Scottish Parliament, 24 February 2005

439 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Official Report 24 February 2005

Energy Efficiency

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2462, in the name of Shiona Baird, on an energy efficiency strategy in Scotland.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

There is universal consensus among all but the most die-hard anti-environmentalists that climate change is a major threat, but there is not universal consensus on the solutions, apart from on one—energy efficiency. There are no losers in the drive for energy efficiency; it produces a win-win situation. Conversely, if the current trends in consumption and waste continue, everyone will lose in the long run.

We welcome the amendments from the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party, although the SNP does not seem to recognise the undisputed fact that energy efficiency will relieve fuel poverty once and for all. Unfortunately, the Tory amendment trivialises the issues without contributing anything sensible to what is a serious debate.

The energy white paper, "Our energy future - creating a low carbon economy", states that more than half of emissions reductions in the United Kingdom climate change programme could come from energy efficiency. I believe that we should take that "could" as a "must". Nothing short of a major national programme on energy efficiency is necessary to deliver that. For too long, energy efficiency has been the poor and often overlooked relation in the energy debate. It is time to bring it out from behind the scenes.

We all know that the opportunities of energy efficiency are enormous. The Scottish Executive has identified the loss to the Scottish economy from wasted energy each year as being £1.3 billion, which is almost enough to supply the annual heating, cooking and lighting needs of every home in Scotland. Energy efficiency means greater business efficiency, more jobs, warmer homes, better health and, of course, fewer greenhouse gas emissions into the environment.

The domestic energy sector accounts for almost 30 per cent of total UK energy consumption and for a similar percentage of carbon emissions. I commend the Executive for the increase in the mean home energy rating from 3.3 to 6.8—that represents significant progress. However, in 2002, 286,000 households were still in fuel poverty. If we do not raise energy efficiency standards substantially, install micro-renewables and combined heat and power systems and tackle the harder-to-heat homes, the predicted rises in fuel prices might well result in the number of households that are in fuel poverty going up again.

Today, we expect the Executive to announce details of Scottish local authorities' progress towards improving energy efficiency. They will not make good reading. Two thirds of local authorities are not on course to reach their energy efficiency targets. Four councils are not even a third of the way towards meeting their targets and half of the 10 authorities that are on track had their targets massively watered down. The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 needs to be reviewed and more resources are required to implement such legislation.

That news strengthens the case for me to lodge my proposal for a member's bill on setting national targets on energy efficiency, for which the Executive would be accountable, which I believe is a vital element of the work of developing and driving forward a co-ordinated national programme on domestic energy efficiency. I am heartened by the Executive's moves towards developing a national strategy on energy efficiency, which is long overdue, and we will keep a close eye on progress.

The more inspirational part of the debate is the fact that Scotland already boasts some great examples of the very best in sustainable building design, which the Executive has promoted. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland recently launched its accreditation award for sustainable building design. Its aim is

"to create healthy buildings which meet the real needs of the community".

The pilot scheme was supported by the Executive's architecture policy unit.

Several of the schemes that have been accredited are in the field of social housing, so we are not talking about an up-market, exclusive venture. The houses do not look any different, but they incorporate the very best in energy efficiency measures. The fact that they meet the same construction costs benchmark that standard homes meet is highly significant.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I am familiar with the social housing projects that have been selected to receive awards in the past. Does the member agree that the challenge now is to get private sector housebuilders to sign up to meeting similar targets?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I was just about to make that point.

I emphasise that, as well as being more efficient, the whole-life cost of such houses is much less than the equivalent cost of standard homes. The well-being of the houses' occupants is also much improved. If we offset the whole-life cost against the improvement in occupants' health, we find that the savings are even greater.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I agree whole-heartedly with the member's comments about the architects' initiative. Does she agree that the rest of the construction industry, including the people who build homes, as opposed to those who design them, must participate in that initiative?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Yes—I thought that I had just said that.

When the consultation on my member's bill was launched this week, we took some highly revealing thermal imaging photos of housing association homes in Shettleston in Glasgow that were designed by an accredited sustainable design architect. The photos showed that the homes, which have an average annual fuel bill of just £100, were leaking almost no heat. The heat that is used comes from a combination of geothermal and solar hot water heaters. We took another image of a modern development that showed leakages of heat from the roof, walls and windows. The unit cost of the well-insulated properties was no greater than that of the conventionally built homes. Given that such good work is already being done, it seems incomprehensible that houses are still being built to lower standards. It is vital that the Executive gives the leadership that is necessary to ensure that private housing developers raise their game significantly.

It is clear that there is much more to energy efficiency and tackling climate change than having a well-insulated home. The all-too-familiar sight of car after car with only one occupant sitting in a traffic jam represents inefficiency on a truly appalling scale. Although today's car technology means that we can have previously undreamed of levels of fuel economy, sadly the gas-guzzler has yet to be consigned to the recycling bin of history, as the proliferation of urban four-wheel drive vehicles only too readily testifies.

Unlike previous generations, we all know how serious the threat of climate change is and we all know that our greed for energy is causing it. We know, too, that climate change emissions from the energy sector went up by 27 per cent between 1990 and 2000. As the warning signs are so clear and well understood, how will we be able to look our children in the eye if we do not take urgent, co-ordinated action on energy efficiency? I hope that the Parliament will unite behind the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that energy efficiency has great potential to improve efforts to tackle climate change and fuel poverty and to improve quality of life; agrees that energy efficiency has a key part to play in meeting the Scottish Executive's target of eradicating fuel poverty in Scotland by 2016; further agrees that more than half the emissions reductions in the United Kingdom's climate change programme could come from energy efficiency, as stated in the UK Energy White Paper, and commends the Executive for its current initiatives to improve energy efficiency and for its move towards a national strategic approach to energy efficiency as outlined in its climate change consultation.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

For the avoidance of doubt, the amendment that is before members is an Executive amendment, not a Liberal Democrat amendment, regardless of what might happen after today's debate.

Energy is an essential commodity for Scotland's society and economy. It heats our homes, lights our schools and hospitals and powers our factories and offices. We must supply and manage energy in ways that are sustainable and that minimise the adverse impact on our environment that our use of energy causes. In that regard, I share entirely the Scottish Green Party's agenda.

Members are probably aware that only last week, on 16 February, at midnight New York time, which is 5 o'clock in the morning Greenwich Mean Time—I was in San Francisco last week, so I am familiar with the genre—the Kyoto protocol became a legally binding treaty. It demands from the industrialised world a 5.2 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 and imposes other targets that are to be met before that date. I am pleased to say that Scotland is making an equitable contribution to meeting the targets, as we must do, because as part of the global community we must play a full and proactive role in meeting that global commitment.

The topic for today's debate—energy efficiency—is entirely apt. The issue is climbing higher on the political agenda, as are the more general issues of energy supply and demand. It is entirely appropriate that we discuss energy efficiency in that wider context. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity that the Green motion gives the Parliament to discuss such a vital topic.

As we always stress in debates on energy matters, renewable energy, energy efficiency and the development of innovative energy products and techniques are fundamental in the fight against climate change, which, as Shiona Baird correctly said, all but the most extreme anti-environmentalists accept is a challenge that we must face. To face it, we must adopt a sustainable approach to energy supply and demand. The Executive is strongly committed to increasing the amount of electricity that is generated from renewable sources—members will be familiar with the ambitious targets that we have set our nation in that regard.

However, the key theme of today's debate is energy efficiency. The issue is often overlooked, but it is one of the most valuable tools in the armoury of measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. Demand-related measures such as energy efficiency are easily the most cost-effective means of reducing emissions from energy consumption. Energy efficiency produces a truly virtuous circle and a win-win situation. For example, by reducing emissions through simple measures that often cost little to implement, businesses can reduce running costs.

The United Kingdom Government's energy white paper, which I commend, argued that energy efficiency has a vital role in addressing our future energy needs and tackling fuel poverty. Energy efficiency is expected to deliver half of the UK's target of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Energy efficiency measures are generally easily affordable and do not depend on major or complex technological innovations. The widespread implementation of today's affordable technologies would have a significant impact on Scottish energy consumption. I am talking about measures that are relatively easy to take, such as fitting draught excluders to windows and doors, using energy efficient light bulbs and not using standby power.

We are fully committed to promoting measures that will reduce day-to-day demand and there are many examples of our doing so. The classic example is the warm deal, through which we have thermally insulated 200,000 homes—or 10 per cent of Scotland's housing stock—to reduce bills for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Through the central heating programme, we have insulated and heated 43,000 homes. We are taking a wide range of measures to help businesses and domestic users to reduce energy consumption through better energy efficiency measures.

It gives me great pleasure to move the Executive amendment to the Green motion. I hope that the amended motion will receive unanimous approval later in the day.

I move amendment S2M-2462.1, to insert after "improve quality of life":

"and increase competitiveness of businesses in Scotland".

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will not take interventions because I have only four minutes.

The Scottish National Party amendment has two strands, neither of which is exclusive of the other. They are fuel poverty and the state of some of our housing stock, both in the public and private sectors. I remind members that the Scottish Labour Party, in its 1999 manifesto for the elections to the Parliament, pledged to end fuel poverty by 2007. The date has now slipped to 2016 but, given the present situation, it seems that even that cannot be attained. My view is endorsed by Friends of the Earth Scotland, which has stated:

"Current programmes to tackle fuel poverty will not go far enough".

The problem is compounded by the fact that every 5 per cent increase in power prices returns another 30,000 people to fuel poverty. In effect, about 13 per cent of Scottish households still endure fuel poverty, a situation that impacts on about 30,000 children, with implications for decent family life, quality of life, health and, because of days at school that are lost through ill health, educational attainment. Many people who are on low and fixed incomes are located in houses of poor quality with damp and poor insulation, so their misery is compounded—if I have time, I will discuss housing conditions further. In addition, many of those households are in the maze of the benefits system and are the same people who use the metered card system, which further compounds the poverty trap and people's disadvantage in relation to fuel prices.

Many pensioners are caught in homes that they cannot afford to repair, although I recognise the value of the recently launched care-and-repair scheme in the Borders. I also welcome the central heating programme, although I would like it to be extended to faulty systems and systems for the disabled—if the minister would listen; it is rude to have one's back to somebody when they are speaking. I also accept the value of the warm deal, although I understand that the scheme has been tailing off. The latest statistics for winter-related deaths among the over-65s show a rise of 400 on the previous year to a figure of 2,500. One in six pensioners admits to failing to keep their home warm.

As I said, poor housing often goes hand in hand with fuel poverty. According to the Scottish house condition survey of 2002, at least 102,000 families with children and 98,000 older people live in houses that are affected by dampness and condensation. Of those, 54,000 are single pensioners, who are often the poorest people. Many are single women who do not even get the basic state pension because they have not paid enough stamps, and many others do not even claim the pension credit.

More than 170,000 people rent private accommodation, but there is little or no regulation to ensure that it is fit to let. Many tenants, often people on lower incomes, students and young or vulnerable people, simply put up and shut up. However, when the SNP sought to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 2001 to include a provision on energy efficiency measures among others, the coalition rejected the amendments on the basis that the eradication of fuel poverty would render them superfluous. Given the figures that I have mentioned, the coalition must accept that it was wrong.

For many of Scotland's householders, energy efficiency has no relevance. Their homes are poorly insulated and damp, with inefficient and inadequate heating systems. Their involuntary contribution to tackling global warming is that they cannot afford to switch their heating appliances on. The marriage of poor-quality housing with fuel poverty should be brought to an end sooner, rather than later.

I move amendment S2M-2462.3, to leave out from "and commends" to end and insert:

"while supporting any moves to increase energy efficiency notes that this must be in tandem with eradicating fuel poverty which affects 13% of households involving some 30,000 children; notes that, for every 5% increase in fuel prices, 30,000 are returned to fuel poverty and that one in five pensioners struggle to keep warm, all of which is often compounded by damp and poor housing conditions which is to be deplored in an energy and resources-rich nation; notes that endeavours to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill in 2001 to raise tolerable standards, including measures to facilitate energy efficiency, were resisted by the Executive on the argument that its fuel poverty strategy would resolve these problems which it singularly is failing to do; calls upon the Executive to raise mandatory housing standards as a matter of urgency, and affirms that only an integrated approach to energy efficiency and fuel poverty can both impact on climate change and improve quality of life."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The debate must be conducted in a positive spirit. Our amendment has not necessarily received the Scottish Green Party's support, but I emphasise that we support the spirit of the debate and welcome it.

It is good practice to pursue energy efficiency, for a number of reasons, not only the ones that Shiona Baird put at the top of the priority list. Energy efficiency contributes to economic growth, which we must all pursue, and so is a means to more than one end. It is simply good practice, whatever we want to achieve by it. For that reason, while the Conservatives were in Government, we began the process of encouraging energy efficiency. The Conservative Government took major energy efficiency initiatives, including the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which led to guidance being issued to local authorities in 1996 that was designed to secure an overall improvement in efficiency of 30 per cent by 2010. By 1997, when the Conservative party demitted office, more than 2 million homes had been assisted, at a total cost of £350 million.

