Scottish Parliament, 25 March 2004

427 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Introduction

Zero Waste

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S2M-1089, in the name of Shiona Baird, on zero waste, and three amendments to the motion.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

According to Audit Scotland, the amount of waste that was collected by local authorities in Scotland last year was 3.2 million tonnes—an increase of 200,000 tonnes on the amount that was collected the year before. Each household in Scotland produces more than a tonne of rubbish a year. We are, as campaigners in Canada put it, exploiting natural resources as if mother nature had announced a going-out-of-business sale. If mother nature goes out of business, we are all in trouble.

The Scottish Executive currently has no target or strategy to reduce the amount of waste that Scotland produces. Granted, there are targets to increase recycling and composting and to reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill; however, none of those targets tackles the root of the problem. We are all, quite rightly, happy to aim for zero unemployment, zero poverty and zero famine. Why are we not prepared to accept zero waste? The commitments on waste in the partnership agreement are patchy. Although the Greens support pledges to require public bodies to conduct waste minimisation audits, if one looks at the policies as a whole it is not hard to see why Scotland's waste mountain is growing. There appears to be a lack of breadth, thought and coherence in policy on this important issue.

When the Greens talk about zero waste, we are talking about not just more recycling and composting, but a fundamental shift from a historically narrow focus on waste management to a comprehensive approach to managing resources and eliminating waste. Zero waste means taking a wider perspective and looking at the whole system of production and consumption. That includes the front end of the system, where natural resources are extracted, materials are produced and products are designed and manufactured. That is where many of the worst environmental impacts of waste can occur, when pollutants are created, energy is consumed and habitats are destroyed. It is also where there is great opportunity for innovation and efficiency. However, that innovation and efficiency will not come about if, all the time, the Government's waste policy focuses largely on the other end of the process—managing waste.

Zero waste was born in the world of business, more out of a desire for greater efficiency and cost savings than through concern for the environment. Many businesses have been extremely successful in examining the whole of their operations and dramatically cutting waste production. Honda in Canada has reduced its waste production by 98 per cent in the past decade, and Hewlett-Packard in California now has a rate of 97 per cent waste diversion.

Some progressive companies are now adopting what are known as factor 10 goals of achieving a tenfold increase in efficiency through zero waste. Therefore, adopting a goal of zero waste increases efficiency, cuts costs and saves resources. It is an enterprise issue, and I am pleased that the Executive has recognised that.

Certain measures are key to ensuring the success of zero waste, such as the extension of producer responsibility to ensure that manufacturers and producers take their share of the responsibility for recovering their products and packaging. Similarly, zero waste requires us to encourage the designing of products that are durable and easily repaired, with thought given to the end of their life cycles, as well as incentives for manufacturers to switch from using virgin material to using recycled material. Directives are coming from Europe on some of those aspects, but progress is slow. It would send a strong and positive signal if Scotland were to take them on for itself.

Zero waste is also gaining ground at state and national Government levels. Australia's capital, Canberra, has set a target for a waste-free society by 2010, and New Zealand has formally adopted zero waste at a national level. Western Australia is aiming for zero waste by 2020. Many cities and counties in the United States have also set a zero-waste target, as have Bath and North East Somerset Council and Essex County Council in England. Once minds are made up and targets are set, progress can be rapid. For example, Edmonton, in Canada, landfilled all its waste in 1998 but by 2000—just two years later—it had reduced that by 65 per cent.

Zero waste requires long-term vision, but it is also highly practical and applicable today, and it can be achieved in steps. It is surely a non-party-political issue. We ask the Executive to produce a strategy on a concept that could have immense benefit for Scotland. I urge the other parties to withdraw their amendments. Let us work together, support the motion and do our best for Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that, despite a small increase in recycling and composting, the Scottish Executive is yet to achieve any reduction in the overall production of waste; urges the Executive to adopt a "zero waste" approach, which has the potential to dramatically reduce waste from the design, production and use of materials and products, to boost reuse, recycling and composting rates and to cut costs for business, stimulate innovation and create more "green" jobs in Scotland, and recommends that the Executive produces a strategy for reaching a target of zero waste and reports back to the Parliament on the potential of that policy for Scotland.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We welcome the debate, recognising the extent to which it touches on enterprise as well as environmental issues. It allows us to consider the practical challenges that we face in reducing waste, in increasing the sustainable reuse or disposal of waste products and in working towards containing and ending the growth in waste. We have set out a blueprint of how to achieve the best practicable environmental options in waste management in "The National Waste Plan 2003", which was published a year ago as part of our wider national waste strategy, as I am sure that Shiona Baird is aware.

The waste plan sets out how we propose to minimise and prevent waste, reduce landfill and increase recycling. We believe that it is right to focus on the targets in that plan, which include an aim to stop the growth in municipal waste by 2010.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The plan is laudable in many ways. Under the heading "Looking to the Future", it contains a section that is entitled "Towards a Resource-efficient Economy", which states that

"it is recognised that the direction of Scotland's National Waste Strategy must be reviewed regularly to ensure that its future development takes account of, and benefits from an understanding of emerging international thinking and good practice in waste and resource management."

Can the minister give us a flavour of what work has been undertaken, since the plan was produced, to act on that statement and create a resource-efficient economy?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Bruce Crawford will recognise the fact that the plan also states that we value the concept of zero waste. We welcome the debate on zero waste, as it allows the approach that we have taken to be considered and progress to be measured. However, we believe that the priority, at this stage, is to make progress on the targets that we have set. Mr Crawford will be pleased to hear that I will say a little more about resource efficiency shortly.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Although the Executive has many targets for recycling, it does not have a definitive target for waste reduction. That is, basically, what we are talking about. We urge the Executive to consider producing a strategy for that.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Members will be aware of the targets that have been set. Our focus is on reaching those targets, as we recognise that as the way in which to move forward. On the evidence of the debate in January, there is clearly an understanding of the fact that Scotland starts from a position that is a long way back. We need to improve our recycling record, make use of resources properly and reduce the amount of municipal waste that is sent to landfill. On the back of those achievements, we will be able to reduce the amount of waste that is produced.

In fact, a number of initiatives are already under way. For example, some of strategic waste fund awards that have already been given include elements of waste prevention, such as the promotion of home composting. Consultants with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are working on a toolkit for councils and community groups that will allow them to carry out domestic waste reduction campaigns and programmes. We are also resourcing the UK waste and resources action programme's innovative design work on minimising or eliminating waste in a whole range of products.

As far as enterprise is concerned, my own particular focus is on encouraging businesses to minimise waste. Businesses understand resource efficiency. They understand that by-products that go to waste are lost business opportunities and that saved resources also provide financial savings that go straight to the bottom line. Since the beginning of the year, envirowise has carried out 214 waste audits for businesses in Scotland and identified potential savings for those companies of more than £3 million a year.

Furthermore, following our previous debate on this subject, a national steering group is now co-ordinating the work of local waste minimisation partnerships such as those in the north-east of Scotland and Midlothian. The Scottish industrial symbiosis programme is examining possible synergies between businesses by establishing whether the by-product of one business process could be used as the feedstock for another. As another example of Government helping businesses to help themselves in a way that helps others, we will also provide around £1 million in additional funds in each of the next two financial years to support business waste minimisation further.

In January, my colleague Allan Wilson said that we will consult widely with businesses and waste producers on a framework for dealing with non-municipal waste, which forms the majority of waste that is produced. That will include work on how to prevent waste in the first place.

As a result, we have a strategy that combines action to reduce household and municipal waste and action to reduce waste produced by the private sector. We will also encourage public bodies to minimise waste in line with the partnership agreement. We are taking those actions because they are environmentally essential and because they form part of our evolving strategy for green jobs. We will consult soon on that strategy and I hope that it will attract the support of those who advocate zero waste as well as those who are already involved in the delivery of the national waste strategy.

I move amendment S2M-1089.4, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the recent increase in recycling and composting; notes paragraph 7.3.3 of the National Waste Plan 2003 which states that zero waste "provides a platform for challenging our current systems and radically reducing waste beyond even the best current levels of achievement" and the aim in the National Waste Plan to stop growth in the amount of municipal waste produced by 2010; further notes the work being carried out by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, Envirowise, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and others to minimise business and household waste; recognises the Scottish Executive's commitment to increasing packaging recovery targets from 59% to 70% by 2008, and calls on the Executive to continue its work to prevent and minimise waste, to increase recycling and to divert waste from landfill."

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I do not need to repeat the statistics that underline Scotland's rather regrettable environmental record, particularly on recycling and waste. However, the fact that this is the second debate in as many months on reducing Scotland's waste says a lot about the value of the Scottish Parliament. After all, Westminster never debated the issue in a Scottish context. That we can now begin to tackle issues that have been neglected for so long shows that this Parliament is worth while.

As the Scottish National Party has a long-standing commitment to achieving a sustainable Scotland, we are sympathetic to the vision that the Green party has set out in its motion, which we will support. I appreciate that we are talking about a vision; however, we should start to realise that vision now rather than try to do so further down the line when our record in Scotland will be even worse. The people of Scotland will certainly support such a long-term objective. Although targets are important, we have to underpin them with a vision.

As the Greens and other members have previously pointed out, we must move the focus from managing to reducing waste. Managing waste centres on the role of landfill sites and incinerators, which, as we know, is a very contentious issue in communities throughout Scotland. I know that other members will highlight local constituency issues in that respect, because such facilities raise concerns about public health and their detrimental impact on the environment. Of course, sending our waste to landfill sites or incinerating it also represent a completely inefficient use of resources.

If we are serious about reducing waste in Scotland, we must recruit the support of consumers and end our throwaway culture. We have to ensure that consumers use their power to make retailers and others reduce the amount of packaging and other waste.

However, consumers must also be able to access facilities to ensure that they play a direct role in waste minimisation and recycling. For example, when, after January's debate, I ordered a compost bin from Aberdeenshire Council, I was told that I had to drive 12 miles to an industrial estate in the city of Aberdeen to get it. Not only do I have to get in a car and drive to pick up this bin, but I have to travel 12 miles to get it. Moreover, not everyone has a car. How on earth can we ensure that people can play a direct role in waste minimisation and recycling when we cannot even provide the facilities for them? I should tell the chamber that I have not yet had the time to drive over to the industrial estate to pick up the bin. However, I hope to do so soon.

We also have to recruit the public sector. I wish that ministers would say more about the role that Government and the public sector play in waste minimisation. Where are their strategies? What have they done in the first five years of the Scottish Parliament to provide an example for the rest of Scotland of how to reduce waste?

We must persuade industry that reducing waste makes businesses competitive and reduces costs. We like to think that Lewis Macdonald is representing the Executive today because he has responsibility for enterprise and that there is a link between the enterprise and environment portfolios. The real reason is that Allan Wilson is elsewhere launching a document on fishing, after which he has to come to the chamber and speak for the Executive in the debate on genetically modified crops.

However, it is appropriate that Lewis Macdonald is speaking in the debate with his environmental hat on, because so many green jobs could be created in Scotland through waste minimisation. He must do more to ensure that the enterprise companies are playing their role. They are clearly dragging their heels on this matter and, after four years, they are only now putting together their action plans.

As I am running out of time, I want to turn to the crux of the SNP's amendment, which highlights the fact that we have to conduct today's debate in the context of the Scotland Act 1998 and that the Parliament has only limited powers to address Scotland's environmental record. After all, although the carrot-and-stick approach is perhaps the most effective way of addressing the issue with industry, retailers and so on, all those powers lie with the Westminster Parliament. If we want to make a real difference and tackle the problem much more quickly, the relevant powers must be transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. For example, the Scottish Parliament has no power to tackle junk mail or to introduce research and development incentives.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, I am in my final two seconds.

We have no power over tax breaks and other carrot-and-stick approaches that we could take to make industry change its behaviour or to try to encourage consumers to do the same. Instead, we have to find convoluted ways of introducing even such simple measures as the carrier bag tax, which is the subject of a Westminster private member's bill. Any other independent Parliament can simply pass a piece of primary legislation and immediately introduce such a levy.

If the Parliament had more powers, we could be much more efficient and make a real difference to Scotland's environmental, recycling and waste minimisation record as a result. I am delighted that the Deputy First Minister has seen the light and is arguing that the Scottish Parliament should have more powers. Indeed, I hope that he will argue that the Parliament should have more environmental powers.

The SNP will not withdraw its amendment, as the Greens have asked us to do. We feel that it is very important to put the debate into context and make the people of Scotland aware of the fact that we need more power to change things. As a result, we urge the Green party to support our amendment in the same way as we will support its motion.

I move amendment S2M-1089.3, to insert at end:

"and further notes that many of the powers required to reduce waste and achieve a sustainable Scotland reside with Her Majesty's Government and that such powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Although waste is not the most exciting subject that we have ever discussed in the Parliament, it has increasingly become a cause of concern for the Parliament and the Scottish Executive. We should welcome the fact that the Greens have secured this debate this morning. Although I think that the time for zero waste has not yet come, the concept is certainly worthy of discussion. As a result, the Conservative amendment seeks to position us somewhere along the road towards achieving zero waste while dealing with some of the issues that stand in the way of progress on the matter.

When the Environment and Rural Development Committee investigated the matter last year, it became obvious that the Executive was involved in one or two activities that did not achieve its aims in the national waste plan. For example, I am concerned about the setting of targets. Other members have said that the targets that have been set are significant and valuable. However, the targets for waste reduction and for increased disposal of waste by certain methods deliver relatively little. In fact, many of the targets seem quite arbitrary and have no reason or logic behind them.

I therefore suggest that the time has come to abandon nationally set targets and to examine how we can devolve responsibility for the matter to local authorities and empower them to ensure that they can meet their own aims and objectives. After all, the member who moved the motion clearly highlighted that that was already happening in other parts of the country.

For example, the Executive could consider the successful impact of the landfill tax on how industry and business dispose of their waste. The landfill tax has a direct impact on businesses, but it does not have a direct impact on those who produce domestic waste. I will not make this a direct proposal to the chamber, but I encourage everybody to consider the positive aspects of direct charging and how it might be extended to household waste disposal. There is a great deal of evidence from other countries that when individuals have to pay for the waste that they produce by volume or by weight—which is more successful—the amount of waste that they produce can be radically and quickly reduced.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I wonder whether Alex Johnstone understands the concept of zero waste, because he is talking about the end-product. Our point is that waste is an enterprise issue; it is about businesses designing goods that can be reused and repaired. We want something that goes a stage further than what Alex Johnstone seems to suggest. I am not certain that he understands the concept in the motion.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Indeed, there are many Green policy concepts that I do not understand, but I stand here to be educated.

