabled people should have the same rights to house ownership as anyone else. What, if anything, will replace the special needs capital grant?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am not in a position to say what will replace the special needs grant. We are petitioning the European Union to ensure that we are within the European aid rules; we are actively dealing with the issue. However, it is still possible for people from the owner-occupied sector to access housing improvement grants and I hope that they will take up that opportunity should they need to do so.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration has been given to the case for capital city status submitted by Lothian and Borders police to the Executive on 5 September 2003. (S2O-677)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The Executive has considered the chief constable's case, has accepted that it sets out some policing pressures that are distinct to or disproportionately affect Edinburgh and has agreed that those issues should be considered within the review of police grant-aided expenditure allocations, which is due to be completed in the spring.