The Scottish Executive's warm deal replaced the Conservative Government's home energy efficiency scheme in July 1999. It is one of the areas in which I hope to highlight a slight difference of opinion. I am willing to stand here and praise the warm deal, because it has made an enormous contribution to many people in Scotland—the elderly, the less well-off and those who are in homes that are difficult to heat—but the change in policy had the effect of moving the emphasis away from the conservation of energy towards the provision of acceptable living conditions. I might argue that that was an acceptable compromise, but it was potentially counterproductive for energy efficiency.

Therefore, we must consider carefully the impact of building regulation on people who can ill afford to take on additional cost. Home energy efficiency is a potential cost and so could be a barrier to the provision of affordable housing. Whatever we choose to do to encourage home energy efficiency, it must not add cost. Shiona Baird already touched on that when she said that the whole-life cost of energy efficient housing is reduced, yet for many people up-front cost is the problem. Those least able to afford home energy efficiency might know that there is benefit to be had in the long term, but they do not have the resources at the outset. That is why Government and all parties in the Parliament need to consider ways to defer the costs and to assist those people.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that the real up-front costs should be in building the house in the first place, and that creating a high-standard insulated house means that the whole-life cost for the occupant is much reduced?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I agree, but we must ensure that does not create a barrier between people and the housing that they all want but, in many cases, cannot obtain.

One of the reasons why I am reluctant to praise the Executive quite as much as the motion does is that we in this building are among the worst perpetrators of energy inefficiency. This building— which was, with the support of the Scottish Executive, forced through with a designer and a method of construction with which many in the chamber perhaps disagreed—is, it proves, one of the least energy efficient buildings to be constructed in Scotland in recent years. In a story that appeared in the press on Tuesday, thermal imaging technology—which was mentioned by Shiona Baird in her opening remarks—was used to look at the Scottish Parliament building. I have some black and white representations here. If one sees them in colour on the internet, they are quite extraordinary. It would appear that this is a building that leaks energy like few others. We have little opportunity to praise ourselves.

I move amendment S2M-2462.2, to leave out from "has a key part" to end and insert:

"is widely recognised as the cheapest, cleanest and safest way of achieving Britain's climate change commitments; notes that while climate change is a global challenge, energy efficiency gives ordinary people an opportunity to act locally and make a contribution, but believes, however, that the Scottish Executive could do more to promote energy efficiency in Scotland."

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Overall, we waste roughly 20 per cent of the total energy created in Scotland. That is about £1.3 billion-worth, which is not insignificant. Energy efficiency is a win-win-win proposition: if less energy is wasted, less damage is done to the environment, finite resources last longer and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. At the individual and business level, less money has to be spent on energy and, because waste is being eliminated, the benefits from energy are not diminished.

Energy efficiency is the simplest but the most complex way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and arresting climate change. By taking relatively simple and well-understood action, it would be possible to deliver a 30 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. However, to achieve that, such action must be taken, which will require every single man, woman and child, every single business and every single public body to change how they think about—indeed, many do not—and use energy.

Government can set parameters and provide the physical and regulatory infrastructure, but people have to participate. British social attitude surveys show that public opinion has changed little over the past 10 years. Concern about environmental degradation remains high, but a sense of personal responsibility is low. Initiatives such as the Scottish Executive's do a little, change a lot campaign, which emphasise the importance of individual action and publicise and quantify the ways in which people can contribute, are essential.

Building regulations have been amended to require higher standards. That will have a significant impact, but only on new housing. The average Scottish house currently scores only 4 out of 10 for energy efficiency, showing the huge savings that improvements could contribute. Buying patterns for domestic appliances have been influenced by the availability of energy efficiency rating information; the same could be done for housing. Making national home energy ratings routinely available for properties would give potential buyers a measure of how relatively expensive their new home will be to heat. If energy efficiency were to become a significant selling point in the housing market, new homes would be built with that in mind and existing home owners would have more incentive to invest in double glazing, insulation, solar panels and so on, and to take advantage of the Government schemes that are now available to help them to do so.

As the market for energy efficient products is stimulated, business opportunities are created—another win-win situation. Through design, it is possible to achieve enormous savings in the whole-life energy cost of a building. I hope that the recently launched RIAS accreditation for sustainable building design will enable people to seek out architects who can give them low-running-cost, low-environmental-impact homes. The more people begin to demand those standards, the sooner they will become as commonplace as they should be.

Money spent on bringing Scotland's housing stock up to high standards of thermal efficiency is money well spent. The costs to Scotland of having damp, cold homes are incalculable but enormous—other members have dealt with those. Making homes more energy efficient is a far more intelligent solution to fuel poverty than putting money into subsidising energy use. According to Energy Action Scotland, Government estimates of the cost of personal subsidies for fuel consumption through cold weather payments and the winter fuel payment to pensioners amounted to £3.6 billion over three years, while spending on property improvement over the same three years was £1.2 billion—about a third of the subsidy.

We have begun to redress that balance with the biggest-ever investment in home energy efficiency through the warm deal and the central heating programme. The warm deal initiative reduced fuel bills in 2002-03, but it also reduced CO2 emissions by 30,000 tonnes, while the central heating programme contributed to a further 30,000-tonne reduction.

I have concentrated mainly on homes, but the Scottish Executive has made available £20 million for improvements to public buildings over the next five years. The spend to save fund is especially dear to my heart because it was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

There is energy efficiency potential in the transport sector, through better planning, land use and waste management. I look forward to the Scottish Executive's energy efficiency strategy, which will pull all those strands together and will outline the Government's contribution to moving the agenda forward. In the meantime, the Liberal Democrats support the Executive amendment, which recognises that more competitive business is a further benefit of energy efficiency.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

In my view, this is the more important of the two topics that we will discuss this morning, because energy efficiency and reductions in demand for energy will probably do more for the future of this planet and the future comfort and well-being of our children and grandchildren than anything else.

As Shiona Baird acknowledged, the Scottish Executive and the Labour Government at Westminster have a good track record in considering energy efficiency, devising policies and putting money towards initiatives that help to reduce our demand for energy. However, there is more to do, and we can all find areas in which current policies have not been sufficient. That is why the consultation launched by Shiona Baird, the Environment and Rural Development Committee's climate change inquiry, chaired by Sarah Boyack, and the Executive's consultation will all combine to produce more effective policies that develop and are refined as we find out what works effectively and what does not.

The Executive's amendment, which I hope the Greens will accept, would include a reference to the importance of increasing the competitiveness of business. It is essential that businesses consider not just what they can do to reduce their demand for energy but their capacity—the capacity of businesses in the construction industry, for example—to make a valuable contribution to more energy efficient homes, to more efficient development of power sources and to reducing demand, for example for diesel for road transport.

The debate on renewable energy is not the main focus of what I want to say this morning, but I cite the proposal by Tullis Russell Papermakers Ltd in my constituency to develop a 100 per cent biomass heat and power plant that will not only heat and power its factory but provide spare capacity that can be used by surrounding homes. The plant is at the planning stage, but I very much hope that it does not fall foul of the nimby elements that have too often scuppered our efforts to develop wind power.

I welcome the Scotland's global footprint project, which is a partnership between WWF Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council, Aberdeen City Council, North Lanarkshire Council, the Executive and others. It aims to reduce communities' demand for energy and to consider what can be done not just by public bodies but by households and individuals. I think that it will make a valuable contribution.

I turn to energy efficiency in homes and to the progress that Fife Council has made. A significant number of the 34,000 council houses in Fife have been the subject of energy efficiency programmes in recent years. The number of households in Fife that are classified as being in fuel poverty has gone down from 24 per cent to 13 per cent. Fife Council achieved its 2007 energy efficiency targets for reductions in household energy usage and CO2 emissions with three years to spare, but that happened as the result of a concerted policy and a drive to improve energy efficiency. That is the message that we all need to take from today's debate. Photovoltaics and the use of solar power for the signs about speed reduction that I see as I travel around Fife are both good examples.

I welcome the Executive's amendment and I hope that members will support it. I hope that all members will support the motion.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Mention has been made of the climate change inquiry that the Environment and Rural Development Committee is undertaking. At the committee's meeting earlier this week, Professor David Crichton of the Benfield hazard research centre pointed out that, given that as many as 700,000 Scottish households live in fuel poverty, some mechanism is needed to raise energy standards as well as resilience standards. That comment puts into context the fact that we should take the work that has been done in the past on energy efficiency and warm, dry homes and apply the imperatives of climate change to increase the level of investment.

As my colleague Christine Grahame said, the fuel poverty strategy does not meet the needs of Scottish householders. It has tried to do so, and the efforts that have been made by local authorities and the Scottish Executive to move forward are, of course, welcome. However, our efforts on housing standards are still far behind those of Scandinavia. We are told that we have higher standards than other parts of the United Kingdom and we have had to adapt to our colder climate to some extent, but we do not yet have the high standards that Scandinavia has enjoyed for the past 40 years.

During the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, my colleague Linda Fabiani lodged an amendment that contained a series of suggestions, but it was rejected in favour of the Government's position on the fuel poverty strategy. Her suggestions included measures to

"improve the thermal efficiency of insulation",

to

"assist households in budgeting for their fuel costs effectively"

and to

"require a regular energy audit of each home".

It seems to me that those suggestions go to the heart of how we should tackle individual properties. It would be a big step forward for the Parliament to endorse the idea of every house having an energy efficiency logbook in which notes are made every time that the property's energy efficiency is reviewed in relation to the current standards. Such logbooks would have wider benefits when houses are built and sold on. The Environment and Rural Development Committee's climate change inquiry will probably address that matter.

We find ourselves in a cleft stick: some local authorities have tried to increase standards beyond the standards that Communities Scotland applies to buildings but they have found themselves in difficulties because they are not funded to a sufficient level. For example, the Western Isles has tried to ensure that older people are given far higher standards to deal with the climate problems there.

It bothers me that we are not having a full debate at this stage about the potential for energy balance reviews, which are needed so that we can see the total energy that is used not just in houses but in our daily lives. Such reviews are being applied on the small island of Unst, where the promoting Unst renewable energy—or PURE—project is not only a means of creating hydrogen cell technology but is moving people away from using heating oils and other hydrocarbon fuels.

We must ensure that the Government in Edinburgh expresses the strongest possible support not only for the hydrogen cell technology approach but for energy balance reviews, which should be done in every community throughout the country. It seems that the London Government is not interested in our developing hydrogen cell technology and is prepared—if the press is to be believed—to leave that to the Chinese, the Indians and the Americans. That is incredible.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute and I have to finish.

The Government should tell us whether energy efficiency of that sort is on its agenda.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The north of Scotland has a particular need for energy efficient homes and renewables because of its harsh climate and its isolation, but it does not have them. The latest Scottish house condition survey statistics reveal that 34 per cent of households in the Western Isles are fuel poor, compared with the national average of 13 per cent. The rate of fuel poverty on Shetland is 25 per cent and the rate on Orkney is 31 per cent. Other rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, Argyll and Bute, the Borders and Aberdeenshire also have above-average numbers of fuel-poor households.

Homes in the areas that most need energy efficiency are least likely to have it. For example, it takes 66 per cent more energy to heat a home in Braemar than to heat a home in the south of England. Because many communities in the Highlands and Islands are away from mains gas, they can benefit greatly from community-based or domestic renewable energy. Instead of the multiple problems of climate, isolation and high fuel prices, by embracing energy efficiency and renewables we can move to multiple benefits.

The Highlands and Islands are rich in renewable energy resources, which are a key component of an energy efficient future. Energy efficiency also encompasses the use of locally sourced fuels, which involve less transport costs—both financial and environmental—and less generation and transmission inefficiencies. They can also stimulate the local economy, creating sustainable jobs and real progress. High fuel prices in the Highlands and Islands make all forms of energy efficiency particularly attractive, and we can only expect fossil fuel prices to increase in the future.

The issue of energy in Scotland has been confused by the Executive's target for the generation of electricity from renewables, as electricity accounts for only a fraction of our total energy use. I say that because generating electricity is a notoriously inefficient way of using energy—although I am not suggesting for one second that we should stop using electricity. With a typical efficiency rate of just 25 per cent from the power station to the plug, we should carefully consider in what circumstances it is better to use solar or biomass energy directly for heat rather than for electricity generation. The Energy Saving Trust has published a series of case studies, in which it states that savings of £160 per year and 8,000kg of CO2 could be made by replacing off-peak electric heating with an automated wood pellet system in a three-bedroom house with no access to mains gas. Energy efficiency involves not just insulating our buildings better—important though that is—but the fuel that we use and the best option for each circumstance.

The Department of Trade and Industry's energy white paper sets some ambitious targets. One function of the Parliament can be to do our best to support and encourage the Scottish Executive in its initiatives to meet—and preferably surpass—those targets. I commend the Executive's work through, for example, the Scottish energy efficiency office, the Energy Saving Trust and the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative, but we have a long way to go to halt and reverse our energy consumption patterns.