If we are to head towards zero waste, it is important that we understand that it involves the management of existing circumstances. I want to refer briefly to a couple of issues that it is appropriate to raise at this stage. There is an intrinsic deficiency in the planning system in this country that makes it difficult to deal with waste and, indeed, with the management of a zero-waste policy. If we are to reach a zero-waste position in Scotland, we must have a dynamic and fluid planning system that allows for radical change. We are undergoing a review of planning law and it is important that the review considers waste management and long-term zero-waste policies.

If we are to achieve zero waste, we must be as flexible as possible. My amendment seeks to empower local authorities and to take away the big-stick attitudes that central Government has tried to impose on over local authorities.

I move amendment S2M-1089.2, to leave out from "urges" to end and insert:

"notes that Scottish local authorities need to improve their recycling performance by 15.4% over the next two years, three times the figure they have achieved in the last four, to meet the Executive's target of 25% of waste recycled by 2006; calls on the Executive to admit that its top-down approach is not working, and, as an alternative to a zero waste policy, urges it to allow local authorities the flexibility to deliver the best solutions for their areas in the long term."

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I have no quibble with Alex Johnstone's description of the size of the task, of which we are all conscious. However, he cannot accuse the Executive of having a top-down approach in its preparation of the national waste plan. The approach was emphatically a bottom-up one, because it was prepared from area waste plans. The national waste plan delivers the flexibility for local authorities for which Alex Johnstone calls.

I read Shiona Baird's motion carefully because I agree that the concept of zero waste is a useful tool for changing perceptions and practice. Indeed, my Liberal colleagues approved a motion at our autumn federal conference last year that noted the launch of the zero-waste charter and adopted a set of aims and policies that are based on it. The zero-waste concept also gets an honourable mention in the Executive's 2003 national waste plan. However—sorry, but there is a however—I argue that the Executive, other tiers of European Government and local government and various other bodies are already working on the objectives that the Green's motion cites. I do not see the advantage in the Executive squandering time and effort at this stage on producing another strategy and reporting back to Parliament on its potential. There is far more value in pressing on with the existing strategy. Much time was spent on getting it all in place; it is now being put into practice and is beginning to take effect.

We have an operational national waste plan. The Environment and Rural Development Committee took evidence and reported on how the plan was working in its first year—

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I ask Shiona Baird to let me finish my point.

The committee flagged up several issues and concerns that could be addressed to make the plan work better.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I accept that what the Executive has done so far is helping, but we are trying to get people to understand the concept of zero waste because of its implications for business, the environment, health and so on. All we are asking is for the Executive—with the support of Nora Radcliffe and her colleagues—to support zero waste. I do not understand why there is a difficulty in doing that. If we do not support zero waste, we will lose out on the research and development issues that other countries, such as New Zealand, are taking on board.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I agree generally with Shiona Baird, but I do not agree that we should encourage people to start running before we have got them walking. The issue is not whether a zero-waste strategy is right or wrong, but whether this is the right time to implement such a strategy and whether it would be effective if we did so. The time to start changing people's perceptions more widely is when we achieve a momentum.

The motion talks about the potential for reducing waste by paying attention to

"the design, production and use of materials and products".

Pressure to achieve such an holistic approach is being applied now, through European directives that are coming on stream—for example, the end-of-life vehicle directive and the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. I believe that such directives will have a major effect in time.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does Nora Radcliffe share my concern that, according to Scottish Enterprise Grampian, although the enterprise companies play a key role in the partnerships that are trying to get industry to introduce waste minimisation strategies, which were conceived in November 2001, they are only now, nearly three years later, beginning to develop action plans? Why has there been such a delay?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Whatever the delay has been, we should start from where we are now. If the enterprise companies have started their task, we should encourage them to keep going.

The motion talks about boosting

"reuse, recycling and composting rates".

We should reuse the acronyms RAGS, SWAG and WRAP, which are, respectively, the Recycling Advisory Group Scotland, the Scottish waste awareness group and the waste and resources action plan. Those groups are beavering away to get people to recognise the waste hierarchy and to reduce, reuse and recycle. Local authorities are putting in place a variety of kerb-side and neighbourhood collection schemes to facilitate an increase in recycling to meet the partnership agreement targets of recycling 25 per cent of waste by 2006 and 55 per cent by 2020 and halting the increase in waste production by, I think, 2010. Among other things, the partnership agreement also commits us to creating significant opportunities for new products manufactured from waste and to using public purchasing rules to enhance the status of recycled and re-usable goods. Sustainable recycling depends on having markets for its products.

On composting, Aberdeenshire Council has a significant municipal composting operation with dedicated staff who do a great deal to promote and encourage home composting. When Richard Lochhead collects his compost bin, he will get advice on making the best use of it.

The motion talks about cutting costs for business. Last year, I attended an excellent presentation in Aberdeen, which the Scottish Council for Development and Industry organised, on how businesses could cut their costs by eliminating waste. The presentation was illustrated with real local examples.

A lot is going on out there. I would be the first to agree that that work is still not making a significant impact on reducing waste, but these are early days and that will come. I would prefer to put effort into maintaining existing momentum on dealing more effectively with our wastefulness, rather than go back to square one to produce a differently branded strategy on doing what we have started to do already. I ask the Parliament to support the Executive's amendment and to keep the zero-waste concept firmly in mind.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

First, I want to address a couple of points that the minister made. I am glad that the Executive is co-operating with business on waste management and that it is encouraging business activities in that area. However, the record so far is abysmal. Scottish Enterprise's ambition last year was to encourage only 50 businesses to get environmental certification and it was proud that 55 businesses achieved that. Not only was the target miserable, but so was the achievement. I believe that Scottish Enterprise has upped its target this year to 250 businesses. However, that is still a miserably low target for Scotland, considering the size of the problem and the Executive's objectives. If the Executive wants to keep the concept of zero waste in mind, it should consider the issue in detail.

The Executive should encourage Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and other quangos to take as many steps as they can to encourage everybody with whom they deal to conserve energy and to minimise waste. The Executive has been slow in doing that.

If the Executive wants a good example of what can be done, it need look only at what Business Environment Partnership in Midlothian has done by encouraging young people—after six weeks of training—to work with businesses up and down Scotland. Although that has saved millions of pounds through conservation of energy and through waste reduction, it has not been rolled out throughout Scotland, even though the Executive has had numerous opportunities to do so. My first point is that the Executive could do very much more than it is doing, although I accept that it is doing something.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does Robin Harper accept that the initiative that we, along with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, have taken in setting up a business waste-minimisation steering group for the whole of Scotland so that we can build on the achievements in Midlothian and the north-east, is a firm step in the direction in which he advocates we should go?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

If the minister can assure me that the steering group will be effective and that it will get things moving, that will certainly be good news and a step on the way.

When I hear the phrase, "best practicable environmental option", I wonder where is the excuse—the let-out that allows us not to do what we should be doing. Let us examine the job statistics in order of usefulness. I want to put on record the results of a study by the Institute of Local Self-reliance in the United States, which found that one job is created for every 15,000 tonnes of solid waste that is landfilled each year, that seven jobs are created by the composting of a similar amount of waste and that nine jobs are created in collection and processing if that amount of material is recycled. Another 25 jobs can be added if the recycled material is turned into new products. That is where zero waste—which means that nothing is wasted—comes in.

Last year in Scotland, households produced 2.6 million tonnes of waste. Based on the figures above, if that had all been recycled, about 1,500 jobs could have been created. If the potential for additional jobs in manufacturing items from recycled waste were taken into account, the figure would be closer to 6,000 jobs. Members can see how a zero-waste approach could result in the creation of many more jobs than waste management—even with a recycling component—results in.

Let us consider some of the results in New Zealand, which has been mentioned. In 1998, a survey of 64 recycling businesses in Auckland that was undertaken by Waste Not Ltd showed that about 1,700 employees were directly involved in recycling in the Auckland region alone. That figure is equivalent to the size of the forestry, fishing and agriculture sector in the region, which should be borne in mind in relation to Scotland. Another 300 jobs were expected in recycling in the few years following the report.

A Demos report entitled "Creating Wealth from Waste" concludes:

"An intensive recycling programme in Britain provides the scope for 15,000 jobs in collection and sorting and at least 25,000 to 40,000 jobs in manufacturing and reprocessing: 40,000 to 55,000 jobs overall."

I suggest that that should be immensely encouraging to the Executive.

I ask the Executive to give serious consideration to voting for our motion on zero waste, because it is only by having that target—which is achievable—in front of us that we will progress at the required rate.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am very glad that we are having a debate on zero waste this morning. It is worth noting that it is our second debate on waste in the past couple of months. I hope that we can move forward a little today.

Shiona Baird's speech contained much that I agree with. We should be examining in depth some of the examples from around the world that she and Nora Radcliffe cited. Canberra, Edmonton and California have been mentioned, as were other regions around the world that have signed up to zero waste. New Zealand, too, has signed up to zero waste. Those places are not thinking about achieving zero waste instantly but about achieving it by 2015; they are considering how to change what they do now for the future. I agree strongly with the concept of using debates on zero waste as a trigger for action. I accept that we can move faster than we are moving at present, so let us use the debate to explore the options that exist.

I listened to Nora Radcliffe's analysis of progress to date; she was spot-on. We have a national waste plan—albeit one that took a long time to get in place—that is a mix of bottom-up and top-down approaches. The waste plan is not just about how we dump waste and get it out of our horizons and it is not just about management of waste; it is about how we will reduce waste in the long run. At the moment, the pressure is on in respect of how we manage our waste, but the long-term approach must involve examination of resource use. That must be the focus.

In that regard, zero waste helps, because it is a clever tag that makes us wonder whether we could have no waste at all. It is clear that that is a huge objective, but using our resources more effectively offers many benefits to business and to us all as consumers, residents and citizens. The result will be that we will not have unattractive landfill sites throughout the country.

Quite a few members mentioned composting, which is one of the key elements of the national waste plan. We all create a huge amount of domestic waste, much of which is deeply unpleasant when it starts to biodegrade. It poses the greatest health risk when it rots and leaches from landfill. The cities that have adopted zero-waste policies have made a big change very quickly. High-achieving cities and councils have done the kinds of things that we are beginning to bring on-stream in Scotland. What we are now doing on recycling, separation of waste and composting is the right way forward.

We need to progress the debate on zero waste, although we should acknowledge that progress has been made. I remember the last debate that we had on waste, in which Allan Wilson—in response to the Environment and Rural Development Committee's negative and positive comments—was very positive about the way in which zero waste could add to the debate. This morning, Lewis Macdonald has picked up that mantle.

I turn to the amendments. I found the Tory amendment to be deeply ironic. The biggest setback to recycling in Scotland was the reorganisation—the Balkanisation—of our local authorities in Scotland. Recycling figures plummeted after the reorganisation of local government, so I cannot take a lecture from Alex Johnstone on the need to have a bottom-up, rather than a top-down, approach. What the Tories did to Balkanise local authorities destroyed their capacity to make progress, to be innovative and to come together on recycling.

The whole point of the national waste plan is that it seeks to harness the energies and the experience of local authorities and to put the matter in a regional context. The plan is allied to national targets, because without such targets we will not get anywhere. It is crucial that the plan is getting leadership and money from the Executive.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The member praises local authorities, but I wonder whether she takes on board the fact that their concept of best value often means that they opt for the cheapest contract. Ultimately, community businesses, which provide so many add-ons, are being missed out.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I do not accept that best value is about the lowest possible price: it must be about other social objectives and, under European procurement policy, bodies are encouraged to take account of those other objectives. As long as companies compete on a level playing field, environmental standards can be imposed. There should be no excuse for local authorities not to do that; Parliament should encourage them in that regard.

The nationalist amendment is one of the laziest amendments that the Scottish National Party has produced. Are the other places around the world that are pursuing zero waste sitting back, navel gazing and complaining that they are not independent national states? Of course they are not. The last time I looked, Bath and North East Somerset Council was not an independent legislator on the world stage. Let us get real. I would not have minded if Richard Lochhead had even mentioned in his opening speech the fact that Europe is the driver in that it directs 80 per cent of our environmental legislation. There is the landfill directive, the WEEE directive and the work on chemicals and integrated product development. We must work in a global context on waste. It is no use pretending that we in Scotland cannot do anything.

Richard Lochhead did not even provide an analysis of the most recent budget. If he wanted to get tough by saying, "Here's how we can change the fiscal mechanisms", he could have made the effort to examine Gordon Brown's recent budget to identify what opportunities were being missed from a nationalist perspective. Not an ounce of effort was made; the SNP wants to have the same tired old debate.

We face some real challenges. I am glad that we are having a debate on zero waste and I think that the Greens' constructive approach is useful. A lot more needs to be done on commercial waste, but some good work is being done by SEPA, the enterprise companies and the Federation of Small Businesses, which has an excellent environmental toolkit that assesses resource use. There is a job to be done in raising the bar and saying that we must do a lot more, but let us acknowledge the work in progress so that we encourage the champions out there that are doing a good job. Let us push them to do more and let us ensure that we raise the level of debate in Parliament.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If Sarah Boyack looks at the independence budget that I launched yesterday, she will see that I covered waste disposal and what more we could do in that respect in an independent Scotland.

I rise—not in a lazy way at all—to speak in support of the Green party motion and the SNP amendment. In doing so, I want to focus on landfill. I will first paint the national picture and then look at some of the local effects of current landfill policies. Landfill accounts for about 91 per cent of the disposal of municipal waste in Scotland. Although we are supposed to be grateful for the landfill tax, as all of us know, landfill is not the most environmentally sound way in which to dispose of municipal or any other waste. We require such a high landfill capacity in Scotland because we have failed to use alternative methods of disposal to their maximum. The landfill tax is not primarily driven by environmental considerations; it is merely a revenue-raising device that produces about £50 million for the Chancellor of the Exchequer every year from Scottish landfill.

The landfill tax credit scheme allows landfill operators to use up to 20 per cent of their landfill tax for environmental purposes. However, it is often left up to the operators to decide how the money is to be used; in effect, they decide how to recycle the money. Needless to say, it is not in the interests of the operators to recycle the money into alternative methods of waste disposal. Far too little of the revenue from the landfill tax goes back into funding alternative methods of waste disposal. The decision-making process in respect of how the money is used needs to be reformed.

I concede the point that Sarah Boyack made on landfill. We do not need independence to change the two matters that I have just raised; they could be changed tomorrow if the will existed in the Labour Government down south and the Executive up here. The issues to do with landfill are well within our grasp. If they were tackled, we could make a substantial difference to the way we deal with disposal of waste, especially municipal waste.