I commend and welcome the fact that the Executive is working on an energy efficiency strategy and I shall follow its progress with great interest. In the meantime, I hope that the Executive will consider carefully Shiona Baird's proposed member's bill.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank the Green party for initiating this important debate. I welcome the positive tone of the Greens' motion, which recognises the positive steps that the Scottish Executive and the UK Government have taken. It is perhaps unfortunate that the SNP has failed to gauge the consensual nature of the debate, but that is no surprise, because Christine Grahame has only one tone of speaking in Parliament—the rant. The only difference today was that the rant was uninterrupted.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am a socialist.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I do not think that Christine Grahame can spell "socialist".

Like the Greens, I believe that energy efficiency has a significant part to play in reducing carbon emissions. There is no doubt that significant opportunities exist for us to reduce carbon emissions while tackling important social issues such as fuel poverty and the development of good-quality public and private housing. I know from speaking to residents of Petersburn in my constituency that their new homes, built by Link Housing Association, are significantly cheaper to heat than their old ones, which were built in the 1960s and had flat roofs.

I agree with Friends of the Earth that improving domestic energy efficiency is vital to the effort to reduce energy consumption. Modern-built homes consume about 50 per cent less energy than those that were built even as recently as the 1990s. We should ensure that all new housing developments take advantage of technological developments such as modern well-fitted insulation, double glazing and condensing boilers.

The problem requires all levels of government—local government, the Scottish and UK Governments and the European Parliament—to work in partnership. Each tier of government has an important part to play and we can also learn from others' experience. I referred to the benefits of installing condensing boilers. The UK energy white paper points out that between 1980 and 2002, the Netherlands ran an intensive campaign to install condensing boilers in homes. That included a range of Government subsidies, which were matched by funding from energy companies. By 2002, condensing boilers accounted for 75 per cent of the market there. In contrast, UK initiatives over the same period failed to make a similar breakthrough. By 2002, condensing boilers accounted for only 12 per cent of the UK market. I put that in perspective by saying that installing 5 million condensing boilers saves about 600,000 tonnes of carbon per annum.

We must face up to the challenge of improving the energy efficiency of all Scottish homes for the sake of our poorest tenants and residents and of the planet. We must also ensure that the electronic consumer goods that fill our homes are as energy efficient as possible. I welcome the introduction of clearer energy efficiency signs on white goods. However, it is ironic that the more we find ways to reduce energy consumption, the more new ways that technology such as the internet and mobile phones finds for us to consume energy.

I am not in favour of a troglodyte return to the cave.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Can Karen Whitefield spell "troglodyte"?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is clear that I can. Unlike Christine Grahame, I was prepared to take interventions, which she would not take.

I am in favour of using advances in modern technology to reduce energy consumption, which is why I welcome the range of measures from the Scottish Executive and the private and voluntary sectors to reduce energy consumption.

In addition to housing, the creation of more new schools in Scotland offers local councillors the opportunity to ensure that energy efficiency is built into the design of those buildings from the outset. That should also be true of the new hospitals that are being built.

I thank the Green party again for raising this important issue and state my continued commitment to reducing energy consumption.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I, too, welcome this debate on energy efficiency. Awareness of the issue is growing, but not at the same rate as energy consumption is. The Parliament's job is to produce answers, which have been missing a bit from the debate, and to create awareness of energy efficiency and the need to use less energy.

World headlines about the Kyoto treaty have had a huge impact on public consciousness. The debate about the Kyoto treaty and the fact that the Americans would not sign it created interest and some awareness. However, if we asked people what the outcome of that was for their lives or what conclusions they drew from those headlines, their main conclusion—I am not saying that it is bad—would be that we needed to get out of our cars.

Awareness has not extended to many of the issues that we are discussing. Society does not know what to do about the subject. Many of the adverts and campaigns to save energy and switch off appliances, and the new adverts in which people say "What has it got to do with me?" and are told not to leave the telly on standby, may make a little impact. However, the Government has failed to make the connection between the Kyoto treaty and what people do in their everyday lives.

It is not easy to make that connection. Have members tried to buy a fridge? In Comet, the letters A, B, C, D and E are written on the fridges, and people are meant to know what that means for energy efficiency, but that is not clear. When we eventually work out the alphabetical coding system, it shows that the most energy efficient fridge is the most expensive in the range. Awareness does not exist of even a simple issue such as that. Karen Whitefield mentioned clearer coding, which I would welcome, because I do not want to spend an hour in Comet trying to work out what fridge to buy. Awareness of that matter has not reached the population as a whole.

A huge shift is needed. Christine May said that we were having the debate of the age. We have said that before. How many times has the Parliament discussed energy? However, we are failing to put across the message to business and industry and to the population as a whole. A change in attitude and understanding is needed.

What policies will the Scottish Executive adopt to advance the agenda? Few are on the table, apart from the warm deal, which the minister mentioned. We know that social housing is needed and that we must build new council or housing association housing. What prevents the Executive from saying that half, three quarters or all of that new housing must be of the design that the Green party proposes? Why do we not make such a commitment? What is the problem?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

rose—

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I am interested in what the Executive has to say, but I have only four minutes for my speech.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have five minutes if you want them, because an extra minute has come up. It is up to you whether to use it.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

The warm deal is a good initiative, but the problem is that it is stuck for the 30 per cent of housing that cannot use several warm deal measures. Tenements and tower blocks can have central heating, but they cannot have cladding. What will we do? We must go further for the housing stock for which the initiative is not good enough. Nine in 10 houses in Scotland do not meet the new building regulation standards. Friends of the Earth says that it will take 100 years for that to happen.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does the member agree that the point that she makes—with which I agree—is the catalyst for the research and innovation that we need to produce new forms of insulation, some of which are already being produced?

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Absolutely. However, drive and innovation always seem to be lacking in debates on energy in the Scottish Parliament. I agree completely with the member, but there is no evidence that the Scottish Executive is taking up the building techniques that exist and championing them across the land.

My last point relates to awareness. Climate change is one of the themes of the upcoming G8 summit. All the schools are discussing it. Young people are discussing it. We have a big opportunity massively to raise awareness in Scotland as a result of the summit. I ask the Scottish Executive to take that opportunity.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

As Alex Johnstone indicated, the motion and the debate on it should be positive and should highlight the Executive's successes, which have been welcomed by and large around the chamber this morning. However, it has also been recognised that together we should take forward the energy efficiency consensus. This morning's debate has been consensual, with only flashes of division.

The Executive is delivering better energy efficiency in Scotland's public sector, in companies and in homes. We are developing Scotland's first energy efficiency strategy, to build on progress that has been made in all quarters in Scotland. I am particularly pleased with the Executive's amendment, which I hope will receive cross-party support.

There is a win-win situation for businesses and the environment in Scotland. Late last year, Scottish Enterprise Borders hosted an energy efficiency seminar in the Borders for local businesses, on which it should be commended. A textiles company in the Borders now saves £15,000 a year after reducing energy consumption, at no cost to production. A food processor in the Borders has doubled production, without increasing energy costs, by investing in new freezer technology. Obviously, that company was able to buy freezers and refrigerators, unlike Frances Curran. A business has reduced waste disposal costs to zero by recycling and minimising waste. A representative of Peter Scott Knitwear said:

"These are really significant savings we have made by changing boiler systems and I would recommend all manufacturing companies in the Borders to take advantage of SE Borders' Energy Survey."

The link between the public sector and businesses will make a real difference.

We have made the biggest-ever investment in a home energy efficiency programme in Scotland, through the warm deal and the central heating programme. We have heard calls for insulation standards to be doubled, but our standards are already among the highest in Europe.

Of course, we should go further—not just in Government action but, as Alex Johnstone indicated, at the level of individuals. Last year, Euan Robson, my colleague in the Borders, and I hosted a meeting with local stakeholders to promote the take-up of the central heating programme and the warm deal. As a result of the schemes, people are healthier and better off financially and more homes are more energy efficient. However, there are problems with take-up. The problem is not just lack of awareness of the schemes—many independent people do not want to receive charity. The public sector and all members must work with communities on the issue.

I was at the launch of the care and repair service, which the Scottish Executive is funding through Communities Scotland, in one of the areas in which the service had still to be introduced. The service allows home helps and handymen and women to go into homes in all communities to do little jobs around the house and to spot areas in which home energy efficiency support and greater access to the warm deal and other schemes can be given.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I agree with the member, but I notice that he has not mentioned transport. Does he agree with Shiona Baird's condemnation of the use of gas-guzzling and inefficient fuel-use cars?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

My time is limited, but I will touch on transport in a moment.

As Nora Radcliffe said, each year business and consumers waste about 20 per cent of Scotland's total energy spend. That represents £1.3 billion in resources.

Chris Ballance referred to fuel. I am keen that the next generation of Scotland's public transport should either have hydrogen cells or make use of energy differently. In the Borders, there is a public-private partnership scheme to build three new high schools. I have highlighted the rich potential for those schools to be heated and powered by biomass and combined heat and power. It would be very appropriate for this generation to signal in the remainder of the debate that it will invest in energy efficiency and sustainability for the next generation.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We have all come to the debate with a real desire to improve energy efficiency. That makes sense for social, environmental and economic reasons. It is imperative that the Scottish Executive addresses the issue more seriously than it has done in the past.

One must acknowledge the good intentions and success in dealing with fuel poverty of the warm homes deal that has been implemented by the Eaga Partnership. However, as Christine Grahame said, the statistics tell us that we are not doing enough. From a social perspective, it is obvious that huge improvements to individual properties could be made by home owners, local authorities and housing associations. According to FOE, nine out of 10 houses fail to meet new building standards for thermal insulation. It is self-evident that everyone needs to do more to address that issue. According to the 2002 Scottish house condition survey, 13 per cent of the population, or 286,000 people in Scotland, suffer from fuel poverty. As Shiona Baird said, 60 per cent of those householders are pensioners.

Scottish people need to be made more aware of what can be done cost efficiently to reduce heat loss from buildings. Everyone agrees that that issue should be pushed up the political agenda. Perhaps from an environmental perspective, with a view to meeting the Kyoto targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, it would make more sense for us to spend less public money on supporting the development of wind farms and to use the money that is saved to increase the energy efficiency of our housing stock in Scotland and the UK. Scottish Conservatives believe that refocusing public money in that way is more sustainable and makes better long-term economic sense. I believe that David Bellamy, the well-known environmentalist, has similar views.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I am sorry, but I do not have time to take an intervention.

It is estimated that in Scotland £1.3 billion-worth of energy is wasted annually in the domestic and commercial sectors. That problem must be addressed sensibly. As Alex Johnstone said, perhaps we should set more of an example in this building.

The problems are well-enough defined. Members have explained and explored the issue but, as Frances Curran noted, we are long on analysis and short on solutions. Such solutions are to hand and we must do more to promote them. Energy Action Scotland suggests that we should continue and, indeed, develop the current grant schemes for heating, insulation and general advice. I support that suggestion. The warm deal initiative is vital to pensioners in my constituency of Ayr, where the percentage of pensioners is three times the national average, and it should continue after 2006. I look forward to hearing the minister's views on that issue.

We should support initiatives to install solar water heating, condensing boilers, to which Karen Whitefield referred, and more external cladding and double glazing, which Nora Radcliffe mentioned. We should widen eligibility for the warm deal to the disabled and reduce the age of eligibility to 60. As Allan Wilson said, that would provide a win-win solution. The one action of improving housing stock would deliver a reduction in fuel poverty and, at the same time, increase energy efficiency. From an economic perspective, we would get two bangs for the one buck.

Energy efficiency is an issue that gives everyone a chance to act locally to address the problems of climate change. As Frances Curran said, we are all stakeholders in the future of our planet. Saving energy in the home is the most obvious single action that individuals can take to help to reduce global warming and to slow climate change. Switching to low-energy light bulbs or just switching off lights and televisions on standby would make a huge difference. Best of all, energy efficiency makes money for those who invest in it. Cavity wall insulation usually pays for itself within four years and, thereafter, saves a householder £100 a year.

We all know the problems. This morning, all parties have offered their solutions. All agree that more needs to be done. I look forward to hearing the minister's views on the matter—not just his analysis of the problem, but the solutions that he intends to deliver. I commend to him the Conservative amendment to Shiona Baird's motion.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Given the impact of climate change, the cost of energy for households in Scotland today and the scandalous level of fuel poverty in Scotland, it does not take a genius to work out that the Parliament will debate energy and environmental matters time and again over the coming years.

If we compare just the past few months with the first four years of this Parliament, we find that we have had energy debates sponsored by the Conservatives, the Scottish Green Party and the SNP; a climate change debate has also been sponsored by the Executive. That indicates the direction that the debate is taking in Scotland and the wider world. However, we have to inject a dose of reality into the debate because we live in energy-rich Scotland where, at present, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people suffer from fuel poverty. That is a national scandal.

I noticed a couple of stories in the press this morning, one of which was a comparison between Westminster and this Parliament in terms of the hot air that is produced. The result was that less hot air is produced by this Parliament—something that the SNP has been trying to tell other MSPs for a long time.