I want to pick up on the Environment and Rural Development Committee's very good report of earlier this year, which highlighted the particular issue of the Greengairs area in Lanarkshire. Many people now know not only about Greengairs but about the adjacent villages of Plains, Glenmavis and Wattston, all of which are badly affected by the number of landfill and open-cast sites in the area. At present, there are eight in total in that part of Scotland. The villages are becoming islands in a sea of landfill and open cast. Eden Waste Recycling Ltd has made an application for a ninth site of huge proportions, which the Executive is "minded to accept". I say to the Executive that it should look at the practicalities. In saying that, I remind the Executive of what Nora Radcliffe said about her inability to accept the concept of zero waste because we are not at the stage at which it is a practical proposition. One way in which we could make the concept of zero waste a practical proposition is by turning down such planning applications. The Eden Waste application is neither necessary nor is it desirable either in terms of the villages that I mentioned and their populations or of the national waste plan.

I carried out a survey of the Greengairs population—I will mention three of the findings. The effects of landfill and open cast in the area have resulted in 50 per cent of households reporting health problems. That might not be unusual in many communities, but when people were asked whether they had suffered health problems before they moved to the area, 62 per cent indicated that they had not, but said that only since they moved to the area had their health suffered.

People told me that one of the effects of the concentration of landfill and open-cast sites was the creation of insect populations inside their houses. If members were to go up to the lofts of any house in Greengairs, they would see beasties that they never knew existed. I invite members to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Greengairs is a good example of the fact that the debate today is not an academic or theoretical exercise; it is about the quality of life of people in areas such as Greengairs. If we do not tackle the landfill problem, we will end up with more situations throughout Scotland like the one in Greengairs. I say to the Executive that of course I believe in additional powers—independent powers—for the Scottish Parliament. I also believe that the Executive could make far more imaginative and innovative use of the powers that it has to save Scotland from becoming the waste capital of Europe.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Like Shiona Baird, I welcome the fact that we have the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the chamber for the debate on zero waste because I too think that zero waste is an enterprise issue. It should be seen in the context of "A Smart, Successful Scotland"—but with the addition of the word "sustainable"—and in the context of a green jobs strategy. It is revealing to compare the current Executive targets with the current enterprise targets that we hear about from Scottish Enterprise and so on.

There is a lot of talk about the life-sciences industry and about biotechnology. Although it is always dangerous to bet on winners, I am worried that we are missing out on a potential winner if we do not debate waste minimisation. The future does not lie in life sciences and biotechnology. Like other technologies—such as nuclear technology, which we were told would be the technology that would revolutionise society but which has turned out to be a false dawn—it was actually the smaller-scale technology of microtechnology that led to the real changes in society. We face the same situation with biotech. It will not be the future because it suffers from many of the problems that the nuclear industry faced: it is too big, the technology is too complicated and it produces too many side effects in terms of the waste it produces.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Does the member agree that many aspects of the biotech industry are absolutely essential in terms of finding cures for diseases such as pulmonary emphysema?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I acknowledge that, just as I do not doubt that many medical advances have come about as a result of nuclear-derived technology. However, if we are talking about placing bets on Scotland's future economic development, we must recognise that the future will be based on resource efficiency and the use of waste as a resource.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Does Mark Ballard accept that without nuclear power this country would have absolutely no chance of meeting its Kyoto objectives and targets?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

The Kyoto objectives did not come out of nowhere. They are about a shift towards use of sustainable energy; we want that to happen. The solution to the climate crisis is to invest in sustainable energy: small-scale, locally-controlled and sustainable energy.

I will return to the point that I was making about the future. As I said, I see the future in terms of waste minimisation. We need to learn to make better use of our resources. The concepts of factor 10 and factor 4 were mentioned, which aim to benefit human society and to reduce waste by using our resources more efficiently. It is in that regard that the concept of zero waste comes in. I will address directly the Tory amendment by saying that zero waste is a market signal; it is a signal to business that this is the direction in which we are going to go. It lets business know that we want a reduction year on year in the amount of waste that is produced.

We have the chance in Scotland to get in early on the concept of waste minimisation and zero waste. It is a concept that is spreading around the world, but it is not too late for Scotland to take a lead on the issue. We do not want to get left behind in investing in a concept that is—as opposed to biotech and the other big sciences—the future of the economy. Very often it is not the big sciences but the small sciences that are the future.

I welcome the remarks that Sarah Boyack made about changing our approach to waste from being about management of the waste that we produce to minimising the resources that we use. Waste is a big issue, as are landfill sites, which are not an issue only for the residents of Greengairs. Nobody wants a landfill site on their doorstep and nobody should have to have one. Similarly, nobody wants an incineration plant on their doorstep but, all too often, the poorest communities have them dumped on them, with their associated problems.

We must move towards waste minimisation because of its economic benefits and because we want to prevent communities from suffering the problems that Greengairs will suffer. That is why I support Shiona Baird's motion.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This has been an interesting and constructive debate. I welcome the fact that we have had the opportunity to debate again the important issue of waste.

In response to Mark Ballard, I say that I am not sure that many people would want a composting plant on their doorstep either, but that does not mean that we should not have them; they are important in terms of the overall waste-management strategy.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I have a composting plant at the bottom of my garden. It is called a compost heap.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I also have one, but not everyone has a garden. If composting is to be an important part of our waste-management strategy, there will have to be plants to deal with the composting requirements of, for example, city centres. The point that I am making is that people generally do not want to live beside waste-management facilities, regardless of whether they are composting plants or sorting plants.

The debate is as much about badging as it is about strategies. Everyone in the chamber agrees with the strategies that the Scottish Green Party mentions in its motion—no one disputes the suggestion that we should move towards waste minimisation. Indeed, although the Greens have accused the Executive of having no waste-management plan, waste reduction is at the top of the Executive's waste-management policy hierarchy, followed by reuse, recycling and the recovery of waste.

I say that the debate is about badging because other countries do not necessarily call their recycling policies zero-waste strategies. As I have said previously, I went last summer to Prince Edward Island as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. That province's waste-management strategy is not called a zero-waste policy, but it is similar in concept to what has been defined as zero waste today. The province has a strong policy of ensuring that everybody is involved in separating their waste. Everyone has separate bins and there are separate collections for different types of waste, including compostable waste, recyclable waste and the small amount of waste that is neither. There are separate bins in the streets and even in hotels, which have simple guides that tell visitors what to do. The province has moved from a situation in which it had a serious amount of landfill to one in which it has little landfill. Most of its waste is either composted or recycled. The small amount that cannot be composted or recycled is incinerated in a heat energy project.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member accept that what he describes is still waste management, albeit good waste management, and that a zero-waste strategy is about designing waste out of the system in the first place? That is something that the Executive has recognised by sending the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to the debate instead of the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I do not dispute that point. The other point that I make in that regard is that Prince Edward Island is working with businesses on waste reduction. Waste management is an important part of the province's approach, however, and we have a lot of catching up to do.

The Conservative amendment has got it completely wrong. If we left recycling to local authorities, there would be no guarantee that the targets would be met. We should bear it in mind that the targets are minimum rather than maximum targets; perhaps the Conservatives think that the local authorities should be recycling less than those targets. I think that they should be recycling significantly more than the targets. After local government reorganisation, North East Fife, my constituency, moved from the top of the recycling tree to the bottom. That was because the local authority was considering only the costs, not the benefits. That was a major problem, but the situation has improved because of the investment that Fife has been able to make in recycling through money from the strategic waste fund, and because the council has worked with local businesses. One business is now collecting a significant amount of paper to recycle. It is important that we have a national strategy as well as a local strategy.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I support the sentiments of the Scottish Green Party in relation to zero waste, as well as Nora Radcliffe's and Sarah Boyack's sensible comments on the subject. However, I want to raise with the Executive the issue of its much-vaunted target of 25 per cent of domestic waste being recycled by 2006.

Despite Ross Finnie's statement about recycling having become a part of Scottish culture, it has apparently not become part of the Scottish Executive's culture. The reasons for that are all too evident, as Shiona Baird, Richard Lochhead and Alex Johnstone said. Although I welcome the minister's belated new commitments and strategy on business waste, which has been developed in conjunction with SEPA, I wonder how much progress will have been made in a year or two.

We produce about 3 million tonnes of domestic waste in Scotland and we have a recycling target of 25 per cent by 2006, which is just two years away. At the moment, we recycle only 9.6 per cent of our domestic waste, so we are—apparently—to increase our capability by 15.4 per cent in just two years. That is just not possible. We are talking about a huge amount of stuff—25 per cent of 3 million tonnes is 750,000 tonnes of domestic waste—and questions have to be asked and answered about where it will all go, how it will all be collected and where it will be sorted. Will it all go to landfill, as Alex Neil suggests? Those questions have not yet been answered.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I would rather not; I am probably going to be short of time.

There are other questions that must be asked. Where will the material recovery stations be sited? When will the planning applications be submitted and removed? Indeed, how many planning applications are under consideration at the moment?

In addition, the time that is required for pollution-prevention certification, plus the building of facilities, makes the claim that we will be able to recycle 25 per cent of domestic waste by 2006 laughable. Will the minister concede today that that election claim—which was made less than a year ago—will not be met? I know that he will say that that, as it should be, is a matter for the 11 area waste plans and the local authorities. However, that is a cop-out: the minister must face the fact that ability to meet that recycling target—in terms of plants and markets—does not exist and will not be in place by 2006.

As Robin Harper said, the Executive must recognise that the quantity of domestic waste is increasing significantly and that job opportunities in the recycling industry are being scorned. Last year, the quantity of domestic waste grew by about 7 per cent, according to Audit Scotland. I know that, last year, a new method of calculating the volume of waste was used, but I maintain that the trend is that there is a marked increase in the volume of waste every year.

We need to invest in education to reduce waste. The Scottish waste awareness group is doing a good job, but will its funding continue after March this year? Is funding in place for similar campaigns in the next financial year?

Today's debate has raised more questions than the Executive probably needs at the moment—given Allan Wilson's recyclable ministerial role and work load—but the fact remains that we are not moving quickly enough to meet our recycling and waste-reduction targets and the Executive's commitments on those targets.

There is a feeling that the waste recycling and reduction industry is not receiving the encouragement that it needs to deliver on the Executive's goals. I urge the Executive to consider again how those goals are to be achieved. I also urge Parliament to support our amendment.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Waste, and how we generate, manage and dispose of it, has been a recurring theme of debate in the Parliament since it opened its doors five years ago. I welcome today's focus on the elimination of waste and a move towards resource efficiency. However, to a significant extent, the impetus and imperative for change has come from outwith this place, notably in the form of European directives that are aimed at reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill.

A case in point is the national waste plan target to reduce the 90 per cent of domestic waste that we currently send to landfill to 30 per cent by 2020. It is sad that, left to their own devices down the years, United Kingdom Governments have signally failed to develop the infrastructure and effective policies that we need, to the point where we are now scrambling to play catch-up with our European neighbours and competitors in waste-management practice and, as the Greens' motion suggests, in taking advantage of the economic opportunities that arise from embracing the sustainability agenda.

I do not want to be over-critical of the Executive this morning. I acknowledge that after decades of underinvestment, the waste infrastructure was not there to build on and I acknowledge the efforts that have been made to date in trying to correct that by putting such infrastructure in place, particularly in relation to dealing with municipal solid waste. The sad fact is that it looks as though we will miss the 2006 target of recycling 25 per cent of that waste stream, not only because the infrastructure is not in place but because the waste stream is growing at a rate of 5 per cent per annum.

The motion that is before us points the way forward. The last thing that we should do is to be tempted to seek a quick fix or a big-bang solution to missing targets, such as adopting incineration or huge regional waste management centres, which have been proposed for Westfield in Fife and Killoch in Ayrshire, not least because in doing so we would be visiting environmental injustice on communities that deserve a better future.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that we cannot deal with the problem by continuing to break promises to communities such as Greengairs? That community was promised that there would be no more waste development in its area, but the promises have been broken.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I agree totally. It is shameful for the First Minister to promise the people of Greengairs that there will be no more landfill sites and then, apparently, to renege on that promise.

We need to have a big national push on waste minimisation. Scottish National Party policies in that area include: introducing a national campaign to promote home composting, refuse junk mail and reduce packaging in shops; requiring major industrial and commercial producers to develop and introduce waste-minimisation audits and report to SEPA on the waste that they produce; providing SEPA with powers to direct waste producers to dispose of their waste by a particular route or process; and introducing an obligation on companies to ensure, where appropriate, that the design of products incorporates waste-minimisation principles at the development stage, including the capacity to reduce, reuse and recycle.

I see that the Presiding Officer is not going to allow me to say what the rest of the SNP's policies are in that area. It is unfortunate that many of those policies and necessary actions cannot be implemented by this Parliament alone, given the limited powers at its disposal; that is yet another example of how we continue to be hamstrung in our attempts to tackle Scotland's problems. Although we support the motion and the vision that it encapsulates, we believe that our amendment is necessary to give it effect.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The debate has been constructive. I am particularly glad that there is much support throughout the chamber for the idea of linking our waste strategy with our enterprise strategy and that there is an acknowledgment of the potential for green jobs. When we consult later this year on a green jobs strategy, we will seek views from all interested parties on how best to gain new business and new jobs from pursuing sustainable development and putting that at the heart of our drive for economic growth.

It is clear that the picture is varied. In renewable energy, Scotland has the potential to lead the world, but in recycling and dealing with waste, we have a lot of catching up to do, although we have made a start.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the minister join me in welcoming the initiative from the strategic waste fund that has allowed Fife Council to arrange for Smith Anderson in my constituency to recycle the council's waste paper and sell it back to it as envelopes and other paper goods?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Yes. That is an excellent example of the initiatives that are beginning to appear. Recently, I have met representatives of Remploy and the Wise Group, which employ people in recycling, some of whom are at a distance from the labour market, and United Glass Ltd in Alloa, a commercial firm that makes money from recycling used glass.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Is the minister aware that SEPA has introduced a charge for companies that want to recycle waste for paper mills and spread it on fields? Might that prove to be a disincentive for companies to recycle paper-mill waste, which I am sure we all agree should not go to landfill?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

SEPA is working within the terms of the waste strategy and its requirement to interpret European legislation in that regard. There are a number of tricky issues around the margins, but the important thing is that SEPA is working on the basis of European legislation and using it as a vehicle for addressing more difficult issues.

The targets that we have set for local authorities to improve recycling and composting rates are stimulating business in those areas. I am pleased that recycling and composting rates have increased from 7.4 per cent to 9.6 per cent in a single year, in advance of the major investments that, critically, will flow from the national waste plan in the next two or three years.

I turn to John Scott's speech. The Tory position appears to be that we cannot achieve our ambitious targets, so we should abandon them.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I hope that the minister is not deliberately misunderstanding what I said. Does he agree that despite the Executive's good intentions, for which it enjoys the support of members throughout the chamber, the targets simply will not be met?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Certainly not—quite the contrary is true. I hope that we will have support from all parties. In seeking to meet the targets, we are seeking to stimulate the kind of business investment that will make what we want to achieve possible. We acknowledge the need for infrastructure, which is driven as much by European targets as by those that are set in Scotland. We believe that our targets in that regard can best be achieved by our focusing precisely on the means of doing so.

We will continue to fund the Scottish waste awareness group, which was mentioned in the debate. Richard Lochhead asked what the public sector is doing to lead by example. NHS Scotland has put in place an environmental management statement, which includes commitments on waste minimisation and green procurement. The Waste and Resources Action Programme, which we fund, is working with local authorities on procurement issues, as members who were at the recent Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference will know. The Scottish energy efficiency office, which Robin Harper mentioned, is working directly with business; its advice, like that of envirowise, is adding millions of pounds to the bottom line of companies that take that advice. I urge all companies that have not yet sought advice from either the Scottish energy efficiency office or envirowise to do so.

Bruce Crawford asked what we have done recently to learn from international examples. I am sorry that he is not in the chamber to hear the reply, but I assure members that we are participating in work on new technologies and linking with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others elsewhere. We have also met representatives of a number of international companies that are pioneering new technologies in composting and recycling.

Yes, progress has been made and yes, there is a long way to go, but rather than shying at the fence, which the Tories would have us do, we need to concentrate our efforts on achieving the goals that we have set. It is clear that if we do so, we have the potential not only to improve the environment in Scotland, but to stimulate the economy and put ourselves where we ought to be as one of the key players in the marketplace for sustainable products and processes in the future.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

The debate has been excellent. There is a great deal of consensus about the fact that in this area we all want to be angelic, but there is a complete lack of consensus about whether, at the moment, our primary focus is correct. The debate is designed to investigate that and move us forward.

Much of what Lewis Macdonald said was constructive, but the Executive is still focused predominantly on waste management and recycling rather than on waste production and taking a holistic view of production, consumption and end use. That holistic view is the concept of zero waste, which is what the Scottish Green Party is trying to promote in the debate.

The minister mentioned the Scottish energy efficiency office. That office must be given maximum support and it must get greater and continuing commitment from the Executive. Most important of all, it must get a budget that is not dependent on underspend money, but that is fixed and will continue over the next few years.

There is much that we agree with in Richard Lochhead's speech for the Scottish National Party, but it is important that we realise that Scotland is not completely impotent on waste and that we must act now to show leadership and vision. There is no need to wait, and it is unfortunate that we have the standard SNP single-issue amendment, which simply says that everything depends on independence. Everything does not depend on independence; there is stuff that we can do now, and we should change the focus now.

We had an honest acceptance from Alex Johnstone that he does not understand the concept of zero waste. That confirms our impression, and I trust that, over the next few months, we will be able to help him with that. John Scott's speech was interesting and contained much with which we would agree.

To Nora Radcliffe, I say that now is the time to adopt a zero-waste policy, not a few years hence. If we do not adopt a zero-waste policy now, we will be faced with an increasing number of issues such as the Greengairs landfill site, which is an embarrassment to a First Minister who announced his environmental justice policy at that site.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

People must walk before they can run; we must encourage people to walk with us, and if we do not get them walking, there is no point in us running out in front.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

We certainly must walk first, but the point of a zero-waste policy is that it would turn the Executive's priorities on their head: the priority should be not recycling, but waste minimisation. We must address the problem from the beginning of the process, and we must do that in tandem with recycling.

Robin Harper gave a clear analysis of the benefits to business, Government and the community. We are all aware that Japanese companies in particular have given a great lead in that sphere. We have a lot to learn from Japan.

Alex Neil highlighted the issues around landfill and, for his constituency, the encouragement of insects. In the region that I represent, the increase of landfill will lead to the extinction of two species of insect. We debated that at question time last week.

As Adam Ingram said, we are running to catch up with European Union directives. We should be ahead; we should be in the vanguard. The national waste plan, which was prepared by SEPA and the Executive, is not working. It is failing communities and it is failing Scotland. The plan is failing because, although it contains 132 glossy pages of 75 per cent recycled paper, there is almost nothing in it on the subject of waste minimisation. Reduce, reuse, recycle—the waste hierarchy clearly puts minimisation first. That is the most important thing, but the most significant aspect of the waste minimisation plan in the national waste plan is the production of waste prevention leaflets for households; in most council areas, the households will not even have the facility to recycle those leaflets. We need more action on waste minimisation, which is the most important area.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does Mr Ballance accept that the target of an end to the growth in municipal waste by 2010 is a significant step in that direction, that the target will be challenging and that we will have to work hard to achieve it?

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

It is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. We are spending far too much time congratulating ourselves on a slight increase in recycling rates rather than going to the front end. A radical rethink is needed and, as Shiona Baird outlined in her speech, we must consider the whole system of production and consumption. Zero waste does that and is a tool by which we can do that. Zero waste is not only an environmental issue—I realise that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is here to make that point; it also concerns health, creates jobs, encourages innovation and saves money. The Executive can adopt a zero-waste policy to send a strong and positive signal to business, local authorities and communities.

Who wants waste? The public do not want it. Business should not want waste, because it is expensive and wastes money as well as resources. Does the Government want waste? At the next election, the Scottish Green Party will go to the people saying that it wants zero waste. How much waste does the Executive want?

Genetically Modified Crops

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1091, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on genetically modified crops, and one amendment to the motion.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

No doubt some members will let out a sigh as they contemplate another debate on genetically modified crops—I even heard one wag describe the debate as groundhog day—but I will explain exactly how the debate has moved on and why we require another opportunity to debate the matter and another vote.

The Executive has not seen fit to give any of its debating time to the issue. Despite the overwhelming opposition to the commercialisation of GM crops, the irreversibility of the decision and the warning signs from other countries, the Executive opposed our call for a debate. Therefore, the Opposition parties—the Greens and the Scottish National Party—have brought the issue to the Parliament. The Greens did so in November, when commercialisation was only a threat; now, it has become Government policy, and the SNP was right to give it time last week.

In last week's debate, it was clear that, whatever arguments were advanced to challenge the Executive's position, Labour and Liberal Democrats MSPs would trot out a rehearsed line and say that we must abide by the law and that the most restrictive approach possible had been taken. The Greens did not believe it then, and today we are backing up our beliefs with a legal opinion, copies of which are available at the back of the chamber.

The act of commercialising Chardon LL maize is a major step, about which full debate is required. We had part 1 of that debate last week; today we are having part 2. I ask all members who voted with the Executive or held back from opposing the Executive to consider their position, but first, let us consider the minister's position. Members could be forgiven for thinking that Allan Wilson's amendment has not changed at all—its wording is almost exactly the same as that of the amendment that we considered last week. The only change from last week's amendment is that the advice that was given to the Transport and the Environment Committee on the legality of a blanket ban on GM crops has been highlighted. If Allan Wilson wants to practise misdirection, he should learn a little subtlety; there is nothing in the Green motion about a blanket ban.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Will Patrick Harvie explain to me, given that I had the benefit of seeing the legal opinion overnight, what is new therein?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

What is new is that we have a legal opinion that challenges the minister's claim that he has no powers to act further. Our motion and the debate are on that point, not on a blanket ban; they are on the commercialisation of Chardon LL maize and the Scottish Executive's ability to act.

Members should not be distracted by talk of blanket bans, and those who voted with the Executive because of that should think again. To members who are still writing to constituents to defend their position on a blanket ban, I say, "Wake up! Catch up! We have moved on." I ask Liberal Democrats to think deeply about their position, because their decision not only loses them credibility, but demeans and undermines our Parliament, which is the last thing that our young institution needs. At the outset of devolution, Scotland was promised a new politics. The handling of the GM issue has been a slap in the face for anyone who believed that promise.

Our desire for a more restrictive Scottish position led us to consult an advocate, as I have explained, who has cast serious doubt on the Executive's claim that the most legally restrictive approach has been taken. That independent legal opinion concludes that the Scottish Executive could have used its powers to block GM maize cultivation. It says that a stronger position could have been adopted on three counts. The first is "on the grounds that" the crop

"did not satisfy the requirements the variety is of satisfactory value for cultivation"

and the second is

"on the basis of the precautionary principle",

which we argue has been improperly applied. The opinion says:

"It is also arguable that in accepting Chardon LL maize on to a National List, the Scottish ministers have failed to apply the precautionary principle properly."

The third ground is that the Executive

"failed to take independent steps ... to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment."

We are all aware of the evidence vacuum on health. To commercialise now is to leap before we look.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Patrick Harvie for making available copies of counsel's opinion to his party. He quoted from the conclusions at paragraph 105, but failed to move on to paragraph 106, at which his counsel says:

"I acknowledge the potential for challenge to any such refusal, not only on general grounds of rationality, but on grounds that such a refusal is inconsistent with the European Communities' objectives of harmonisation."

His counsel endorsed the Executive's position.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Scottish Green Party and I do not claim that only one option exists and that the Executive can use only one interpretation. We argue that a choice is available and that the option of the most legally restrictive approach has not been chosen. The motion that we have lodged as a result of the legal opinion is reasonable. All that it requests is that the Parliament asks the Executive to review all the legal advice and to report to the Parliament, so that we can be assured and satisfied that the most restrictive approach is being taken.

The Executive claims to take a cautious precautionary approach to commercialising GM maize and says that no further legal option was open to it. That claim looked pretty shaky last week; today it has been demolished. The obvious conclusion is that the issue is a straightforward matter of political will. The political will exists in Wales. After a debate on a motion from the Liberal Democrat group there, which was stronger than our motion here, the Assembly's Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside gave a commitment not to add Chardon LL maize to the UK seed list without the Assembly's authorisation through a free vote. Why should we have less than that? All that we need is the same strength of will.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

rose—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am sorry; I must move on if I am to finish on time.

Will that strength of will come from Jim Wallace? In The Herald today, he says of the GM debate:

"The Scottish Parliament could say something, but what would it mean?"

I will tell members what that would mean. It would mean that the Scottish Parliament had stood up for what Scottish people want and that Scottish politicians had more than a shred of honesty and credibility. It would mean that an irreversible decision that affects Scottish agriculture—a devolved matter—was not ducked and dodged while fingers were pointed at London and Brussels. Members should stop pointing the finger and assert their authority. They have been put here to make such a decision. They should make that decision for Scotland and not for the GM industry.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern the preliminary legal opinion of independent counsel that the Scottish Executive had discretion to use legal powers to refuse the next stage of GM maize commercialisation which it chose not to exercise; calls for the Executive to review its own legal advice on which its decision over GM maize was based and to reassess the extent of its discretion accordingly, and calls on the Executive to put on hold the decision on final consent to the placement of GM maize on the UK National Seed List, at least until it has reported back to the Parliament on the outcome of such a legal review and satisfied the Parliament that the most legally-restrictive policy possible toward GM commercialisation has been used.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am not one of those who regret the opportunity to debate GM crops yet again. I welcome the debate. It is time to return to a clear understanding of the legal framework and the evidence base for decisions on GM crops and to move away from some of the high emotion and high-drama politics that some Opposition members favour.

The Executive has already undertaken an in-depth review on GM crops, as I said last week. We considered the evidence carefully and I announced our conclusions to Parliament on 10 March. The Greens' motion exposes their approach of looking for any interpretation that supports their preconceived notions. That is not the way for the Parliament to proceed.

I will clarify the Executive's legal position on deliberate release, as that is at the heart of the motion. First, we are required to meet our legal obligations under the Scotland Act 1998. If the Greens care to check, they will find that section 57(2) of that act includes an absolute requirement for the Executive to comply with European Community law. Article 10 of the treaty establishing the European Community also requires member states to abstain from any measures that could jeopardise the Common Market.

More specifically, article 22 of directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs says:

"Member States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of GMOs ... which comply with the requirements of this Directive."

I referred to that last week, too.

In legal advice to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the European and External Relations Committee, the Parliament's legal directorate confirmed that neither the Parliament nor the Scottish ministers have the power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will take Patrick Harvie's intervention.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I fail to understand why the minister is trying that misdirection again after I talked about it in my speech. Our motion is not about a blanket ban. Legal advice about whether the Executive has the power to impose a blanket ban is irrelevant. Why will the minister not address the motion?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Such advice is not irrelevant. As George Lyon said, the opinion of the Greens' counsel—whoever that may be—says that a challenge could be made

"on grounds that such a refusal is inconsistent with the European Communities' objectives of harmonisation."

That is the legal opinion that was given to the Greens.

I will deal with national seed listing, which relates to the substantive point that Patrick Harvie sought but failed to make. It has been claimed that the Executive can and should block the national seed listing of Chardon LL maize. My understanding of the legal opinion that the Greens quoted is that it identifies three grounds on which it claims that that seed listing should be refused. Members should be aware that Chardon LL was the subject of an extensive public hearing under the regulations on national listing, which concluded in June 2002 and for which 227 written and 63 oral submissions were received and thoroughly assessed. The issues that the current legal opinion raises reflect points that were made by Friends of the Earth during that hearing and which were duly considered by the UK, devolved Administrations and our advisers.

The National List and Seeds Committee's view is that Chardon LL satisfies cultivation and use criteria as required by the regulations.

The Government's expert bodies—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs—all considered the evidence that was provided to the hearing on regulation 5(4)(b) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3510) and the precautionary principle and concluded that no new evidence of risk on which to refuse listing had been provided.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will take another intervention from Patrick Harvie, but I need to make progress.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

How many of the organisations that the minister listed have conducted long-term studies into the health consequences of GM crops—Chardon LL maize or others?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Those organisations considered all the available evidence. I repeat what I said last week: our expert advisers will consider any new evidence from whatever source—the Green party or elsewhere. If evidence of consequential harm to the environment, human health or animal health were supplied, we would use our powers to ban the introduction of Chardon LL maize.

On whether the requirements of article 4.4 of directive 2002/53/EC to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment have been met, our legal advice is that we have correctly implemented the common catalogue directive by making a part C consent a requirement for national listing.

I make the fairly obvious point, which I have made three times from the dispatch box, that the seed has not been listed. It is clear that whoever was asked to provide the legal opinion to the Greens thinks that it has been listed. We have applied for an amended part C consent to enable the prospective listing of the seed.

Notwithstanding all that, all Administrations considered that a decision on listing should await the outcome of the farm-scale evaluations. That evidence could be relevant to the listing decision. Now that we have received that advice, we are seeking an amendment to the part C consent and we will not consider the listing of Chardon LL until such an amendment has been secured.

I am over my time, so I will finish. However, I would be happy to answer any questions that members might have about any of the scientific evidence that we have received or about any of the legal points that have been raised subsequently or in so-called new advice.