The other headline in today's news was the profit announcements by a number of companies in the UK. Centrica plc, which owns Scottish Gas, has announced profits that have increased by a lot more than was expected, yet it has fewer customers. That tells us that the company is squeezing more profit out of a smaller customer base and that its customers in Scotland are being fleeced. That is why so many people are moving into fuel poverty and we have to do something about that in this Parliament.

The Government has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. As the minister and others have said, it is hoped that we will get halfway to that target by improving energy efficiency. That illustrates why energy efficiency must have a much higher profile in the energy debate in Scotland. As many people have said, we can improve energy efficiency through measures such as demand reduction, better buildings, more energy-efficient equipment in our businesses and households and energy efficient heat and power supplies. Those measures will bring economic benefits to Scotland by creating green jobs and they will enhance energy security in Scotland, which has not yet crept into the debate. Energy efficiency enhances energy security for a country. With regard to the environment, energy security will cut emissions, and socially, as many members have said, it will help us to tackle fuel poverty.

There is a huge way to go, however, and we should not become complacent or congratulate ourselves on steps that have already been taken when we have not done enough and a huge task remains before us.

I contacted Communities Scotland yesterday to speak about the local authorities that have not submitted a fuel poverty strategy as they were supposed to do by March 2004 under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. In February 2005, Aberdeenshire Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council, East Ayrshire Council, Midlothian Council, North Ayrshire Council, Scottish Borders Council, Shetland Islands Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Western Isles Council, which cover some of the coldest parts of Scotland, had still not submitted their fuel poverty strategies to the Government via Communities Scotland. Given that we are in that ridiculous situation, we cannot stand here today, congratulate ourselves and say that we are making huge progress. I urge the minister to speak to those local authorities, because their lack of action is not acceptable.

Only a few local authorities in Scotland have dedicated officers working on fuel poverty or on the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. That situation must be addressed, because local authorities are cash-strapped and unable as a result to play their full role in tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency in Scotland. If there is one message that I ask the minister to take away, it is, "Please speak to our local authorities and give them more support." Building standards have been a major issue in the debate. As I said, the UK Government's target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. As part of our climate change inquiry, a witness told the Environment and Rural Development Committee yesterday that Switzerland has adopted a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent—not 60 per cent—and that it plans to achieve that by one major route, namely better building standards. We must learn from other countries, because the appalling standard of much housing in Scotland contributes to our energy inefficiency and addressing that must be our priority. I urge members to support the SNP amendment.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will respond first to that last point. We can all agree that there is nothing self-congratulatory about the motion or the Executive amendment; I would not support them if there were.

The Executive has been consistently proactive in introducing initiatives to accelerate uptake of energy efficiency measures in the local government sector and elsewhere. Last year, we announced funding of £20 million to improve energy efficiency in the sector and 31 of 32 local authorities have signed up to that agenda; indeed, I addressed a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference on the subject in order to raise awareness among local authority energy efficiency officers of the availability of that cash to spend to save in the local government sector.

Other programmes—such as the central heating programme and the loan action programme, which preceded the public sector programme—provide valuable practical assistance to householders and small businesses. In response to Alex Johnstone's point, I say that it is true that the Tory emphasis in the programme that preceded the new one has been changed.

The warm deal programme properly targets what are obviously finite resources at people who are most needy so that they can enjoy the same quality of life as other people who have more resources—we in the Executive parties make no apology for that. As ever, Richard Lochhead calls for more resources, but he does not give a figure for how much more ought to be spent.

Alex Johnstone referred to the Scottish Executive's not practising what it preaches about energy efficiency.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I was blaming Allan Wilson for the Parliament building.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will come to the member's second point. In fact, since 2001, Scottish Executive buildings have shown a 5 per cent reduction in carbon output and there has been a 25 per cent energy saving overall as a result of the increase in standards that we instituted in 2000.

Unusually for Alex Johnstone, he took a rather cheap shot at the Scottish Parliament building. As he knows, I am not responsible for it; the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Presiding Officer are capable of speaking in favour of it. However, it is a fact that the design of the Parliament building has been assessed by Building Research Establishment Ltd Scotland using its environmental assessment method. It awarded not one but three certificates at the highest level of excellence to the MSP building, Queensberry House and the assembly building—indeed, the very chamber in which we speak. Alex Johnstone took a cheap shot that was unworthy of him.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

On securing resources to tackle energy efficiency, the climate change levy is, of course, collected throughout the United Kingdom. Has there been any attempt to measure how much has been collected in and returned to Scotland through energy efficiency measures?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As Richard Lochhead is aware, we intend soon to announce plans about the fossil fuel and climate change levy as well as about resources from landfill tax credits, which we will use to introduce more effective energy efficiency measures. Watch this space.

I will respond to the points that were made by Richard Lochhead's colleague, particularly in relation to hydrogen cell technology. As Rob Gibson might be aware, the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland has established a sub-group to examine the potential of hydrogen cell technology, which we expect will report in May on development of the technology.

A significant reference was made to the process of individual energy audit for domestic properties. As members might be aware, the European Union is considering that issue in the context of its directive that will introduce certification. We will be required to transpose that directive into domestic legislation in Scotland.

I was unable to make my next points in the short time that was available earlier. We established an energy study to examine not only generation and supply of electricity in Scotland, but demand for that supply, which is the crucial extra part of the equation that we have discussed today. It is important that the study will establish a Scottish baseline so that we are not constantly extrapolating from UK figures. That work has been undertaken for us by AEA Technology in Glengarnock.

We also intend to develop an energy efficiency strategy. I hope that this debate and everybody who has participated in it can feed into that strategy so that it can be developed consensually. That will be a strong focus, as was envisaged in a UK-wide paper on energy efficiency, and it will give everybody the opportunity to make their points from today and have them considered as part of a nationwide strategy.

In conclusion, we believe in a sustainable approach that includes managing energy supply as well as demand and which places as much emphasis on energy efficiency as on other measures such as renewables. If there has been an emphasis on energy generation rather than on energy efficiency, it has come from the media; it is not an emphasis that we in the media would subscribe to. Energy efficiency is cost-effective and it works. We intend to continue to ensure that it plays a key role in our sustainable development strategy.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

It is always a pleasure to sum up a debate, but doing so gives me particular pleasure today because of the intelligent and constructive way in which this Scottish Green Party debate on energy efficiency has progressed during the course of the morning. The energy efficiency of the domestic, construction and business sectors undoubtedly provides huge opportunities because those sectors account for nearly 70 per cent of all our energy consumption. That is why energy efficiency is the measure on which we can make most progress in the shortest time in the ensuing years.

As well as commenting on as many speeches as I can, I will add a few suggestions and occasionally wave an admonitory finger. First, I thank Christine Grahame for her speech: if we achieve high standards of energy efficiency and invest enough money, the days of fuel poverty will—I hope soon—be well in the past.

Alex Johnstone mentioned two issues. First, he said that we must ensure that design is not a cost barrier. At the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland presentation up in committee room 2 two weeks ago, it was made perfectly clear that designs already exist that can be completed either at or below normal cost and which could still deliver huge savings over their lifetime. Design is not a bar at the moment, so we should go for high standards now.

Secondly, Alex Johnstone remarked on the thermal imaging of the Scottish Parliament building. There will, I am afraid to say, be some very red faces over the way the results of that imaging have been misconstrued—an amateurish job of interpreting them has been done by some people. I assure Alex Johnstone that the building's energy efficiency is not as bad as some newspapers attempted to represent it as being.

I thank Nora Radcliffe for her speech and for making the important point that there must be a change in ethos. We need personal responsibility in energy consumption at all levels, within both the business and domestic sectors. The Executive is addressing that need through the eco-schools programme—to which all praise is due—whereby children start to learn about energy efficiency in school. Half of our schools already participate in the programme, but let us have all schools participate in it. Let the programme be statutory, not voluntary.

Christine May made some important points. She stressed the need to get the private sector on side, but we cannot wait for the voluntary principle to take effect. We need higher building standards. Jeremy Purvis was wrong to claim that we have the highest building efficiency standards in Europe; what is important is that we have the lowest standards in northern Europe. Scotland is essentially a northern European country, but we have the lowest standards compared with the Scandinavian countries. Christine May also pointed out how national home energy ratings can be used as a selling point for houses. I suggest—I have done so on several occasions inside and outside the chamber—that an energy rating should be mandatory for all houses at the point of sale, regardless of whether the house is old or new.

Rob Gibson reinforced the point that we must come up to Scandinavian standards. I thank him for his support.

Eleanor Scott made an important point about the need to use micro-renewables schemes to spread practice out into rural areas. I want to make a similar case for combined heat and power systems. Every high flat, every business park, every big public building and every housing scheme, whether large or small, could benefit from the introduction of a combined heat and power scheme, where that is technically possible. Combined heat and power schemes double the energy efficiency of fuel and, like micro-renewables schemes, they have the great advantage of providing local jobs. That gives us a virtuous circle that takes in local fuels, local jobs, fuel security, energy saving and climate change protection. Adopting such a strategy is a win-win-win-win-win situation.

Jeremy Purvis and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning said that Scottish Enterprise is beginning to take steps to improve business energy efficiency. I am glad to hear that, because Scottish Enterprise's record in helping businesses to achieve the ISO 14001 standard has been pretty poor; it has helped only 50 businesses a year, which is not very much, although I believe that it has a target of 250 for this year. By comparison, the Business Environment Partnership, which is a tiny concern that is based in Dalkeith in Midlothian, has helped 735 businesses to improve their efficiency standards and thereby save a total of £8.5 billion-worth of energy.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I accept Robin Harper's point. We will certainly encourage Scottish Enterprise to make more efforts in that regard, but the principal means by which we encourage businesses to improve their energy efficiency is through the efforts of the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust. We are investing a total of £10 million in improving business energy efficiency and environmental improvement.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Harper, you have just over one minute remaining.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I give all praise to the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust, but I implore the minister to consider the work of the Business Environment Partnership, which could be applied throughout the country. One advantage of using the Business Environment Partnership is that it uses the Shell technology enterprise programme, which involves teaching students from all disciplines to assist businesses with energy efficiency. That means that we are now developing a cadre of young people who are familiar with energy saving and environmental sustainability and who can work all over the country.

Finally, I will wave the admonitory finger. I want to pick up Richard Lochhead's point about the performance of our councils. An Executive report today will confirm unpublished figures that show that councils are failing on the points that Richard Lochhead made and on many others. Councils need to be encouraged to do better. For the benefit of members, let me run through some of the recommendations of the report that Friends of the Earth published.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You must be brief if you are to have time to run through recommendations.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Friends of the Earth recommended ring-fenced resources for the operation of the Energy Conservation Act 1996, energy labelling for all homes in Scotland, strengthened building regulations, a new mandatory housing standard, greater co-ordination and collaboration of energy efficiency schemes and more flexible and expanded energy efficiency schemes. In one way or another, all those things have been mentioned by members today.

I have the honour of supporting the motion in the name of Shiona Baird.

Identity Cards

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The second Scottish Green Party debate this morning is a debate on motion S2M-2463, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on identity cards.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Let me begin by establishing clearly the intentions of the United Kingdom Government. The Identity Cards Bill will introduce a national compulsory system that will use biometric information to tie each individual to a national identification register, which will be a vast database that will contain information on all of us. Ultimately, the information will be shared across many Government departments and agencies. That is the way in which function creep—although the term had yet to be coined—took place under the old ID cards system during and after world war two. By the time Winston Churchill moved to abolish ID cards 53 years ago, the cards were being put to dozens of previously unintended uses.

The bill also contains substantial new powers for the Home Secretary, including powers to alter almost every aspect of the way the scheme will operate. The move to compulsion may be as arbitrary and as discriminatory as any future Home Secretary sees fit.

There are substantial political challenges to the proposal and there are technical and financial considerations. On the technical side, there are problems with every one of the planned biometric systems. There are inherent problems with any database on that scale and, because the information on it will be used for such a wide range of purposes, the consequences of mistakes could be appalling for individuals. On the financial aspects, the overall cost of the scheme to the taxpayer is currently estimated at £5.5 billion. Given the record of large Government information technology projects—this is the biggest in history—there are few of us who do not expect that figure to rise.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Has Patrick Harvie noted that, according to clause 3(3) of the Identity Cards Bill, there can be no mistakes in the database? There is

"a conclusive presumption for the purposes of this Act that the information ... is accurate and complete".

In other words, even if it is wrong it becomes legally correct. Is not that interesting?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Stewart Stevenson has given us one of many examples of the worrying sense of legal presumption in the bill and of how the information will be used in ways that benefit the state but which will in no way benefit individuals.

At a fundamental level, identity cards are a solution looking for a problem. Originally, their introduction was suggested as a way of controlling access to public services, but as soon as the terrorist attacks on America took place the tone changed. Few people pretend that the ID card system will offer any meaningful protection against such attacks. Even David Blunkett, as Home Secretary, admitted that that was not the primary purpose of the legislation and that people would be capable of getting access to valid identification cards on false names. How much of a problem is it to be saddled with a false name for the rest of one's life if one is a suicide bomber?