I move amendment S2M-1091.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"acknowledges that at present there is little support for commercialisation of GM crops; further acknowledges the European and UK legislative framework for GM; notes the legal advice provided by the parliamentary solicitor to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the European and External Relations Committee that the Scottish Executive is not permitted by EU law to impose a blanket ban on, or blanket approval for, GM crops; understands that decisions are required on a case by case basis; welcomes the Executive's decision to reject the commercial growing of spring GM oil seed rape and beet; notes that the Executive does not have scientific evidence nor the powers to ban the cultivation of GM maize; supports the Executive's decision to seek amendment to the EU approval for Chardon LL maize to restrict its cultivation; supports the Executive's decision not to agree seed listing for Chardon LL unless and until such EU changes are made; welcomes the Executive's commitment to consult on coexistence measures that will protect farmers who wish to grow conventional or organic crops, give consumers the choice not to consume GM foods, and introduce compensation and liability measures; supports the Executive's initiative with the farming industry to ensure consumer confidence and consumer choice in Scottish produce, and welcomes the continuing commitment in the Partnership Agreement to apply the precautionary principle."

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I could summarise the minister's position as follows: "We'll wait until the horse has bolted and then we might think about closing the door." I thank the Green party for providing the opportunity to revisit a subject on which the response from both Executive parties has been hypocritical and downright obtuse. I had hoped that, unlike in last week's performance, with the constant referrals to blanket bans, the Executive parties would keep to the terms of the debate this morning and discuss the legal powers of the Scottish ministers, but it is already clear that they will not.

I am concerned about the minister's ability to understand some simple concepts of legal terminology, let alone his ability to use the legal powers that we believe he has. In dismissing what I said last week, Mr Wilson said:

"I noted that, in her conclusion, Miss Cunningham said that the point is 'arguable'—no more, no less."

The minister should know that, when the term is used legally, "arguable" means that there is a case that can be put and not that the case is tenuous or weak, which is what he apparently thinks. He then compounded the error by saying:

"Anything is arguable in legal terms."—[Official Report, 18 March 2004; c 6773.]

That is simply not true and displays a basic and worrying misunderstanding of the law. Perhaps that explains, although it does not excuse, his apparent inability to exercise his powers under the law.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The opinion claims that it is arguable that ministers can refuse to accept Chardon LL. Any opinion is, of course, arguable. The advice is rooted in whether there is any scientific evidence of increased risk to human health and the environment. Can Roseanna Cunningham provide members with any such evidence?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Like other members, I spent a considerable time last week discussing our concerns about the extent of that scientific evidence and its validity. This week, I wanted—paradoxically—to concentrate on the motion. I know that that is an unusual concept, but we should at least try to do so. I am still concerned about the minister's misunderstanding of the word "arguable" in a legal context.

I thank the Greens for letting us see a copy of the opinion that they obtained. Such a courtesy was not extended by the minister in respect of the detail of his legal advice. I presume that that means that even the Lib Dems are arguing in the complete absence of any knowledge of that detail, although it seems from George Lyon's intervention a few minutes ago that, even when he has an opinion to read, he can do so only selectively, so perhaps we would not have been any further forward in any case. The minister has powers in relation to Chardon LL—however much he might try to wish those powers away—and he should use them.

The preliminary opinion to which the motion refers raises a number of important concerns that should be addressed. Some of those concerns involve points that I made last week. I will not go over that ground again, because the opinion raises other points that need to be addressed—for example, the fact that the precautionary principle in relation to Chardon LL appears to have been interpreted and applied more narrowly than the definition that was given by the Government in the document "The GM Dialogue: Government response" and that there is some disjunction even with the definition, a fact that, in the opinion of counsel, the legal authorities would support. There is therefore a big grey area.

Another interesting question is the definition of risk. When the European Union sought to ban the use of hormones in beef and thereby exclude much United States beef from EU markets, it took the view that a one-in-a-million risk is sufficient justification for avoidance action. I wonder what kind of risk assessment has been done in the context of the introduction of Chardon LL to Scotland.

We are discussing a GM seed variety that still has many question marks hanging over it. It is unsuitable for growing in Scotland and, indeed, most of the United Kingdom. Even the Netherlands does not seek to have it included on the European common catalogue. It is not grown in the Netherlands or anywhere else in the European Union.

The issue is so important for Scottish agriculture and Scottish consumers that it is amazing that the GM crop that the minister wanted to use as a trail-blazer was not of a variety that one could argue might be of more use to Scotland. I can see no purpose in promoting the GM crop that we are discussing as a potential addition to the UK's national seed list other than for it to be a Trojan horse for subsequent introductions. Chardon LL is being used to bridge the Rubicon. It is a bridge too far.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have heard Roseanna Cunningham speak to the motion. I am not a lawyer, so I will confine myself to explaining my position, perhaps with a slightly different level of detail, and addressing one or two issues that are raised in the Executive's amendment.

In the previous debate, Mark Ballard said that he believed that bioscience was not likely to be a great industry in the future. I think that that is untrue and that bioscience in Scotland could be one of the heavy industries of the 21st century. Consequently, I have shown a great deal of interest in how that aim could be achieved. In previous debates, I have made it clear that I believe that what we describe broadly as GM technology has enormous potential and that, in the future, there could be huge advances in pharmaceuticals and in other fields, which would be potentially beneficial and should be considered. Therefore, I am happy to agree with the Executive's amendment that such things should be treated

"on a case by case basis".

However, there is little else in the cobbled-together amendment that I would be happy to accept.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

At least we have a common position in so far as we accept that there is no scientific evidence that the technology per se represents an increased threat to human health or the environment. On Chardon LL maize, which is the specific variety that we are discussing, I ask the member the same question as I asked Roseanna Cunningham, although I did not receive an answer from her. Does he have any scientific evidence that would lead us to believe that the Chardon LL maize variety is any less safe to human health or the environment than its conventional counterpart?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I would have dismissed that long intervention entirely if was not on the next subject that I was going to discuss. I will deal with the matter briefly.

The Executive has put great store by the concept of cost-benefit analysis in respect of individual options for the introduction of GM crops. However, it is clear that Chardon LL maize produces no cost benefit. There is no viable option to increase productivity by the use of that variety in Scotland. In fact, the summary of the legal opinion states that Chardon LL maize is not

"of satisfactory value for cultivation".

We cannot be satisfied that it is of any value. Consequently, it can be nothing but a Trojan horse—as it has been described—for such technology.

Before we go down that road, even I, as a person who accepts many of the principles behind the technology, must accept that economic considerations need to be taken into account. The issue of hormones in beef has been mentioned. I believe that such hormones can be used practically and safely, but they have been banned in this country because of public concerns and economic concerns about the quality of the product that is produced. Similarly, bovine somatotropin in milk production is widely used throughout the world, but not in Scotland because we believe that it would tarnish the image of a quality product and we do not want to go down that road. We must consider GM technology in those terms before we make a choice.

We must also consider how we can protect those who call themselves conventional or organic farmers and wish to produce a non-GM product in the future. If that is their primary economic consideration, we have the responsibility to consider their rights and concerns. I am not convinced that proper provision has been made to guarantee that they will be protected. The opportunity that has been placed before us today to consider an alternative legal opinion enables us to ask the Executive to halt the process until it has drawn proper comparisons and reinforced its conclusions. I believe that that is an appropriate way in which to proceed. I want the issues to be debated and I want the opportunity to argue cases from my point of view. The Executive has not delivered such an opportunity.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Mr Harvie might choose to remember that the last time Wales adopted an ultra vires position, it was forced to retract.

From the terms of the Greens' motion, I expected a weighty debate, but instead I have a feeling of déjà vu. Those who are daunted by legal opinions should not fear—there is only one small section that they have to read. The footnote to the summary of the Greens' legal opinion establishes that their independent counsel's legal argument is built on three foundation stones—the discredited Friends of the Earth opinion of 2000, instructions to counsel and the Friends of the Earth opinion of 2003.

The Friends of the Earth opinion of 2003 runs to 14 pages, but one need look only at page 2 to evaluate it. The first sentence on page 2 begins:

"Our opinion is that there are a number of grounds upon which the Assembly could and/or should refuse to accept Chardon LL for the National List".

Unfortunately for the Greens' case, the sentence goes on—

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

No. I want to finish my point. The sentence concludes:

"the Assembly could and/or should refuse to accept Chardon LL for the National List if the evidence of FOE ... is accepted."

That is a rather big if. I do not think that many people in this country will believe that the Government should set aside its legal advice, which is based on expert evaluation of the scientific evidence from ACRE, in deference to a legal opinion that is argued solely on the basis of the views of one pressure group.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I urge the member to be extremely cautious in attacking the legal opinion, which was prepared by an advocate who is retained by Scottish ministers. I would be cautious about trying to pull apart the legal opinion.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

It does not matter how beautiful the edifice is if the foundations are not sound. What does the new legal opinion offer? Under the heading "Are the Scottish Ministers entitled to refuse to accept Chardon LL maize on to a National List?" paragraph 94 of the new legal opinion states:

"The Scottish Ministers would only be entitled to refuse to accept Chardon LL maize on to a National List if a reasonable decision maker could be satisfied that it does not meet the requirements set out in regulation 5(3)(a) to (g) and/or regulation 5(4)(a) or (b)."

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I will finish my point. The following paragraph ends:

"the Scottish Ministers would have been entitled to refuse to accept it to a National List on the grounds that they were not satisfied that it met the requirements of regulation 5(3)(c)".

That would be news if that paragraph had not begun as follows:

"In the light of the concerns expressed by the Scottish Green Party as to the ability of Chardon LL maize to satisfy the requirements".

The Executive is being asked to set aside the considered legal opinion of its advisers in favour of a legal opinion that was prepared in a few hours and argues that the Executive has powers that are predicated on accepting the concerns of the Greens. I do not find that to be reasonable and I will not be voting for the motion.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I have another point to make and I do not have time.

I ask the Greens and others to recognise the reality of the situation and to stop trying to build legal positions on sand. If they could produce peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that would be a different matter and it would merit serious attention. The sensible and pragmatic way forward is to promote voluntary GM-free zones by undertaking the work that is necessary to underpin them and to make them achievable.

At First Minister's question time two weeks ago, the First Minister said:

"A statutory co-existence regime will be created and a regime will be established for penalising GM companies should any cross-contamination occur."—[Official Report, 11 March 2004; c 6569.]

We should be working to get such regimes right. Scottish Liberal Democrats welcome the move to establish what would constitute effective co-existence measures, through which we could pin liability where it belongs. We believe that that supports our wider aims of promoting organic farming, consumer and farmer choice and quality Scottish produce.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Here we are again. This debate seems to have a higher frequency than debates on amnesic shellfish poisoning. I suspect that the motive behind it was the fact that the vote was very close last week.

We seem to have what is a preliminary legal opinion, which seems to be based on what is arguable and on the possibility of challenges to the Scottish ministers had they made a different decision.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I want to get on. I have been speaking for only 20 seconds.

From that legal opinion seems to have come the interpretation that the Executive wants a Trojan horse to bring in lots of GM crops. I cannot understand the basis of that argument, given that it is absolutely clear that decisions on crops will be made on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, I was initially disappointed when I heard the announcement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the UK Government had agreed in principle to the commercial cultivation of Chardon LL T25.

In principle, I am not opposed to GM. Like Alex Johnstone, I believe that GM can be used to our benefit and that it can be used to our detriment. I was disappointed by the announcement because it seemed to be in opposition to public opinion and I believe that politicians have a responsibility to give due consideration to the views of those who elect them. However, the clarification from the secretary of state and from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development has reassured us. The deputy minister has not consented to adding Chardon LL maize to the national seed list.

There are two important conditions to the agreement. First, the restrictions on the European Union marketing consent mean that the crop can be grown and managed only in the trials or under conditions that will not adversely affect the environment. Secondly, when atrazine is phased out in 18 months' time, further scientific analysis will be required to monitor changes in herbicide use on conventional and Chardon LL maize.

Professor Joe Perry of Rothamsted Research has conducted research into alternatives to atrazine. He has found alternatives that are beneficial to the environment and has concluded that the environmental benefits of Chardon LL could therefore decrease. However, he does not believe that those benefits will be negated. If they are negated, the crop will be thrown out.

As we have heard, Chardon LL is unlikely to be grown in Scotland. Forage maize forms less than 1 per cent of Scottish arable production and, as we know, T25 is a late-maturing variety that is poorly suited to the UK climate, although it had clearance to be grown in France in 1998.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As the member's constituency is the one that is most likely to be the recipient of Chardon LL maize, should it ever be grown in Scotland—

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry, but I am not taking that intervention. My constituency is not likely to be a recipient of Chardon LL. Even the climate of Dumfries and Galloway, mild and pleasant as it is, is not likely to be suitable for that brand.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

rose—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Scott, Dr Murray is not taking an intervention at the moment.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I know that someone in Alex Johnstone's constituency maintained that he might grow the crop if it was commercially advantageous, but it is highly unlikely that a late-maturing variety will be advantageous. Even though the precautionary principle says that the polluter pays—

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

rose—

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member is not taking an intervention. You are in your final minute, Dr Murray.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

There is a serious misunderstanding about the nature of the precautionary principle as it is applied by the European Commission. The precautionary principle is not a politicisation of science, but a risk-management scheme. When action is necessary, measures taken under the precautionary principle in the EU should be proportional to the chosen level of protection, non-discriminatory—which is one of the reasons why ministers had to make the choices that they made—consistent, based on examination of potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action and subject to review in the light of new evidence. Moreover, there must be a capability of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidence that is necessary for a more comprehensive risk analysis. That is how the precautionary principle is applied in the EU and it is the basis on which ministers made their decisions. I believe that the ministers made the decisions that they had to make.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In the brief time that I have, I will concentrate on public consultation and attitudes. In her statement on 9 March, Mrs Beckett said:

"People already engaged with the issues were generally much more hostile. Those not so engaged were more open-minded, anxious to know more, but still very cautious; and it was suggested that, as they learned more, their hostility deepened."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 March 2004; Vol 418, c 1381.]

From that, I take it that, in terms of public perception, the issue is not going to go away.

In the debate last week, George Lyon quoted the Liberal Democrat manifesto. He said

"we would not permit the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland until trials had been completed"

and

"a public debate had been concluded".

When someone asked him what had happened to that public debate, he replied:

"I will move on to public and consumer concerns later in my speech."—[Official Report, 18 March 2004; c 6791.]

He never did that, of course, so what we have is typical double-speak. What do we mean by having a public debate? The Liberal Democrats mean that we may have the debate, but they will ignore the result.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

The Liberal Democrats' argument seems to be based on a total inability to act. If that is the case now, it was also the case when their manifesto was published. They were leading the public up the garden path, because—according to their argument—at the time that they called for a debate they knew that legal advice would prevail and they could ignore the result of the debate, whatever that was. No wonder the public at large do not trust politicians or the political system. We should not be surprised that there is total cynicism about the political process and lower voter turnout. Politicians either totally ignore public opinion or—even worse for our credibility—we semi-agree with public opinion, but say that we are sorry but we cannot do anything about the situation.