What are the other supposed advantages of the system? Charles Clarke claims that it will save up to £50 million a year in reduced illegal benefit claims. Even if we accept that figure—which I question—it pales into insignificance in comparison with the level of unclaimed benefit, which was, according to the Department for Work and Pensions, at least £3 billion in the financial year starting in 2000. How dare the Government waste billions on a system to save such a small sum, when so many legitimate benefits are left unclaimed by the people who need them?

Of course, all that is the background. The calls to the Scottish Executive are that it should go beyond its previous statement—which I welcome—about use of the cards in accessing devolved services, and that it should explain fully how access to the ID database, which is the real threat to civil liberties, will be used by devolved institutions.

There is much to support in the Liberal Democrat amendment, which reflects the strong stand that Liberal Democrats have made at Westminster on the issue. We can also support the Scottish National Party amendment, so I look forward to hearing Stewart Stevenson's speech. However, the Labour amendment in the name of Alasdair Morrison makes reference to identity cards as

"a central tool in the fight against organised crime and ... terrorism".

As I said, even David Blunkett who introduced the bill made it clear that that was not its primary purpose, but it seems to be the only argument cited in Mr Morrison's amendment.

ID cards are yet another example of the automatic leap to authoritarian positions by new Labour. Before 1997, I remember marching alongside Labour party members to protest against restrictions on civil liberties. "If this kind of thing carries on," we agreed, "we'll be seeing the introduction of a police state." Well, here we are.

Two terms of Labour rule later, and what is on the agenda? We have detention without trial, house arrest by Executive order, police forces rumoured to be buying water cannons to deal with public protesters and now the introduction of compulsory identity cards.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I have listened carefully to Patrick Harvie. In spite of all he says, does not he agree that research still shows that 80 per cent of people say they would welcome ID cards?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful that Christine May has reminded me of that, and I remind her that the more information people find out about the proposal, the less they support it. The more people who find out that individuals will have to pay up to £85, as well as there being the £5.5 billion bill to the taxpayer, the fewer people support the proposal.

The defence of the mechanisms of the police state that new Labour politicians are introducing is as follows: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Would we feel the same way if the state wanted to read our mail? Would we feel that because we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear? Would we feel the same way if the state wanted to search our homes? Would we feel that we have nothing to hide, so we have nothing to fear?

As I leave my flat in Glasgow in the morning and get the bus into town, I pass Labour's nostalgia campaign posters—highest employment, lowest interest rates, best this, most that. [Applause.] Labour members can clap away; it is a selective list of achievements which is designed to convince us that—as the slogan went—things have only got better. We will present the flip side of that in the run-up to the Westminster election. Among our messages, we will remind the people of Scotland of Labour's latest great achievement—the first ID cards since rationing. We will remind people why ID cards were abolished in the first place and we will oppose the steady erosion of the past half century of civil liberties.

I wish, of course, that this Parliament could vote down what is deeply regressive legislation. We cannot, but we can ensure that its implementation in Scotland will be subject to the very tightest controls. We can make it clear that this Parliament wants to go forward, rather than to take a step back to a more repressive age.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Identity Cards Bill currently being considered by the Westminster Parliament; is concerned at the lack of time devoted to the scrutiny of this Bill, which has left important questions unanswered over how the identity card scheme will work in practice; believes the proposals to be flawed on political, technical and financial grounds; is concerned that the national identity card and database offer an ineffective response to problems of security and fraud and pose an unacceptable threat to civil liberties; notes that the current cost estimate for the scheme is £5.5 billion and that further escalation of this cost is expected; rejects the Prime Minister's belief, stated on 1 December 2004 in the House of Commons, that "it is legitimate and right, in this day and age, to ask people to carry identity cards" which appears to go far beyond the current scope of the Bill and would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament; welcomes the Scottish Executive's position that identity cards will not be required to allow access to devolved public services, and calls on the Executive to make a full statement on the intended use of the identity database by devolved institutions.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Oh dear, oh dear, Presiding Officer. This is a classic case of Green party members individually and collectively getting their civil-libertarian undergarments in a twist. It is not a pleasant sight. When prizes for sanctimony are being handed out at the end of term, I have absolutely no doubt that Patrick Harvie will be right up there with our good friend, Mike Rumbles, vying for first place.

If the Green party members listened to real people and to the people whom they claim to represent, MSPs such as Patrick Harvie would have stood shoulder to shoulder with MSPs from the city of Glasgow—colleagues who are sitting to my left and to my right today—and with other Labour MSPs from across Scotland who fought for and secured the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. The Greens were found wanting on that important issue. They are certainly not in touch with reality, as their motion eloquently demonstrates. If the Greens cannot be trusted on antisocial behaviour—an issue that is of fundamental importance—why should we listen to them on issues relating to national security and the protection of citizens' identities?

I mentioned my Liberal Democrat colleague, Michael Rumbles, but I am surprised to see that the amendment is in the name of Jeremy Purvis, who is a fine gentleman. I cannot believe that he allowed the following words to appear in the Liberal amendment, which suggests that Parliament

"notes the consistent opposition to these proposals by Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons".

Liberal Democrat MSPs are obviously not keeping up to speed with what their colleagues are actually doing and saying down the road at Westminster. I refer specifically to Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs, who recently said:

"With 80 per cent in favour of ID cards, I recognise that it will be a very popular measure."

Those were sensible words. He went on to say:

"I supported a private Member's Bill on the issue a couple of years ago."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 December 2004; Vol 428, c 1969.]

If that is the Liberal Democrats' definition of consistency—

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will Mr Morrison give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am certainly happy to give way on that issue.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does Mr Morrison accept that, in the same speech, Mark Oaten went on to put forward a strong case against ID cards, because he has seen the light and realised that they are wrong, both in practice and in principle? When he mentioned the figure of 80 per cent, he was quoting a Labour minister—he was not saying that he agreed that 80 per cent of people support the proposal.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I sincerely thank Iain Smith for reinforcing the very point that I was making about Liberal Democrat consistency. I refer him to a quotation from a sensible sage, Sir David Steel, who is reported to have said on 23 November:

"I think the people will find them very useful. And although the Lib Dems are against a compulsory scheme, even if you had a voluntary scheme I think you'd pretty soon find that people wanted to have them."

I also refer to quotations from other people. Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan police commissioner said:

"It is absolutely essential, in the modern world, the dangerous world we live in, that we have proper means of identification."

The Financial Services Authority stated in July last year:

"in the long-term if the identity card were a more effective token of identity than any currently available, this could contribute substantially to the fight against crime and reduce the cost to industry."

The British Medical Association states:

"Identity cards that contain information about the bearer's right of access to public services clearly have the potential to assist in the efficient delivery of health services."

Those are all wise words.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I have only a minute and a half left. Otherwise I would give way to Jeremy Purvis, who is a fine young man.

The United Kingdom Government has consulted on the principle of ID cards and on the draft legislation. Public support is high and was high, with about 80 per cent of people being in favour of such a scheme in 2002; I have no doubt that the figure would be well over 80 per cent today.

ID cards are not a threat to our liberties. Our liberties will be strengthened if we are able to protect our own identities and live in safer and more secure communities. I say to Mr Rumbles that the ID card scheme is part of Labour's wider agenda to make our communities safer and more secure at every level, from our homes and our neighbourhoods to our country.

ID cards will protect people from identity theft and identity fraud, which undermine people's sense of security. ID cards will certainly also help to tackle illegal working, abuse of the immigration system and fraudulent use of free public services, all of which can undermine people's belief in fair distribution of society's burdens and benefits and, thereby, undermine communities.

The Opposition parties' voting record in Parliament speaks for itself. They have proved consistently that Labour is the only party in this Parliament and at Westminster that is prepared to take action on the serious issues that are related to crime and other matters. I urge members to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S2M-2463.4, to leave out from "is concerned" to end and insert:

"welcomes the current position of the Scottish Executive in relation to devolved services; believes that identity cards are a central tool in the fight against organised crime and international terrorism; further notes that ID cards would provide a gold standard of identity in the modern world, and recognises that ID cards have attracted overwhelming public support as they assist significantly in delivering safer, more secure communities."

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Like some of the older members of the Parliament, I still have my identity card from the previous time. Identity cards were abolished when I was six so I have some experience of them, on which I will, of course, draw. When identity cards were abolished in 1952, they had 39 purposes as distinct from the three for which they were introduced. Patrick Harvie was right to remind us of function creep, just as we have seen mission creep in military campaigns.

In order to consider the matter pragmatically it might be useful to apply the tests that the Tories applied when they examined the issue in 1995, as I suspect that those tests are relevant, pragmatically, today. The tests are that identity cards have to be sufficiently reliable, they have to be accompanied by protections to civil liberties and they must not entail disproportionate cost. I hope that by the end of the debate we will be able to see that, on a pragmatic basis, the proposed ID card scheme fails all three of those tests. Of course, I also take principled issue with what is going on, but my colleagues will develop that aspect later.

I will test the proposals pragmatically. Let me look at the reply that Tony Blair gave in the House of Commons on 9 February. He stated that a biometric passport might cost £70 and an ID card a further £15. No price is given for an ID card on its own, but it is expected that it would cost between £55 and £70. It is not a cheap item for the individual.

On 11 January, Alistair Darling appeared to confirm to my Westminster colleague for Banff and Buchan that it would cost approximately £500 million to introduce these cards in Scotland. On 20 December, Charles Clarke illustrated the other side of the equation when he confirmed that he envisaged that we would reduce benefit fraud by only £50 million. That is compared to a cost of £5,000 million and rising for the introduction of the system. That is without even thinking about the costs that will not appear in the bill. It is clear that the technologies involved are challenging and would need to be operated by skilled operators. People from Mr Morrison's constituency would not be greatly pleased to find that if they wish to have access to an identity card or a biometric passport, they must get on a plane or a ferry to the mainland to go to one of the few centres that have the skills and equipment to issue the cards. Another issue is whether equipment for checking the cards will be available elsewhere.

Clause 1(6) of the Identity Cards Bill states that the database entry continues after death—even if someone is dead, they are in the database. Of course, the information is absolutely perfect in law, despite the fact that there are opportunities for the secretary of state to change it.

Let me, as a fan of Sewel motions, point to a fundamental issue that the Executive must consider carefully. It is perfectly clear that clause 17 of the bill treads on the feet of the Scottish Parliament. Clause 17 refers to "any other enactment" and clause 17(6) specifies that that includes

"an Act of the Scottish Parliament."

We need to debate the matter further in this Parliament. We should have a Sewel motion to do so; it would be improper to proceed further without that. I will wait with interest to see whether we get an opportunity to discuss the issue on an occasion when ministers respond to the debate.

I move amendment S2M-2463.1, to insert at end:

"and expresses concern that the data format and operation likely to be associated with proposed identity cards conform to no formal international standard and carry the real risk of data disclosure to commercial interests."

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The first duty of Government is to protect its citizens, but the protection is not only from terrorism or invasion. Protecting the liberty of individuals inside the country must have the same status as protecting the country's borders.

We have to be vigilant against glib questions about the challenge to civil liberties such as, what is the problem with having to prove our identity if we have nothing to hide? The Home Secretary is presenting the case for ID cards, which are to be voluntary at first and compulsory eventually, to fight terrorism, organised crime and immigration abuses. I have the highest respect for a gentleman in the chamber, Mr Morrison, who argues that it is inconsistent to be for law and order and not to support ID cards. However, the position is entirely consistent, because the proposed national register has limited scope, but at what financial cost and to what bureaucratic extent? Much of the information already exists and should be better regulated today. It seems senseless to create a brand new national bureaucracy.

The case was put forward that identity cards would assist in the fight against terrorism. However, neither the New York nor Madrid terrorist attackers used false identities to carry out their evil. The US defence—increasingly offence—budget, now stands at nearly £500 billion, but even with that colossal budget the US does not have compulsory ID cards and there is no national database of biometric data for every US citizen. The congressional 9/11 commission report stated that better co-ordination of intelligence was needed, not a greater bureaucracy to database law-abiding US citizens.

The Labour Party might point to there being 80 per cent support for identity cards in opinion polls, but did the Government listen to the opposition to the illegal war in Iraq before going forward on another false premise?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does Jeremy Purvis agree that it is reprehensible that the 80 per cent figure was derived by pollsters finding out what people would support and then claiming that that represented 80 per cent support? It was not a straight question.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Indeed. If there was ever an example of Dantonesque politics or the attitude of "There go my people, I must follow them," it is on this issue by the Government at Westminster and it should be condemned.

As Stewart Stevenson said, the only period in history when British subjects have been required to carry identity cards was between 1939 and 1952 under the National Registration Act 1939. The system ended because of the stinging comments of the then Lord Chief Justice. He stated that the act tended to

"turn law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs."

None of the other major common-law countries in the world—the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—has a national ID card system. The cards in the UK will be issued in 2008 and the Government has suggested that Parliament could decide in 2011 or 2012 whether to make it compulsory for everyone to have the cards, although not to carry them. How long would that be the case?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

No. I am afraid that I do not have time. I will come on to the Greens in 20 seconds.

Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons have voted against the Government's proposals consistently and in Scotland Liberal Democrats have ensured that ID cards will not be compulsory to access services that are devolved. If there is a huge fear that there will be a flood of abuse of public services in Scotland, why is the Labour Party opposed to the ID cards being compulsory to access devolved services? The Labour Party has not supported that because it has seen the sense of what the Liberal Democrats have proposed in the Parliament.

The Conservatives are sitting on the fence. They originally supported the proposals and are now abstaining. Alan Duncan, one of their MPs, refused to take the party line during the debate at the second reading. The reason that he gave for not being in the chamber was:

"I think there's a large carol service in the constituency, at which I might suddenly have to read a lesson."

The Labour Government, together with a compliant Conservative party, is eroding our liberty.

Unfortunately, the Greens have missed an opportunity today. On the morning that I hear that they will rip up their cards, and on the morning that they are making statements, they are also writing in the newsletter of the south Edinburgh Labour Party. Where is the point of principle there?

This is not an issue on which to play party politics. If members are opposed to ID cards, they should vote for the Lib Dem amendment.

I move amendment S2M-2463.3, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"regrets the introduction of the Identity Cards Bill to the UK Parliament, notes the consistent opposition to these proposals by Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons on the grounds that they will be ineffective in their stated aim of reducing terrorism; believes that there is an excessive cost to the individual and the taxpayer in introducing the identity card; believes that it will lead to increased discrimination and harassment; is concerned for the protection of civil liberties with the lack of definition of how the card will be used; further believes that the UK Government should explore more effective anti identity and benefits fraud, illegal immigration and illegal working measures; is further concerned with the UK Government's intention that by 2013 it will be compulsory for UK citizens to possess an ID card and to produce it when accessing designated public services, and welcomes the commitment by the Scottish Executive that identity cards will not be necessary for accessing devolved services."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think that we have all noted the irony in Mr Purvis's concluding remarks.

The subject of ID cards is one that tends to polarise opinions. This debate has already reflected that. On one side, people argue about the defence of civil liberties; on the other, people argue for the maximum protection of the state. However, it is fair to say that we would not be debating this issue were it not for the events of 11 September 2001.

Conservatives would not have countenanced compulsory ID cards before 9/11, but since 9/11 it has been incumbent on all of us to examine carefully any measures that might enhance the nation's security. Identity cards, if introduced properly and effectively, might indeed help to do that. However, it should be remembered that, even if the Identity Cards Bill is passed at Westminster, the introduction of ID cards will take years. It is vital that any legislative proposal be subjected to searching scrutiny and thorough debate.

We have to accept that a modern world, with the increasing use of new and emerging technologies, requires new safeguards and frameworks to govern how information is used. We have to listen to the views of people such as the police, who tell us that the cards will help them to wage a war on crime, and the security services, who tell us that the cards will be a useful weapon against terrorism. However, we must be sensitive to the legitimate privacy of the law-abiding individual and ensure that fundamental issues of liberty are adequately addressed.

Although Conservatives support the principle of ID cards, we have a great deal of sympathy with the Green party motion. The Government has failed to give enough time for proper scrutiny of this important bill. During the committee stage of the bill, six and half of the clauses were not even debated and much of the remainder was rushed through.

Furthermore, a number of key questions have not been answered. First, we must be clear about the purpose of ID cards. As Patrick Harvie said, one of the main objections to the wartime identity card was mission creep. The card began with three distinct purposes and ended up with 39. In the debate on the current bill, the Government has claimed that a national identity card is needed for everything—from benefits and services to dealing with people trafficking. It is important to understand precisely what the Government's priority is. The Government must make clear the specific purposes for which an ID card is required.

Secondly, we must be clear about the capabilities of the technology—a point that Stewart Stevenson raised. Biometrics technology is not infallible. The system must be robust—from the card and biometric reader, through to the communications system and right into the central computer, database and software. I have to say, Presiding Officer, that if electronic data in this Parliament can confuse me with Robin Harper, such frightening technical frailties would be completely unacceptable in any system for ID cards—I see the members of the Green party applauding; I did not expect my point to be so warmly received.

Stewart Stevenson made a very good point when he suggested that the bill, once enacted, could give legal effect to technical error. That is a troubling thought.

Thirdly, we know that what the Government is proposing is one of the most ambitious technology projects that this country has ever seen. The Government therefore has to have in place the organisation capable of introducing the scheme. There is no evidence that that is yet the case.

The scheme will have to be cost effective, but we know that costs have already soared. They have almost doubled overnight, from £3 billion to £5.5 billion.

Finally, we have to examine the very real concerns over civil liberties that are at the heart of the anxieties that many members have expressed—especially as this scheme comes from a Government that seems to have no concerns for civil liberties whatsoever and that displays an increasingly sinister obsession with political control, with a consequent disregard of individual freedom.

In an ideal world, we would not need identity cards. Sadly, our world is not ideal but increasingly dangerous. It may be necessary to legislate for the possible introduction of ID cards. However, because the Government has failed to answer material questions on the issue, the Scottish Conservatives will support the Green party motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We move now to the open debate. I will not be able to call everyone who has requested to speak.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

ID cards will not be an effective tool in tackling terrorism. Since 9/11, the United States and United Kingdom Governments have successfully created a climate of fear that is intended to pacify the public and to allow the Governments to introduce measures that will for ever alter and restrict our civil liberties.

The reality is that ID cards have little impact on counter-terrorism. A study published last year found almost no evidence to establish clearly how identity cards could be used to prevent terrorism. The study further revealed that two thirds of known terrorists operated under their true identity and that the remainder used forgeries or impersonation to create fake identities. A terrorist organisation that can forge passports can forge ID cards just as easily. It could even turn into big business for organised crime. The French Government discovered that fraudulent production of its new "unforgeable" smart card quickly became, during the mid-1990s, one of the most profitable criminal activities in the country.

At Westminster, David Blunkett, who introduced the Identity Cards Bill, admitted that it would be possible to acquire a valid ID card under a false identity but said that an individual who did so would then be stuck with that false ID card for life. One might ask how big a problem that would be for a suicide bomber.

My second concern is that, far from increasing security, harmony and peace in our society, ID cards will worsen the harassment of ethnic minorities. Perhaps most worrying is the thought that ID cards could provide another pretext for stop and search—a policy that has often been directed at ethnic minorities. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has raised serious concerns about the impact of ID cards on black and minority ethnic communities. The council argues that the identity card could lead to discrimination against minority groups. That concern is based on sound research evidence and it is a concern that I share. Research in European Union countries has shown that ID cards impact disproportionately on ethnic minority groups and end up increasing the tension between the police and ethnic minorities.

Rural areas such as my South of Scotland region will not be immune from such concerns. Recent research on rural racism has highlighted the fact that ethnic minorities in the Scottish countryside are frequently the victims of repeated racist abuse and prejudice. The Executive says that tackling racism is one of its priorities, so how can ministers support ID cards when they increase racial tension and work against the aims of the Executive's anti-racist strategy? There is solid evidence of the impact of ID cards on race relations in other countries, but has the Executive even considered the potential problems of ID cards?

The Greens want a peaceful Scotland that is free from racial tension and a more peaceful world that tackles international terrorism by implementing truly effective measures. That is why we cannot just sit back and allow the Home Office to ride roughshod over such aims and impose its policy on Scotland.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I do not think that there is any time for an intervention. If Ms McNeill wants to be called to speak herself, she had better allow Mr Ballance to finish within his four minutes.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

As my four minutes are just about up, I will finish by saying that the Government's measures are unacceptable. They are ill thought out, ill founded and unplanned, and have been rushed through with a minimum of consultation. It is important that we state our concerns about them.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Cathy Peattie, to be followed by Carolyn Leckie and then Pauline McNeill. I am afraid that that is all there will be time for.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

ID cards could fulfil several useful purposes. They could be used as a means of countering the social exclusion that prevents people from opening bank accounts and participating in modern consumer society. Even taking internal flights can be difficult if various forms of identification are not presented. Not everyone has a passport or a driving licence, or even a household bill in their name. Young people need to be able to present proof of age and identity when they are out and about. It would be helpful if they did not have to carry a passport around with them. My own experience tells me that passports left in jeans do not wash particularly well.

That said, the issue can be addressed in a number of ways that include several variations on the ID theme. We need to have a full debate that enables people to understand the pros and cons of the way in which ID cards could affect their lives. We need to consult people and listen to their concerns to ensure that the benefits of identity schemes do not come at the expense of civil liberties. We also need to assess whether the benefits of the schemes justify their cost.

The Scottish Parliament does not have the final say on the ID card proposals. Indeed, many aspects of their impact are reserved. However, it is inevitable that there will be knock-on effects and various devolved aspects of their use.

The Government says that it would not be compulsory to carry a card. The decision on when ID cards would become compulsory would be taken by the UK Parliament when take-up had reached an appropriate level and when public acceptability and the technological feasibility of schemes had been demonstrated.

ID cards should remain voluntary, as the First Minister has said on more than one occasion. He said:

"we have consistently advised the UK Government that our policy position is that any proposals for"

an

"identity card system in the United Kingdom ... should not and will not be compulsory for use in relation to devolved services in Scotland."—[Official Report, 13 November 2003; c 3254.]

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Does the member therefore disagree with what Tony Blair said on 1 December in the House of Commons? He said:

"We think that it is legitimate and right, in this day and age, to ask people to carry identity cards".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 1 December 2004; Vol 428, c 627.]

Surely that was a call for compulsory cards.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

I said that the cards should be voluntary and I will continue to say that we need to have a fair and open debate on the issue. However, if a system can be devised to address the issues that I have mentioned, I believe that it deserves consideration.

There are differing views in the business community about the implications of an ID card scheme. There are also arguments within the information technology industry about the technological feasibility of the system and, of course, there are many questions around the issue of civil liberties. That said, if an ID card system is worth doing, it is worth doing well. We should take time to ensure that there is a wide and inclusive debate.

The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive will have a full opportunity to influence the development of ID cards. We need to ensure that their use is consistent with devolved decisions and initiatives. ID cards may become inevitable, but their success will depend on consensus. If the public are opposed to a Government policy, the policy is fatally undermined. We have an example of that in the poll tax. It is clear that we need full discussion and consultation at every stage of the process. We heard earlier that 80 per cent of people want to have ID cards. If the public are involved at all levels of the debate, they will support the policy.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Before I call the next speaker, I want to make it clear that there will be time for closing speeches.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

When I watched "Minority Report", like many others, I thought that I was watching a sci-fi fantasy set in a totalitarian state. I thought that it could not possibly transfer to my reality, but how wrong I was. Let us be clear that this is about the power of the state and about control over individuals.

In June 2004, the United Kingdom information commissioner, Richard Thomas, said that he viewed the scheme with "increasing alarm". He said that he was not opposed to identity cards in principle but that the British plans were more ambitious than any other scheme in the world. He called the scheme "unprecedented" in international terms and said:

"This is beginning to represent a really significant sea change in the relationship between state and every individual in this country ... it is not just about citizens having a piece of plastic to identify themselves. It is about the nature of the information held about every citizen and how that is going to be used in a wide range of activities."

If we need protecting from anyone, we need protecting from the state.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the member share my concern at clause 19(2)(b) of the bill, under which information may be shared with the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6? Given that the Intelligence Services Act 1994 makes it clear that the service's operation is limited to foreign matters, that means that information may be sent abroad as well.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I thank Stewart Stevenson for that piece of information. It will not surprise him to know that I think it abhorrent.

The operation of an ID card system creates problems that put personal safety at risk. Last year, a worker at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency leaked personal information about car registration numbers to animal rights activists who then targeted individuals. The existence of the database would increase the potential for abuse by individuals on the far right or by someone with a grudge against a former partner.

Given that the cards might include medical information, anyone who got access to the database could find out and exploit people's physical and psychological weaknesses. Of course, that risk includes exploitation by the multinational corporations that would operate the database.

Chris Ballance referred to the concerns about the increasing harassment of ethnic minorities, which are concerns that are shared by Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality.

Terrorism is being used, although not very credibly, as an excuse for the database to be set up and for ID cards to be issued. If the technology is available to implement the system, it is also available to counter it. Sophisticated networks would be able to obtain counterfeit cards that would provide even more credible false identities than those currently available. That would increase the risk that access could be gained to areas where terrorism could be carried out. Terrorism will be prevented only by political solutions and the biggest single step that could be taken is for the US and its allies to stop interfering in and profiteering from the rest of the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many errors are predicted in the database. Passports are stolen and used to maintain false identities. Among the technologies that are used by Atos Origin UK, the prime contractor of the trial, is NEC's automated fingerprint identification software, which is considered to be the best of its type in the market and which is used by the US Department of Homeland Security among others. According to NEC, the technology has been found to be 99.3 per cent accurate. When scaled up to the UK population, the margin of risk would amount to 420,000 people being mistakenly identified—legally, they would be somebody else. It is not just the state that will retain and abuse this information; multinational companies will use it as well.