The First Minister says that the Scottish Parliament is sceptical about GM, but we do nothing about it. At the beginning of the debate, Patrick Harvie quoted Jim Wallace as saying:

"The Scottish Parliament could say something, but what would it mean?"

Last week, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development cited the legal position. This week he has done so again at length. We are meant to say, "That's all right then. Sorry, we did our best." No wonder the public are cynical. MSPs cannot do anything, because we do not have the necessary legal powers. Apparently, MPs and the Westminster Government cannot do anything, either, despite the fact that we are always told that one of the great arguments for staying in the union, as part of the United Kingdom, is the power of the UK in Brussels. Presumably, MEPs cannot do anything, because the issue does not come within their bailiwick.

Patrick Harvie said that the Executive's stance demeans Scottish politics and the Scottish Parliament. I suggest that politics at all levels is being demeaned. Certainly, the European ideal is being demeaned. We cannot keep saying that, regardless of what people want, we as politicians at all levels in this country cannot do anything about it, presumably because of laws that were made and decisions that were taken earlier. By whom were those decisions taken? They were taken by politicians in this chamber and politicians down the road at Westminster—politicians who in many cases are still making decisions. Eventually, some of us will have to make it clear that, when the public say something, it is our duty—if we believe that people want what they say they want—to translate that into action, instead of just wringing our hands endlessly and quoting lawyers. We might as well have a chamber full of lawyers and no politicians. Certainly, we should never ask the public because, whatever they say, we will do nothing about it.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

As Patrick Harvie said, we see today's debate as the second half of the full debate that we should have had and that, in fact, we requested. That is why I may refer back to what was said in the debate last week.

I start by pointing out something that members may have seen in the media. At the moment, there is a competition to find an 11th commandment. How about, "Thou shalt not cause contamination that thou canst not undo"? The point about GM is that, once GM contamination of our environment has occurred, it is there—no one will go around hunting for pollen grains. I do not like the cliché but, as has been said, the genie will be out of the bottle and we will not be able to get it back in. We must take the issue seriously. We are dealing not with just another crop, but with one that is qualitatively different from anything that we have faced before. We must take that point on board.

The Executive amendment refers to "a blanket ban". That spurious phrase keeps coming up. I looked carefully through our motion, in the name of Mark Ruskell, but it contains only one word beginning with B—"based". That cannot be misread for either "blanket" or "ban". The Executive keeps making what is an entirely spurious point to ensure that we do not discuss the real issues that are at stake.

We have agreed that the only way forward is to examine genetically modified crops on a case-by-case basis—that is why we are considering Chardon LL.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I put the same point to Elaine Scott as I put to her colleague Patrick Harvie. When we say "blanket ban", we refer to the single European market and the provision for competition therein. Paragraph 106 of the legal advice that the Scottish Green Party has received acknowledges "For completeness" that there is

"the potential for challenge to any such refusal ... on grounds that such a refusal is inconsistent with the European Communities' objectives of harmonisation."

If a ban is not potentially in conflict with those single market principles, why would the Scottish Green Party's legal opinion have included that reference?

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

There is no harmonisation issue, given that—as far as we can tell—no other part of Europe intends to grow Chardon LL maize. I will deal with the issue of challenge later.

I want to examine why Chardon LL has been proposed for planting, because—as Alex Johnstone has said—there is no need for the crop to be included on the seed list for Scotland, as no farmer will want to grow it for its merits. Our legal advice states that the crop does not fulfil the requirement of being

"of satisfactory value for cultivation".

No one disputes that.

The phrase "Trojan horse" has been used. I would like to use the phrase "thin end of the wedge" and to consider briefly what the rest of that wedge may contain. When discussing GM and the so-called farm-scale evaluations, the Executive has been careful to say that, as a result of those evaluations, we will not consider growing beet and spring-sown oil-seed rape. It has not mentioned winter-sown oil-seed rape, as the relevant report has not yet appeared. That is the crop of real concern. A so-called farm-scale evaluation of winter-sown oil-seed rape took place in the area that I represent, the Highlands and Islands. The crop would be a real problem, because it grows readily throughout Scotland, spreads like wildfire—it can be seen growing on islands where it has never been sown—and produces huge amounts of pollen that has the potential to spread genetic contamination over a wide area. In that context, exclusion zones and voluntary bans would be meaningless.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Does the member accept that we can refuse to accept the crop for commercial growing if we receive evidence to that effect from the farm-scale trial?

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I am not convinced of that. The farm-scale trial was very narrow in its conception. It considered the management regime but not questions such as pollen drift, an issue that was specifically raised at public meetings. The trial also did not address issues of liability.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

rose—

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot take a further intervention, as I am in the final minute of my speech.

The Environment and Rural Development Committee is currently considering common agricultural policy reform. The thrust of CAP reform is that farmers will farm for the market and be paid for providing environmental benefits. Chardon LL has no place in that strategy—it has no place in the market and is providing no environmental benefits. That makes one wonder what is going on.

The Deputy Presiding Officer is indicating that I am out of time, but I would like to refer briefly to a comment that was made by a Labour member about the message that we are sending to the scientific community. We should send the message that a smart, successful Scotland uses science in a responsible way. We should not just roll over and make ourselves into an open-air laboratory. That would be neither smart nor successful; it would be poor and pathetic.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Alasdair Morgan said that the issue that we are discussing will not go away. On the evidence of the past couple of weeks, it will not. The matter is probably worth debating, although we are going over some of the same ground that we have gone over before.

No member would not have liked to have been able to tell the public, "You were right—it's not safe and we're going to ban it. We have all the scientific evidence that shows that to be the case." Unfortunately, that is not the case. If we do not get what we want, there is no point in our behaving like spoiled children, stamping our feet and demanding that, somehow, reality should be different.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

rose—

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I want to develop this point.

It is all very well knowing what people are against, but we need to know what they are for in the advancement of science, the economy, biodiversity and the environment. If the Greens want to be taken seriously in the Parliament, they need to stop behaving like an overblown pressure group and to start behaving like a responsible political party.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member accept that the biotech industry is not doing itself any good by advancing a young science into an uncontrolled situation in the environment when it is not ready for that? Does she accept that the potential benefits of biotechnology, which are many, particularly in medicine, could be lost if the industry becomes besmirched by some of its own actions?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I do not accept that, because I do not think that the situation is as the member describes. The science base in the UK as a whole and in Scotland, where the industry is particularly important, is behaving responsibly in this case, as it has done on GM issues over the past 20 years, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Let us consider for a moment the evidence that we have.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Does the member accept that hormones for use in beef cattle and BST for use in dairy cattle were not introduced into the UK and Europe, although the scientific evidence in both cases was such that they could and, reasonably, should have been introduced? Public opinion prevented the introduction of those apparent aids to agricultural production. Does she accept that public opinion should do the same in the case of GM crops?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

That was a rather lengthy intervention, the nub of which was that we should not take the case-by-case approach that we are taking. However, that approach is the sensible one to take.

Let us look for a moment at the legal opinion of which the Scottish Green Party has graciously allowed us sight. In paragraph 5, that party's counsel says that he had little more than 48 hours to prepare his opinion. He goes on to say that he relied on a number of other opinions in order to produce his. He says in paragraph 8:

"I am broadly in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions set out in each of the said Opinions, although the actual questions to which Counsel directed themselves were slightly different from the question which I am asked."

In fact, the response is based on a different set of premises and questions. That leads me to have some difficulty in accepting the conclusions. Although I accept that most cases are arguable, what is at issue is the strength of the arguments. The opinion has not shown that the strength of the arguments is any greater now than it was last week.

The Executive has listened to the public's views. The public are uneasy about GM and we do not support early commercialisation of GM crops in Scotland. We are looking to safeguard human health and the environment. We do not have the scientific evidence, but if the Greens can bring it to us, we will be delighted and we will make it available to Parliament—

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I am out of time. I support the Executive amendment and I urge members to be responsible and to do the same.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

We are back here again and I thank the Greens for bringing the debate back to the chamber. It gives us another chance to explain things patiently to the Executive.

We in Parliament know that the majority of people in Scotland do not want GM crops to be grown. We also know that, if the Executive was serious about the precautionary principle, it would not be opening the way for the growing of GM. However, as I said, here we are again.

The Scottish Green Party motion that we are discussing today is an easy one for the Executive to understand and for it to support if it wishes. A legal opinion has been obtained from an independent counsel, which states that the Executive has the legal power to refuse the next stage of GM commercialisation. The motion calls simply for the Executive to review its own legal advice. The very simplicity of the situation begs the question of why the motion even needed to be lodged. Is the Scottish Executive so incompetent that it does not know what powers it has? Is the Executive so uncaring that it knows what powers it has, but chooses not to use them? Or, is it the third option: that the Executive knows full well what powers it has, but merely does as it is told by Tony Blair and his science minister, Lord Sainsbury?

Legal experts have stated that Scottish ministers have the powers to refuse consent to the addition of Chardon LL to the national seed list. The ministers have those powers on three grounds. The first ground is because they have failed to take measures to avoid adverse effects. European directive 70/457/EEC, which sets out the overarching legal framework for seed listing and provides the basis for the regulations, states that all seeds that are to be added to the national list must

"be accepted only if all appropriate measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment."

Secondly, GM crops do not satisfy the requirements of value for cultivation. Value for cultivation and use is a specific mandatory requirement of European directives and domestic regulations. No seed variety can be added to the list unless it can demonstrate a clear improvement for cultivation.

The third ground is the most basic of all—the precautionary principle.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does the member accept that the opinion states in the second-last paragraph:

"For completeness, I acknowledge the potential for challenge to any such refusal, not only on general grounds of rationality, but on grounds that such a refusal is inconsistent with the European Communities' objectives of harmonisation."?

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

My points override the member's points. The precautionary principle states that the relevant authority—the Scottish Executive in this case—should have regard to all relevant scientific information on the risk of serious and irreversible harm.

We have gone over and over the subject this morning. Labour and Liberal Democrat members are telling the parties on my side of the chamber that we do not understand, but we tell them that they do not understand.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I do not have time; I am in my last minute.

The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are not listening to us and they are not listening to public opinion. I do not know what it would take to get through to them that they must address the problem. The Green motion is a simple one that they should be able to support. As for the Lib Dems, there is duplicity in the difference between their policies down south and their policies up here. It is absolutely ridiculous that they can do one thing here and another thing in another country. They should be ashamed of themselves.

The Scottish Executive has not used all the powers that are available to it to prevent the future commercial growing of Chardon LL. It must give a guarantee to Parliament that it will undertake a review of its legal advice on the matter and put on hold its consent to the addition of Chardon LL to the national seed list.

I urge members to support the Green motion.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the winding-up speeches. George Lyon has four minutes.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I thank the Scottish Green Party for its courtesy in allowing us to see the legal opinion last night, which gave us the chance to look over it.

As I and others have stated many times before, the Scottish Executive has the powers to ban the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland, but—and it is a big but—only if there is credible scientific evidence that there is a risk to human health, the environment or animal health. I hope that we all agree that that is the basis on which the powers exist.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I want to make some progress as I have only four minutes.

The Executive has been able to reject the commercialisation of spring rape and sugar beet because credible scientific evidence was gathered during the trials that allowed us to reject those crops. Firm grounds have been established and accepted by the independent scientific review that was undertaken of those crop trials.

The opinions from the Greens' counsel and from the counsel for Friends of the Earth, which was done for the National Assembly for Wales, are right to say that we have the power to reject GM crops. However, both are utterly flawed in that they are predicated on the claim of the environmental damage that would be done as a result of growing Chardon LL. None of those claims is backed by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. Therefore, the legal opinion is based on a false premise and adds nothing to the debate today.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the member explain to us the difference between the Liberal Democrats' position in the Scottish Parliament and their position in the Welsh Assembly? In Wales, they lodged a motion to endorse the conclusion of the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee that it would be irresponsible of the UK Government to allow the commercial planting of GM crops. They also deplored the UK Government's announcement of its intention to approve the growing of GM maize Chardon LL and lodged a motion directing the Labour Assembly Government to ensure that Chardon LL is not added to the UK seed list.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

If Robin Harper cares to read our manifesto, on which we were elected in 2003 and which lies at the heart of the Executive amendment today, he will find the position of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. It is the position on which we were elected and it is what we are doing.

The minister has asked both the nationalist party and the Conservatives, if they wish us to move on the subject, to provide new scientific evidence to allow us to reject Chardon LL. That is the key, not legal opinion on whether the Scottish Executive has the powers. The question is whether there is new scientific evidence that would allow us to make such a decision stand up in court against the European Commission.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have to move on—I have given way two or three times. I hope that the Deputy Presiding Officer will make some allowance for the interventions that I have taken.

I turn to the serious question of where we go from here. It is clear that the Scottish Executive's position is to ensure that we take the most legally restrictive approach to any commercialisation of GM crops. Will the minister tell us how long it will take for Europe to agree to amend its current consent for Chardon LL, under part C of directive 90/220/EEC, so as to ensure that it is grown in this country only under the same management regime as applied to the trials? That is the first step of our precautionary principle approach.

Consumers' concerns must be addressed by giving them choice about whether or not to purchase certain products. How soon will the labelling regime be introduced, and will it give consumers information about which farms use GM crops for the feeding of animals?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

On the earlier point, it will take several months—perhaps very many months—for the European Commission to respond to our part C consent amendment, which would determine if, how and when GM maize could be grown under conditions that replicate the farm-scale trials. The labelling regime will come into being on 1 April. The member should be aware that Chardon LL maize has consent in the Netherlands, and so could enter the European catalogue from there.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You must finish now, Mr Lyon.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I thank the minister for his response.

The Greens' motion and counsel opinion add nothing new to the current debate. The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the Executive amendment because it is based firmly on our manifesto, which was endorsed by our party conference last year, and on which we were elected to the Parliament in May.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Alex Fergusson. You have four minutes, Mr Fergusson.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

So did George Lyon, I think, but I will keep to my four minutes, Presiding Officer.

I am deeply grateful to the Scottish Green Party for bringing this matter back to the chamber today, principally because it gives me the opportunity to complete what I wanted to say last week, but was unable to say due to the fact that I was spending so much of my time venting my wrath at the Liberal Democrats. I will not waste my time doing that this week, other than to suggest to them that they do not bother trying to intervene on me, because I am not taking any interventions—at least not from them.