Ministers should look at the example of the Australia card. It started off with opinion polls in support of it, but a mass movement arose and defeated the card after a campaign that led to the dissolution of Parliament, a general election and unprecedented divisions within the Labor Government—I must say that that would be nice. The UK Government could have another poll tax on its hands—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Quickly.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I will finish by quoting David Blunkett, who said:

"Knowing your true identity and being able to demonstrate it is a positive plus. It's a basic human right all of us should treasure."

I do not need Blunkett, Charles Clarke or any member of the Government to tell me who I am and neither does anyone else.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

While that speech was taking place, we conducted an inquisition into where the time has gone. We discovered a double entry: we had Mark Ballard down twice to close for the Green party. I am sorry, Mr Ballard, but you are not going to close twice. After calling Pauline McNeill, I will be able to call Brian Adam.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Whoever we are, we all guard our identities. However, we live in an age in which we exchange information about ourselves by telephone or over the internet almost daily. That exchange of information, whether it is concerned with banking, ticket sales or insurance, is made because of the convenience of receiving services in our homes. However, it comes at a price. Companies hold more details and information on us than ever before. We should all think about the issue.

The internet is now more frightening than ever. I am thinking of the spyware programmes that track the websites that we surf. Most of us are low-tech people who think of cookies as something that we have when we need a sugar fix. However, the high-tech among us, particularly Stewart Stevenson, know that cookies are a form of computer technology that is used to record a footprint on every website that we visit.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

No, thank you.

We live in a world in which we are already exchanging massive amounts of information about ourselves. It is important to remember that that is the context of the debate. Today, we are being asked to debate a motion on the subject of the Identity Cards Bill that is before the UK Parliament. It would appear that we are debating the proposal against a backdrop of overwhelming public support. Carolyn Leckie said that ID cards could be the new poll tax, but she fails to recognise that, whether I agree with it or not, public support is now reaching 80 per cent, which is not something that any political party can ignore.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

rose—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I cannot accept that the protection of civil liberties is the sole preserve of any one person here. It would be wrong to have the debate in that context. I have never been comfortable with the idea of an ID card scheme—I will say more about that in a minute—because there are issues of individual privacy that we must weigh up when considering such schemes. However, we have to acknowledge that, for whatever reason, attitudes have changed.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

No, I will not.

Chris Ballance raised the potential harassment of racial minorities. Neither I nor any other member takes that matter lightly. It is a serious consideration for me, and I am sure for everyone, in determining the type of scheme that we would have, but I would like there to be some acknowledgement of what has been done by all parties and the Executive. Agencies that would operate any scheme are making progress in the way that they deal with ethnic minorities. We should not jump to the conclusion that our police forces will harass ethnic minorities. It should be recognised that we are making progress.

Whatever our position on ID cards, and whatever the reasons for people supporting them, it is crucial that we should agree on the facts. However, clearly we do not. One briefing that I have received shows that the Spanish police stated that nearly all the terrorists involved in the Madrid bombing said that it was made easier by Spain's ID card scheme. Others think that that is not the case. We need to talk about the facts.

The benefits of an ID card scheme are overstated. ID cards have the potential for use in the fight against terrorism, but that has to be carefully considered. We all accept that there are certain situations where we have to prove who we are, and that requirement will increase. However, many people are concerned about the cost of the scheme. Members have mentioned the system of biometrics, which we are just beginning to learn about, but it is a validation system not an identity system.

I cannot support a compulsory scheme. I would not support a scheme that meant that citizens would have to produce their cards either on the spot or in a police station. Such an element of a scheme would not be justifiable. However, I ask Parliament to note that in the UK bill there is no mention of a compulsory scheme. That may be planned for the future, but I would oppose it. I welcome the Executive's position that devolved services will not demand an ID card.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

That is the key question—whether ID cards will be compulsory or voluntary. The Executive's position is that ID cards will be voluntary for accessing services in Scotland, but I can see no purpose to ID cards unless they are compulsory. The very people whom ID cards are designed to catch out are the very people who will avoid them if they are voluntary. There is no point in a voluntary scheme, and especially not one that will involve such significant expenditure.

I point out that the Executive already has a record of introducing and supporting voluntary schemes to access services. Significant sums from the modernising government fund have been expended in the city of Aberdeen to develop an access and entitlement card, which effectively is what any voluntary scheme will produce. The questions are, how long did it take to get the scheme up and running, how successful has it been, and what services have been put on it? I tell members that it has already cost many millions—much of which has been provided by the Executive—and it has had significant teething problems, to say the least. The number of people using it, out of a population of 200,000, is currently projected to be 40,000 at most, with an ambitious target of 70,000 eventually. Currently, the card only allows access to school canteens, and it is projected that it will be expanded to allow access to concessionary fares schemes in the near future.

I have significant doubts about whether that is value for money. I have significant doubts about whether the entitlement provisions for any national scheme will be of much value in any case. Undoubtedly, unless the scheme is made compulsory, it will be of no value whatsoever in terms of benefit fraud or security. In fact, any scheme would be no more valuable than those little badges that we are given when we go to public buildings or major corporations, where nobody ever checks what the badge says. I have no doubt that the scheme is well intentioned but, in terms of practicality, it is not a sensible measure.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It is important that the context for this debate is the principles and practicalities of the scheme. I am disappointed that those who support ID cards have failed to make a principled case for their introduction. It is simply not good enough to accuse those who oppose ID cards of being soft on crime because, frankly, there is little or no evidence that the proposed ID cards will help in the fight against crime, terrorism or benefit fraud. Indeed, the 9/11 bombers were travelling under their own identities. Spain has ID cards, but that did not prevent the Madrid bombings. Only 5 per cent of benefit fraud is the result of identity fraud, so 95 per cent of benefit fraud would not be affected by any ID card scheme.

The ID card scheme that is proposed in the UK Government bill is flawed and expensive, and has nothing to do with the fight against crime or with preventing terrorism. Frankly, the money that is going to be wasted on a national ID card system would be better spent on proper measures to deal with fighting crime, such as putting more police in our communities. Neither is the system practical. There is no evidence that the technology has been proved. The Government does not have a record of successfully introducing mass computerised systems. In fact, quite the opposite—it has a record of completely failing to introduce national computerised systems successfully. The technology is unproved.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To correct Pauline McNeill, does Iain Smith share my concerns that under clause 7 there are powers for an order to be laid to make the scheme compulsory?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am deeply concerned about any proposals to make the scheme compulsory. I think that it will be made compulsory, but by the back door, even if those powers do not exist. Everyone who gets a passport after 2008 will be forced to have a national identity card, whether they want one or not. They will also be forced to go down the unproven route of biometrics. If they do not have a passport they will not be able to travel abroad, so they will have to have a national identity card. Surely that is a breach of civil liberties if ever there was one.

The issue is also one of principle. Government should hold only such data on individuals as is necessary. It is a basic principle of data protection legislation that the data held should be only the minimum that is necessary for the purpose for which it was collected, and it should only be held for as long as is necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. It is also a basic principle that only those who require the information for the purposes for which it was collected should have access to that information, and that information should not be given to others without consent. The proposed national identification register in the bill breaches all those fundamental principles of data protection.

As a party, we are opposed in principle to the national identity card scheme. Mark Oaten has made his position clear on that. I quote from his speech, which Alasdair Morrison also seemed keen to quote:

"I will happily rehearse why I have changed my mind. I am concerned about the cost implications and the civil liberty implications. I am not convinced that ID cards will work in relation to terrorism and I do not believe that they will help to tackle benefit or health fraud. It is a completely flawed system and now that I have seen the detail I fundamentally oppose the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 December 2004; Vol 428, c 1970.]

We are consistent in our position, which contrasts with that of the Conservatives, who do not know which way to turn. How they will vote depends on which shadow minister one asks on which day. Michael Howard said that he supported the ID card system, but now the Conservatives are going to vote against it. The Conservatives in this chamber could not make up their mind for this debate, and will probably have changed their minds again by this afternoon. The Conservatives do not know where they are on ID card systems. Frankly, I am not surprised that Annabel Goldie's identity was confused with Robin Harper's, because the Conservatives do not know where they face on this issue. No one can tell what face the Conservatives will present on identity cards, because they have so many that it is very confusing. I beg members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment if they really want to get rid of the national identity card scheme.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Alasdair Morrison was not present for the closing speeches. Will you make a ruling on that or confirm that it is a discourtesy to the chamber?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There is nothing about that in the standing orders and I cannot make a ruling about the presence of members during closing speeches. However, members are well aware that we expect that those who have participated in a debate will be present for all the closing speeches. I am happy to confirm that that is the position.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I want to pick up on Iain Smith's point. He is consistent with his Labour partners, who in turn have consistently railroaded legislation and Sewel motions through the Parliament without adequate scrutiny. The legislation on ID cards is another example of that. Sadly, we live in an age where the importance of taking measures to prevent terrorist attacks cannot be underestimated. That is surely something about which all parties have a common view.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, but I must press on. Contrary to Pauline McNeill's assertion about civil liberties, part of the process of delivering such measures involves obtaining intelligence to counter terrorists' plans and, in turn, encroaching on privacy and civil liberties, which should never be done lightly. For that reason, it is vital that every suggested approach to countering terrorism be scrutinised thoroughly and examined in detail in order to demonstrate that it takes full account of similar or related experience to ensure, as far as possible, that it will be workable and that it will achieve its stated purpose. That approach must be adopted in considering the introduction of ID cards, as with any other preventive measure.

It is therefore a matter of grave concern that there has been a lack of time for parliamentary scrutiny of the Identity Cards Bill at Westminster. Despite that lack of scrutiny the UK Government—like Alasdair Morrison—has made a number of claims in respect of ID cards.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Will the member explain whether the Conservative party is in favour of or opposed to ID cards in principle?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will explain it plainly and slowly in words of one syllable. We are, in principle, in favour of anything that can address terrorist attacks.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Is that a yes?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is a yes, with the proviso that the measure is considered properly—which the coalition never does. On Thursday the Lib Dems may pat themselves on the back and say that they are opposed to the scheme, but who knows what they will be doing on Friday?

Alasdair Morrison and the UK Government have said that ID cards will be a vital tool in challenging organised crime and terrorism, will prove invaluable in tackling illegal working and immigration abuse and in countering identity fraud and will facilitate access to public services and help in establishing people's entitlement to such services.

Since the issue was mooted, the proposed card has developed from being an entitlement card with an emphasis on the link between it and the use of services to an identity card that is intended also to disrupt terrorists' use of false and multiple identities. It is clear that in the Government's eyes the purpose of the card has evolved; it now views ID cards as the magic solution to a number of serious problems. There must be doubts about cards being such a solution; although Spain has had them for years they did not prevent the attacks of 11 March 2004, which is regrettable.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member is in her last minute.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Furthermore, although the cards are intended to tackle fraud, it is inevitable that they will generate fraud as those who are not entitled to them try to get around the system.

All those questions remain unanswered and we have no details of the costs and benefits, nor the necessary reassurance about the protection of privacy. Patrick Harvie highlights those points in the motion, which is why we will support it. It is essential to acknowledge, as Annabel Goldie said, that even if the bill is passed, it will take years to come fully into force. In the meantime, the problem that it is intended to address will not just remain, but will worsen.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We have no hesitation in supporting Patrick Harvie's motion. The amendment in Stewart Stevenson's name is meant to attract support for the motion, not subtract it. Clearly the matter is one of balance. We require to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the state and the costs involved with the benefits that will accrue. We have to weigh those factors on the scales of justice to see whether the measures are deliverable.

Based on what Cathy Peattie said, it appears that the measures are not only benign, but positively beneficial. The costs will be minimal and the benefits will be substantial. We will be able not only to take a Ryanair flight within the UK, but address the threat of international terrorism and organised crime. If only that were the case—when we drill down into the details we see that it is not. In terms of terrorism, civil liberties and costs, the bill is weighed on the scales of justice and is found wanting.

The bill will not address terrorism. As many speakers have said, Spain has ID cards, but they did not stop the atrocity in Madrid. The state of Israel has ID cards and it knows that the way to address terrorism is not simply through employing sophisticated technology, although it has it manifestly across the board. The way to address terrorism is not to whip up a climate of fear whereby we move from a McCarthyite reds-under-the-bed situation to a Blairite terrorist-around-the-corner situation. The way to address terrorism is two-fold: first we must address the root causes, the inequalities and injustices that permeate the world and allow terrorism to fester, on which the likes of Chomsky have commented at length. Secondly, we must identify the perpetrators. When Britain faced the provisional Irish Republican Army, which was probably the most sophisticated terrorist outfit known for generations, if not in the history of modern society, it did so successfully in the main through gathering sophisticated intelligence and identifying the protagonists without bringing in measures that would manifestly fail, whether internment or ID cards. It all comes down to getting sophisticated intelligence. We have to consider whether the benefits are applied or lost. If we introduce the measures in the bill we will create a greater pool of people from which to select and recruit terrorists, rather than address the problem and identify perpetrators.