Last week, I mentioned that a farming constituent of mine was recently quoted in the agricultural press as saying that he would certainly grow GM maize if he perceived an economic advantage in doing so, and I do not blame him for that. However, I do not believe that that is what the minister means by his assertion that the consumer will decide. If my constituent, and others like him, were to grow GM crops and use them as feed for economic gain, the opinion of the consumer would be completely irrelevant, and would have nothing to do with it. An increasing number of my farming constituents are pursuing innovative niche-marketing opportunities—and are gaining premium prices in the process—by developing markets based on high-quality traceable products of high integrity and purity. If my maize-growing constituents were all to grow GM maize—and there are more of them in my constituency than in any other constituency in Scotland—the entire businesses of other producers would be under considerable threat.

I do not claim, and never have claimed, to be a visionary, but I can see a picture emerging. I can see a south of Scotland—which, as Elaine Murray rightly said, has a splendid climate for agricultural products—in which GM crops will become quite common, and where it will become impossible to produce a high-quality niche product of high integrity, purity and value. I see a central belt, offering a natural buffer zone next to a voluntarily GM-free Scotland in the north, with the central belt and the north of Scotland enjoying all the benefits that I am increasingly convinced will come from being robustly and resolutely GM-free.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sorry; I do not have time.

As a South of Scotland MSP, I will not stand idly by and let that happen. If there are any Labour and Liberal MSPs who should be searching their consciences today, it is those who represent the South of Scotland. They should think very carefully about how they will vote at 5 o'clock, because their constituencies have every bit as much to lose as mine does.

I will probably make up for the extra time that George Lyon had, but I repeat my endorsement of one part of the minister's comments on this subject. I agree that voluntary GM-free zones should be encouraged. As I said last week, I believe that the whole of Scotland should be one. Paragraph 10 of the preliminary opinion of the Greens' counsel, which I thank them for making available, states:

"it is arguable that the Scottish Ministers have discretion to refuse to accept Chardon LL maize on to a National List, the exercise of which would have been unlikely to have been successfully judicially reviewed."

Whether or not Chardon LL has yet been listed—and I accept what the minister says on the matter—that part of the opinion suggests that the Scottish Executive can turn a voluntary GM-free zone into a compulsory one.

If we as a country can afford not to support the motion today—

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

rose—

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am in my last minute, and I seem to remember that I had to remind the minister that he wanted to make an intervention on me last week. He will forgive me if I do not take one this week.

The Scottish Conservatives will not take a risk; we will support the motion.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The context of the debate is the attempts by GM firms around the world to incorporate their products into the agricultural practices of various countries. The European Union has taken the view that it wishes to delay that happening, but it is doing so in the face of pressure from the World Trade Organisation to liberalise its agriculture laws to allow it to happen.

Where field trials have taken place, they have been somewhat incomplete. The Government has a problem in getting all the evidence to maintain its stance. The evidence is incomplete because the Government has failed to ask all the questions. I heard the minister's statement on the subject two weeks ago, and I asked:

"Will he name the definitive study of the effect on human health of GM crops on which he bases his advice?"—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6434.]

However, there is none, because it was never asked for. That is a fundamental flaw right at the start.

If a new crop was brought in, we would expect there to be a check, with a control group, and perhaps another group near a field-scale trial—as there was at Munlochy—and for a study on human health to be carried out. We proved in the Health Committee that that did not happen, and the minister does not acknowledge the fact that that is necessary.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

rose—

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will not take an intervention at this stage, thank you.

From the minister's interventions when we were setting out our arguments last week, it is quite clear that he relies on evidence that he is not prepared to publish and on opinions from Government solicitors that have not been laid before the Parliament. It would be interesting to know whether any of those opinions are up to date. The solicitor for the Transport and the Environment Committee gave his opinion in 2000, if I am not mistaken. Has it been updated? The Friends of the Earth material, which I cited last week, was updated in 2003. [Interruption.] The parliamentary solicitor gave his opinion. Does the Executive have any opinions that it is prepared to publish? I see none.

We know that no study on Chardon LL has been published—the University of Reading study into the effects of the field-scale trials of Chardon LL maize has not been published. It should be noted that similar maize affected the health of broiler chickens when they were fed it. A similar maize, Syngenta Bt-176 fodder maize, was fed to cattle in Germany, 12 of which died. Syngenta paid compensation to the farmer involved, in effect admitting liability.

When the minister says that he is consulting on such liability, is he standing on the side of reason and of the public, or is he acting as a Trojan horse for bringing GM crops into the country? The minister is acting as a mouthpiece for big business; otherwise, he would adopt the same arguments that the First Minister of Wales has adopted, who has said:

"The National Assembly for Wales is ... committed to applying the most restrictive approach possible to the commercialisation of GM crops ... We will continue to consider all options to protect organic and conventional agriculture".—[Official Record, National Assembly for Wales, 10 February 2004; p 26.]

The charge today is that the minister has not ordered health studies; he has not sought the most up-to-date opinion; and he has not published such information so that the Parliament can have the kind of debate that it requires to have. Members should reject the Government's amendment and support the Green motion.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will try to cover the points that have been raised, although I will not have time to cover them all. I agree with something that Mark Ruskell said: this should not be a sterile debate about legal opinion. However, we have seen the legal opinion. This is not a question of shooting the messenger—far from it—but the opinion is unsigned and unattributed. Paragraph 5 says that it is a preliminary opinion prepared at 48 hours' notice. To present it as a considered review is, I would argue, misleading.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would the minister then agree to review the opinion? That is the purpose of our motion.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I would indeed; I am happy to give Mr Ruskell that guarantee. Obviously, if we review legal opinion, we will review all aspects of it. We are in a process of continuous review. Probably for the fifth time in this chamber—if not the umpteenth time—I will say that, when we receive reliable peer reviews and scientific evidence of harm to human health, animal health or the environment, we will use the powers vested in us to ban the cultivation of GM maize anywhere in Scotland.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister agree to do more than merely wait for that evidence to come along? Will he agree to commission it?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will come on to talk about all the scientific evidence, from all sources, that has been commissioned, peer reviewed, published and considered by all our scientific advisers in direct response to the points that the SNP has made.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Let me develop the point.

Our scientific advisers have assessed the risks of using Chardon LL maize as animal feed. They have found nothing to indicate that Chardon LL maize grain, or its products, pose any more of a risk than non-GM varieties when used in animal feed. I will quote from the science review panel, which stated:

"There have been many scientific studies, particularly in recent years, involving thousands of pigs and poultry and hundreds of beef and dairy cattle where no evidence has been found for adverse effects on animal health ... as a result of the use of GM feed containing herbicide tolerant or Bt constructs."

We have commissioned a multitude of environmental and other scientific advice and no evidence of any harm to human health, animal health or the environment has been produced.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I do not think that the minister has understood my point. BST was not introduced in Europe and cattle hormones were not introduced in Europe, yet the science said that they were safe. The decision becomes political. Is the minister prepared to take that decision on behalf of British consumers?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We are talking about two quite different regulatory regimes. If Mr Scott wants to come back to me to talk about hormones in cattle and the regulatory regime, I will be happy to debate the issues with him. However, we are here to debate a Green motion. The motivation behind that motion is, I believe, genuine—on the basis of both legal opinion and science. The motion is on the introduction of herbicide-tolerant GM Chardon LL maize. With all due respect to Mr Scott, we are not here to debate hormones in beef.

We are not talking about blanket bans. That particular variety of maize has been reviewed by experts not only here in the United Kingdom but in the 15 member states of the EU. Chardon LL has undergone assessment before receiving a part C consent. It received a part C consent not last week, last month or even last year, but in 1998. Since then, there has been a moratorium on its growth and introduction, as a consequence of what I would argue was a responsible attitude on the part of the biotechnology industry.

I say to Alex Johnstone that no cost-benefit analysis is associated with that process. Only the risks are considered. I would argue that those risks should be paramount in the Parliament's consideration of the issues. The higher burden of proof in relation to those risks is connected with the securing of part C consent. I accept that the issue of value arises in relation to the national seed listing. However, to answer Alex's point, Rosemary Bryne's point and everybody else's points on the precautionary principle, scientific evidence and peer-review studies, the maize has secured national seed listing in the Netherlands and, from there, it could enter the EU common catalogue of national seed listing and then could be grown anywhere in the European Union.

To argue, as some have done, that we are not listening to public opinion is specious and erroneous. Of course we listen to public opinion. Public opinion moulded our opinion on the introduction of voluntary GM-free zones. We share with the farming industry a common objective to maintain consumer confidence in the food we eat. If farmers see the benefit in setting up voluntary GM-free zones, we will work with them to develop guidance on how zones could be established.

With those few words, I commend the Executive's amendment to the motion.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have had a two-and-a-half hour debate on this topic: we had one and a quarter hours last week, and I thank the SNP for allocating some of its time to that debate; and we have had one and a quarter hours this week from the Green party. In the past week, we have had an opportunity to reflect on some of the words spoken last week. I will never forget Mike Rumbles bravely wafting his Scottish Liberal Democrats membership card around. Surely that was a real declaration of independence, although I am not sure what it was a declaration of independence from—political reality perhaps.

A number of myths from last week have remained on the agenda. The first is the myth of a blanket ban. It is only Labour and the Liberal Democrats that talk about a blanket ban. I suspect that the blanket ban is actually a comfort blanket for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to hide behind.

Another myth is that somehow the Executive will be acting illegally by not allowing Chardon LL on to the UK seed list. The reality is that no other EU country is growing Chardon LL and no other country in the EU is facing infraction proceedings as a result of not growing it. Our counsel has said that the Scottish Executive has wide discretion in this area. Yes, our counsel says that the opinion can be challenged, but the whole point is that such a challenge would be likely to fail if it were ever brought to court.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Does Mr Ruskell accept that Chardon LL maize is listed on the Dutch national seed list, could enter the European Union common catalogue from that source, and so could be grown anywhere in the UK or across the EU?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for bringing up yet another myth. Yes, it is on the Dutch national list but, if it were to go on to the common list—which it is very unlikely to do because I do not think that the Dutch would do that—it would require the agreement of the UK.

I acknowledge that some Liberal Democrats and Labour members are sceptical about GM and, in particular, sceptical about this GM maize crop. I know that some of those members believe that the Executive has interpreted its powers of discretion correctly. Those members have been reassured by the First Minister's comments two weeks ago when he said:

"The arrangement that has been announced is the most restrictive that we could have put in place."—[Official Report, 11 March 2004; c 6570.]

I question that. We have to doubt it because of the opinion of counsel. Our counsel says:

"It is arguable that the Scottish Executive has not used all measures available to it to prevent the future commercial sowing of Chardon LL genetically modified maize."

We must contrast that with what the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development said in his statement on 10 March. He said:

"As I made clear, the Executive does not hold the power of veto on the national seed list."——[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6430.]

Our counsel's opinion was based on three grounds. The first is the VCU—viability of cultivation for use. Does the crop actually grow properly? For the crop to enter the national seed list, it has to show an advantage over other crops. However, the yields in the field-scale evaluations were markedly inferior. The evidence is there; the Executive needs to review it and it needs to review its decision.

We have heard a lot about the precautionary principle and about taking appropriate measures to avoid adverse effects on health and on the environment. Our opinion states:

"There is no requirement that the National Authorities be satisfied that the plant variety is, in fact, harmful."

The opinion goes on to say:

"It follows that regulation 5(4) increases the National Authorities' already considerable discretion to refuse to accept a plant variety on to a National List."

It is the use of discretion that we are calling into question.

Yes, the powers exist and, yes, evidence has to be backed up. We know that virtually no studies have been done on the issue of human health. We know that, in respect of animal health, the minister has apparently seen a study into the acceptability of Chardon LL, but no one else has seen that study and it has not been peer reviewed. How is that an example of exercising the precautionary principle? It is not. The field-scale evaluations were far too narrow. The evidence is not there. They are not an interpretation of the precautionary principle.

The motion is very reasonable—it is certainly more reasonable than the Liberal Democrats' motion in the Welsh Assembly yesterday. There is nothing in the motion about blanket bans. We are asking the Executive to think again and to reconsider the national seed listing of Chardon LL while there is still time. We are asking the Executive to agree to address the matter of the truth—no more political point scoring; no more myths; just an honest review of the Executive's decision making and the decisions that it plans to take over the next few months in relation to the crop. I call on MSPs who have any doubt about the decision that has been made over Chardon LL to vote for the motion at 5 pm.

First Minister's Question Time

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-765)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the immediate future.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On 14 January, Ross Finnie said:

"I am not contemplating any further decommissioning."

This morning, the Downing Street strategy unit recommended a cut of 13 per cent in the size of the fleet, and called for a further 30 per cent of the fleet to go bankrupt by being tied up for four years without any public support. How does the First Minister reconcile Mr Finnie's remarks in January with this morning's devastating report?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Because we have no current plans for further decommissioning and we are not contemplating that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I do not know which Downing Street strategy unit report the First Minister was reading, but the one that I read this morning has been warmly welcomed by the First Minister's Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The report proposes a minimum 13 per cent cut in the fleet, followed by bankruptcy for a further 30 per cent of the fleet—a total cut of 43 per cent. It is projected that 8,000 jobs will be lost. Two months ago, Ross Finnie said that there would be no more cuts. Will the First Minister stand by Scotland's fishing communities, reject the report and guarantee to the Parliament that there will be no further cuts in the Scottish fishing fleet?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Swinney poses a false choice, because the issue in the North sea is the long-term sustainability and profitability of the fishing industry and the fisheries. The report published today by the independent strategy unit is a report to Government, which we will consider in discussions with the industry and with colleagues in London and Brussels. The report laid out the need to ensure that, given the importance of the fishing industry, we have a sustainable and profitable industry in the long term. The industry might well require to be slightly smaller than it is today, but it would not necessarily require decommissioning to get to that stage. That is why discussions with the industry are required. We must ensure that we in Scotland take some responsibility for the North sea and for fishing, and do not always abdicate from making the hard choices and go for the easy solutions. We must make the hard choices, to ensure that we remain a strong fishing country in the long term.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The First Minister says that he has no plans for decommissioning, then he tells us that the fleet needs to be smaller. He will get there only if he presides over bankruptcy in the fishing fleet, which is exactly what the report proposes. In 2001, 98 boats were lost from the Scottish fishing fleet and, in 2003, a further 67 boats were lost. That amounts to a halving of the Scottish white-fish fleet. The fleet cannot take any more cuts. Today, however, this report—warmly welcomed by Downing Street—proposes further savage cuts in the fishing industry. Is it not time that the First Minister stood up for the Scottish fishing industry and told Downing Street that enough is enough.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Decisions on the report will not be made by Downing Street; if they are about the Scottish industry, they will be made by the Executive. The right decision is to ensure that there is a sustainable future for the industry. The way to achieve a sustainable future for the industry, which is what the Executive wants, is to ensure that, at this very moment, we negotiate a proper deal in Brussels. We should not go around advocating breaking international law, as Mr Swinney did last month, and destroying Scotland's case in the international arena; we should go out there and argue Scotland's case to secure improvements in the implementation of the deal that was reached in December.

This is also about the longer term. First, that means taking more responsibility here, in Scotland, and making the choices that come with that. It means working with the industry on the regional management of the fisheries in the North sea in a way that makes them sustainable in the longer term. Secondly, it means discussing with the industry how it can become more productive and profitable in the longer term.

We cannot invent fish in the sea—we cannot create them by genetic modification. We have to ensure that the fleet is profitable, on the basis of the number of fish in the sea, the size of the fleet and its capacity to ensure that there are markets, at home and abroad, to which it can deliver. If we achieve that, we will have a long term for the fisheries industry in Scotland and we will not have the depletion that we have seen in recent years.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The First Minister will not be surprised to hear that the SNP wants Scotland to have more responsibility for these issues. We make no apology for that and will take no lectures from the First Minister about it.

The First Minister wants the right to negotiate these issues in Europe—so do we. The First Minister supported the UK Government negotiating on behalf of Scotland in December, when it negotiated such an appalling deal for our industry that he is now having to negotiate his way out of it. Will he stop trying to deceive the people of Scotland and start fighting for the fishing industry in our country?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes, of course we will fight for the fishing industry. However, we will also work with it to ensure that it has a long-term, sustainable future. We will not do that by advocating the breaking of international law and saying different things from one month to the next that would destroy Scotland's credibility in the international arena. On 23 February, Mr Swinney said:

"We believe in the equality of nations and ... we will always uphold international law".

Only one month earlier he said:

"it doesn't strike me as wrong to break the law"

in relation to fishing. He cannot have it both ways.

Our fishing industry needs a long-term, sustainable and profitable future. We have to ensure that there are the stocks in the North sea to underpin that and that we have a fleet that can be profitable. We will do that in conjunction with the industry—yes, inside a common fisheries policy, because the sea crosses borders and we cannot create false fences in the middle of the North sea. Proper regional management, which is advocated by the report that was published this morning, is a major step forward for the industry in Scotland, as it gives the potential for real control over what happens in Scotland in the future.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-773)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The agenda for the next meeting of the Cabinet will be agreed tomorrow. However, I suspect that the report from the Downing Street strategy unit on fisheries may be one of the items that we will discuss.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I strongly suspect that that will be the case, and I welcome that. Perhaps the Cabinet might like to address some of the fundamental issues arising from that. Is it not the case that the regional management scheme that has been proposed by the strategy unit cannot disguise the fact that the European Union will still determine who can fish, where we fish, when we fish, what we fish and how we fish? Is that not the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed?

As the common fisheries policy dictates that all member states must have equal access to a common resource, is it not the case that effective regional management can be achieved only if we scrap the common fisheries policy and regain the ability to determine access to our own waters?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No—it is quite the opposite. That is why the Scottish Fishermen's Federation said today that, with the important exception of the section on the size of the fleet, this is

"a thorough and well-researched report, which is sure to become a standard reference work for some years ahead."

The federation thinks that the report provides

"welcome endorsement of the industry's long-standing complaints ... and a new idea in the form of UK Regional Fisheries Managers with considerable devolved responsibilities."

This morning, the industry was big enough and bold enough to take the long-term view and to decide to engage with the debate on the report. Frankly, I think that the Tories and the nationalists in the chamber would do the Scottish fishing industry a great service if they recognised that the industry itself and the seas cross international borders. That is why we have a common fisheries policy. However, that policy should be directed towards the proper regional management of those fisheries in the North sea and elsewhere and towards devolving decision making to those who know best, such as the countries, local regions and local fishing industries that can plan a more responsible and better future.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister seems to forget that, long before the common fisheries policy, fish swam around in the North sea and elsewhere and crossed borders, but countries managed to regulate access agreements on an historic basis without having them determined centrally by Brussels. The fundamental question is who should determine access and control. In this context, it is nonsense to talk about fish not knowing boundaries. After all, the situation that I have outlined pertained for hundreds of years when we had a viable industry. Is it not the case that if we scrapped the common fisheries policy, control of our fisheries management would be devolved to this Parliament? Is the Scottish fishery not a devolved function? Surely, as far as political control is concerned, that would be a sensible solution, unless the First Minister thinks that he could not do a better job for the Scottish fishing industry than Mr Blair and Mr Bradshaw. Why will the First Minister not take responsibility and advocate a policy that will give him that responsibility?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I have said before, we do not support the British and Scottish nationalist policy of having a free for all in the North sea. Such a situation would be ridiculous with any common fisheries policy. Furthermore, we feel that it is better to address the matter not through the CFP that we have had for the past 30 years but through a CFP that has proper devolved management responsibility in the North sea and elsewhere. Indeed, the same approach would apply not just inside the United Kingdom but inside Scotland, where authority and management responsibilities are devolved to Shetland, the Western Isles and other fisheries in which people can take more local responsibility over their own lives and ensure that the industry is sustainable and profitable in the long term. That should be our objective. We have finally got the common fisheries policy moving in the right direction.

Today, we received support for our approach from a report that was delivered to No 10. I think that that will mean that the British Government will support such a policy more enthusiastically in future. We intend to carry that forward. We need the politics of the future, not the politics of the past, for Scottish fishing.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Executive has a moral and political duty to protect the fishing communities that I represent from the ruinous and rapacious fishing methods that have decimated fishing stocks around other parts of the Scottish coastline? Does he also agree that the best way of protecting such communities is to put conservation-based laws on the statute book and to make regional control of fisheries a reality in the short term?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I have said, the partnership is committed not only to the regional management of fisheries inside the European policy but to the further devolution of responsibility and engagement with the industry in Scotland. That approach has been successful off the west coast of Scotland and in the Western Isles. I have met members of Mr Morrison's fishing community who have taken responsibility for sustainability, reducing illegal catches and ensuring that stocks are preserved and the industry is profitable. If we can get the model going elsewhere in Scotland, we will be doing very well indeed.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Her Majesty's Government and the Welsh Assembly about the commercialisation of genetically modified maize. (S2F-780)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Harper will not be surprised to learn that we have had a number of discussions between receipt of the scientific advice and the announcement earlier this month.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The Greens have obtained a preliminary legal opinion that says that the Executive has not, in the words of its partnership agreement, "rigorously" applied "the precautionary principle". In fact, we have identified three separate grounds on which the Executive could have been entitled to refuse to allow GM maize on to the seed list but apparently chose not to.

GM maize is not satisfactory for cultivation on the basis of the precautionary principle and on the ground that no independent advice was sought to ensure the avoidance of adverse effects on human health and the environment. Is it not the case that the First Minister has wide discretion in this matter, that the evidence exists that would allow him to use that discretion and that it was lack of political will that held him back? If that is not the case, can the First Minister tell me why, despite the Liberal Democrats' policy, the partnership Government has not used its full powers to oppose GM? Is it because the First Minister does not want to do so?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The partnership has a united position on the issue. Not only do we accept the precautionary principle, we work carefully with the scientific advice and, of course, we use our position inside the collective decision making of the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Governments to ensure that decisions are in line with policy. That is exactly what we have done in this case. If I were Mr Harper, I would have been embarrassed to publish my legal advice this morning, which says that its own position is "arguable". Any legal opinion is arguable; the law and the legal system in this country are about arguing different positions. However, that is not the point here.

We cannot just accept scientific advice when everybody might want us to agree with it from a predetermined position. If we get independent scientific advice and there is a legal framework throughout the European Union and inside this country that we should stick to, we must go with that. At the same time, we push inside the United Kingdom, and we are determined here in Scotland, to be as precautionary as possible because, currently, there is no public demand, no public requirement and no public desire for GM crops to be grown in Scotland. That is what we are setting out to try to achieve.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The First Minister mentioned devolved Governments. He will be aware that the National Assembly for Wales minister Carwyn Jones agreed yesterday that he will not allow GM maize to go on to the UK seed list without the authorisation of the National Assembly for Wales. If the Green party motion that is to be voted on at 5 o' clock is agreed by Parliament, it would allow the Scottish Parliament the same freedom to decide on whether GM maize should go ahead. Will the First Minister allow the Scottish Parliament to have the same freedom on GM maize as the National Assembly for Wales has?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Scottish Parliament has exactly the same freedom as the National Assembly for Wales to have votes in the chamber. We had one last Thursday and the Executive's position was supported.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the First Minister whether there is any threat to Scottish Water's public status due to the general agreement on trade in services. (S2F-769)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services are about improving the markets in which a range of goods and services are sold. They pose no threat to Scottish Water's status as a public corporation that is accountable to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I thank the First Minister for his unequivocal reply. A clear majority of people whom the Scottish Consumer Council questioned still want a publicly funded water system. As a result of sustained campaigning, the European Union has already stated that Europe's health, education and broadcasting sectors will not be included in further GATS negotiations. Will the First Minister reassure me that he and the Scottish Executive will consider fully the implications of GATS on public services in Scotland and that he will make strong representations through the United Kingdom formulating process to ensure that we retain democratic accountability for our public services?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We will, of course, continue to have discussions and make representations where they are required to secure the appropriate democratic accountability for Scottish public services and the right choices that we want to make here in Scotland. We have received assurances, again, in relation to the water industry in Scotland and that is why I am able to give Sarah Boyack the categorical assurance that Scottish Water will remain a public corporation that is accountable to the Scottish Parliament.

In relation to the opinion survey that was published this morning, it is clear that people in Scotland wish to have a public water service that is run as a public service. The Conservatives might disagree with that position and I note that a certain percentage in the opinion survey also disagreed with that. However, I do not disagree with that position. I believe that what we need in Scotland is a public water service that is run in the interests of the public, that is as efficient as possible and that continues to drive through efficiencies, but which ultimately provides clean and safe water for people to use.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given that the Scottish Consumer Council poll showed that nearly a third of Scots—a percentage that is growing—would now support Scottish Water being in private hands and that the privatised water companies in England have delivered 50 times the infrastructure investment that Scottish Water has delivered, as well as lower charges to consumers and higher water quality, why is the First Minister taking such a dogmatic approach by ruling out moving Scottish Water to the private sector?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The great advantage that those private companies in England had back in the early 1990s was that they were no longer run by the Tory Government, so they were able to invest in water infrastructure. It is precisely because we no longer have that Tory Government that we are now able to invest in water infrastructure. That is why we have a massive investment programme in Scotland. Efficiencies are being driven through the service to try to ensure that there is as little impact on consumers as possible. In the longer term, we want to ensure that Scottish water is safe to use and clean and that we have a service that has minimal charges and maximum efficiency.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The First Minister is being robust here in the chamber about keeping Scottish Water in public ownership, but he will be aware that the United Kingdom is asking 74 countries throughout the world to privatise their water systems. What representation from this Parliament will go to those negotiations in Geneva to ensure that Scotland's water will not be affected?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not sure that that is a complete portrayal of the UK's position on the matter, which is to increase international aid substantially, to ensure that much of that aid goes towards providing clean water supplies and to ensure that, inside those countries that need clean water supplies, the right infrastructure to deliver that clean water—and the health benefits that come from it—is put in place as efficiently and speedily as possible. As part of that, the UK is pushing for immediate action in countries throughout the world.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to analyse the implications for Scotland of the Barker review's final report on housing supply and implement any necessary action. (S2F-764)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We will be looking carefully at those recommendations that affect devolved responsibilities in parallel with our own review of affordable housing.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware of the recent survey that showed that emergent households—mainly the young people whom we so strongly wish to attract and retain—are unable to afford housing in a substantial number of housing markets in Scotland. Indeed, he will know about people queuing up for days to snap up houses in new developments as soon as they go on sale. Does the First Minister accept the Barker analysis that that situation is fundamentally a matter of market failure, that we need better planning guidance and more up-to-date local plans, that we need to identify more land to stabilise house prices and that we need more affordable housing to encourage labour mobility and promote social inclusion?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is clearly a question, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Briefly, Mr Tosh.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Given that we are at least a year away from the planning bill, will the First Minister take that time to commission a review to analyse those issues for the benefit of Scotland and to ensure that his planning bill will deliver a policy and legal framework that is equal to the task of meeting the demands of young households in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome the emerging consensus in the Parliament about the need for affordable housing and I welcome Mr Tosh's support for the review on affordable housing that is already under way, which we hope will report by the summer. Today, Margaret Curran is announcing resources that will be held back to support that review, in addition to the overall 7 per cent increase in the budget for investment in affordable housing throughout Scotland, which includes a 10 per cent increase in the budget for affordable housing projects in the coming year in rural Scotland, where there is a particular problem.

We are investing immediately and, next week, we will announce proposals to improve the planning regime in Scotland. Although we are encouraging further developments and the availability of land throughout Scotland, we also have that review in place. When it reports, we hope that it will produce further recommendations that will ensure the availability of more land and more housing both to rent and to buy, because young families in Scotland have that aspiration and we want to ensure that they can meet it in urban and rural Scotland.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

With rising house prices outstripping salaries by four to one, 50,000 people faced with homelessness, 200,000 people on council waiting lists and 250,000 dwellings lost because of the right to buy, will the First Minister accept that there is a housing crisis in Scotland at the affordable end of the market? Given that the Barker review was a review of UK housing, will he address directly the recommendations of that review and wrap them into the current review, which he says that the Scottish Executive is conducting?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am surprised that the Scottish nationalists want us to implement in Scotland the recommendations of a review that was, in essence, about the English housing market. The purpose of devolution was that we in Scotland could make our own decisions, conduct our own reviews and have the policies that are appropriate for Scotland.

The key difference between the housing markets in England and in Scotland is that, in England, the number of houses being built is outstripped by the demand for those houses whereas, in Scotland, the number of houses being built is greater than the increase in demand. That should not stop us from dealing with the issues of affordable housing because we want to see people moving to Scotland to work and live here.

We know that we have a particular challenge to meet in our rural communities. That is why we are to have our own review and why we will not just accept the findings of a review that is largely about the English housing market. We will also ensure that extra resources are made available. That is why Margaret Curran will announce today a 10 per cent increase in the resources that are to be made available for affordable housing in rural communities. That is a good development and even the nationalists might welcome it.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome whole-heartedly the approach of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive to affordable housing. I want to highlight a situation in my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin where an impressive development of 2,500 private houses is to be built. Out of that total, however, not a single house will be in the socially rented sector.

I hope that the First Minister will agree that the need for affordable housing is not just a problem for first-time buyers and that we need a supply of socially rented housing. In any review of affordable housing, would he consider placing a duty on those responsible for housing strategies and housing development to ensure that a quota of affordable housing and socially rented housing is included in any new development that is built in urban and rural Scotland?