On civil liberties, given that the devolved legislature does not seek to make the cards available—for all the benefits that Ms Peattie and others have suggested would accrue—why would we want to incur the cost? If the card would allow people to access benefits as a citizen of the state, there would be an argument for it. However, given that this legislature, which is in charge of health and other services, access to which would form the beneficial basis of the system, says, "We're not having it", there is clearly no benefit to it. That takes us back to the cost involved, which would be substantial. If the cost were minimal, we could say that perhaps on balance the cards were worth it. However, we are talking not about millions, but billions and the costs will continue to rise.

Will the system provide any benefit in addressing terrorism? No it will not. Will it provide any benefit in protecting civil liberties and improving citizens' rights to access matters of state? No it will not. Will it provide benefit in making this a safer country and providing the sophisticated intelligence that our police and security services require or in providing a more visible police presence, which is the best method of making people feel secure and able to play their part? No it will not. When the bill is weighed on the scales of justice it is clearly found wanting, which is why we oppose the position of the Westminster Government.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The debate has been interesting and worth while and I thank the Greens for allowing us the opportunity, however brief, to touch on some of the issues associated with ID cards and debunk some of the myths that are bandied about, which have been repeated this morning. Patrick Harvie touched in his opening remarks on the potential cost of introducing ID cards, but he forgot to tell us that most of the cost is in producing biometric passports, which are becoming increasingly necessary in the world anyway.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

No, not just now. The three non-European Union countries that I have visited most recently are Cuba, Australia and the United States, all of which have visa entry requirements. Without biometric passports, entry to the USA will become more difficult and far more expensive. The same goes for other countries. Iain Smith seemed to say that we should not endorse biometric passports, but that we should take a King Canute approach to international travel, ignore what other countries are asking for and say that, as usual, the United Kingdom knows best.

What we have heard this morning sets out clear dividing lines between those of us on the Labour benches, who are in tune with public opinion, and those on the Opposition benches, who are out of touch and are ignoring public opinion. And when have we heard that before? We heard the Opposition ignoring public opinion last year, in relation to antisocial behaviour. We won that argument, with Johnnys and Sallys-come-lately now supporting the very measures that they once opposed. Despite any vote in the chamber this afternoon, Labour will win the debate on identity cards.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

It was interesting that not one of the SNP speakers this morning commented on the practice of other European countries, with the slight exception of the previous speech, which at least mentioned Spain. Given that the SNP liberally flits around the map of Europe, finding one country after another to fit whatever argument it is advancing on any given day, it is interesting that we have heard nothing from SNP members about the practice of any other small European nations that have identity cards. The pick-and-mix mentality continues.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

In the Tories' opening speech, Annabel Goldie attempted, but ultimately failed, to hide the Tory splits over this issue. We know that they are divided on the issue at Westminster but their failure to produce an amendment for today's debate shows that their small group in Edinburgh is also divided on the issue. Indeed, Miss Goldie's opening speech sounded as if it had been drafted by committee.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Please sit down, Miss Leckie.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The first half of Miss Goldie's speech acknowledged the new post-twin towers world that we live in, but in an attempt to hide the Tory divisions, she hid behind a spurious argument about the amount of time the bill is getting at Westminster.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

No, thank you.

The question, which Margaret Mitchell went some way towards answering, is simple: are the Tories for or against the use of identity cards? They cannot have it both ways, even if they are only portraying the contradictory views of their UK leader and the shadow Home Secretary.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Yes.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

My goodness; democracy can occasionally be found in the Labour party.

I have disposed of my speech notes to the official report, but I will repeat what I said earlier. The Conservatives, in principle, support ID cards. I cannot make that any clearer. I then articulated—

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Why are they voting for the Green amendment, then?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I went on to articulate the significant list of reasons why this incoherent, ill-founded, incomplete, uncosted, unscrutinised and untested proposal deserves legitimate questioning and criticism.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Quite simply, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will see how the Conservatives vote this evening.

Miss Goldie gave, as an example of an argument against ID cards, yesterday's mix-up between her voting card and Robin Harper's voting card. I would have thought, however, that that example highlights why we need a gold standard regarding our own identity. I am sure that there was nothing fraudulent in yesterday's mix-up but that is not the case in relation to an increasing number of people who misuse others' identity to perpetuate crime. As someone who has had their identity stolen and in whose name a loan has been fraudulently obtained, I know that from first-hand experience.

It seems strange that those who oppose identity cards fail to acknowledge the amount of identification that we all carry every day. At least, if we had an identity card made to a gold standard, we would have clear, foolproof evidence of our own identity. That way, we would all know where we stood.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

The debate has demonstrated the tremendous amount of genuine concern that members in all parties have about the impact of ID cards on the people of Scotland. We heard concerns expressed across the chamber, from Margaret Mitchell through to Carolyn Leckie. We heard strong speeches from Jeremy Purvis and Stewart Stevenson. Further, we heard genuine concerns about this scheme—which is a compulsory scheme—from Labour backbenchers. In particular, we heard from Annabel Goldie that the Identity Cards Bill has been rushed, which undoubtedly means that it is flawed. The consultation that Cathy Peattie asked for is not going to happen because Labour is trying to push the bill through Westminster before the general election. There is no opportunity for that proper consultation or, as Annabel Goldie pointed out, proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the member share my concern that under paragraph 6(g) of schedule 1 to the bill, all those who add their signatures in support of someone's application for an ID card will find themselves in the database involuntarily?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I agree completely. That is a good example of the fact that the bill provides minimal oversight of the scheme and that the detail of the scheme has major civil liberties implications that have not been properly discussed. The Home Secretary is effectively being allowed to become a law unto himself. He is given 31 new powers—nearly two thirds of which do not require any parliamentary oversight—all to facilitate Scott Barrie's holiday plans by enabling him to visit the United States of America more easily.

Of course, there are concerns not only about the fact that the Identity Cards Bill is fundamentally bad law, but about the effectiveness of the scheme to deliver the benefits that Alasdair Morrison and others have suggested might exist. Iain Smith made valid points about the principle and the practicality of the scheme.

Members have raised legitimate concerns about the role of ID cards in countering terrorism. Many have pointed out that the USA's system of identification did not protect its citizens against the terrorist outrage of September 11 because the bombers of the two towers were generally carrying valid identification, and that Spain's ID card system did not protect the people of Madrid from a terrorist outrage in the form of the Madrid train station bombing.

Concerns were expressed about the cost-effectiveness of the scheme. We have seen cost rises in Government programme after Government programme. For example, the national health service information technology programme was supposed to come in at £6.2 billion but its eventual cost was £18.8 billion. I do not believe that the current £5.5 billion price tag of the ID card scheme will be the eventual price tag. The cost will go up and up.

We have heard genuine concerns from members of all parties about the inability of the legislation to ensure that the cards are effective in relation to issues such as benefit fraud, illegal working and illegal immigration. Stewart Stevenson made a valid point about the costs and the benefits. Iain Smith pointed out that 95 per cent of benefit fraud is not about identity, but about people working in the illegal economy. An ID card system will not tackle that.

Using evidence from the countries that currently use ID cards, Chris Ballance pointed out that issues of ethnic tension are exacerbated by the police powers that accompany ID cards. The Tories scrapped the sus laws that were in operation in Brixton in the 1980s because of the ways in which they were being used against ethnic minorities. We do not want them to come back in the form of ID cards.

The massive database will contain an unprecedented amount of information on people. That is a genuine concern. In this chamber yesterday, the identities of two of our members—Robin Harper and Annabel Goldie—were confused by the database of 129 people. Even if it is 99.3 per cent accurate—a figure that Carolyn Leckie mentioned—a biometric database of 60 million people will confuse hundreds of thousands of identities.

The Executive might be able to ease our concerns over the use of ID cards to access devolved services but Charles Clarke has stated that, ultimately, the scheme will effectively be compulsory. Under clause 2(4), Charles Clarke, as the Home Secretary, will have the power to enter into the national database information about a British citizen without their consent. This is a compulsory database. In the debating chamber in Westminster, Tony Blair has said that he wants everybody to carry ID cards. I heard what the Labour backbenchers said but this is a compulsory scheme—make no mistake about it—and the support that was demonstrated in the opinion polls that were quoted will disappear rapidly when it becomes clear that the scheme will be compulsory.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Yes.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

It will have to be quick.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Does Mark Ballard share my astonishment at the lack of consistency of Labour members who quote opinion polls as justification for implementing policy? If they were going to implement popular policies, they would abolish the council tax and they would not have bombed Iraq.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Please wind up, Mr Ballard.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I agree with that, and I agree with Stewart Stevenson—a Sewel motion will be necessary. We might not be able to vote against the Identity Cards Bill becoming law, but the Executive must take the concerns of the Scottish Parliament forward. We can all encourage the people of Scotland to join the national campaign against ID cards. Members from all sides of the chamber have said that the bill will be costly, unworkable and ineffective. It will undermine half a century of work on civil liberties and worsen discrimination again minorities. I urge all members to unite behind the Green party's motion.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1458)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister again soon and I am sure that we will have a wide range of issues to discuss.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Given the serious problems in the national health service that have again been highlighted this week—longer waiting times, staff shortages in NHS 24 and cancelled operations due to a lack of beds—does not the First Minister think that it is time that he gave the NHS more of his personal attention?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The national health service not only gets a lot of my personal attention, but it clearly gets the attention of the ministers responsible for health. This morning, the Minister for Health and Community Care has been outlining the dramatic reductions in the number of people who wait longest in the national health service and the significant improvements that are taking place in relation to out-patient appointments, which is an area that I have personally raised in this chamber on several occasions as one in which performance had to improve significantly. That workload, should Ms Sturgeon want to call it that, goes on, but it is not seen as a chore; it is an opportunity to ensure that the people of Scotland have and are seen to have better health care delivered to them.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I suggest to the First Minister that, in light of the experiences of real patients that rarely match up to his spin, he needs to take a bit of a look at his priorities. For example, is he aware that his diary for last year, which was published earlier this week, shows that he visited just one hospital in the course of the entire year? He managed to swan around at 10 major sporting events but went to just one hospital. Is that because, as the facts published today show, out-patient waiting times are up, in-patient waiting times show no sign of improvement and the waiting list is at an all-time high? He knows that he has no answers for the patients and staff who want to know why.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If the diary list that has been published includes only one entry, it is inaccurate and I will ensure that it is corrected. I assure Ms Sturgeon that in my constituency and throughout Scotland, I do not visit just hospitals—the health service is about much more than hospitals—but a wide range of other health facilities. I treat all the staff throughout the health service with the respect that they deserve and listen to what they have to say, as well as listening to what patients have to say.

Patients say that it was wrong to concentrate several years ago only on bringing down in-patient waiting times and that is also vitally important to bring down out-patient waiting times and shorten out-patient waiting lists. After the considerable efforts that have been made, today's statistics show a reduction in out-patient waiting times and in the length of the waiting list; those results are long overdue and required to be addressed. We also see yet another significant reduction in the number of people who have been waiting the longest in our national health service.

Ms Sturgeon might want me to distort the figures to ensure that the so-called median comes down by concentrating on those who have not waited longest, but I am not prepared to leave behind those who have waited the longest in our national health service. They remain our highest priority. Those individuals' procedures might take longer, their operations might be more difficult and they might require more specialist treatment, but those who have been waiting the longest are still our highest priority. It is their waiting times that are coming down and that will continue until they are all waiting less than six months.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is it not the truth that the First Minister finds it difficult to look Scottish patients in the eye because he knows that for all the spin and distortion, his Government is failing to deliver? Is it not the case that, compared to 1999 when the Labour and Liberal Government came into office, today's NHS is treating fewer patients and that waiting times are 10 days longer for out-patients and 13 days longer for in-patients—all at a time when Scottish taxpayers are stumping up more and more cash? Can he explain why the Scottish people are paying so much more to get so much less?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am afraid that Ms Sturgeon is living in the past. The reality is that the national health service today delivers treatment in a variety of ways, using a variety of members of staff and a variety of procedures. It is right and proper that it should do so. Just to ensure that the statistics were in some way more impressive would not be a good enough reason for us to stay in the past and ensure that all treatment was still carried out by consultants or other professionals of that sort. It is right and proper that our health service today delivers treatment in a variety of ways. That means that activity must be measured in a variety of ways.

While it is right and proper that we should continue to concentrate on bringing down the longest waits—which have already been brought down dramatically—and on shortening the out-patient waiting list and the waiting times for out-patients, because the start of the journey is as important as the end, it is also right and proper that we should go to other sources in order to increase capacity in our NHS. It is Ms Sturgeon and her party who are totally opposed to the improvements in capacity that will ensure that thousands of people in Tayside, Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland will be treated over the next few months. Not only will we see an improvement in the statistics but, much more important, patients will get looked after properly.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I say to the First Minister that I am talking not about the past, but about his statistics, which have been published today. Does he realise that real patients lie behind each of those statistics? The statistics show that the vast majority of patients are waiting longer for treatment now than they were in 1999. When will he face up to that fact and, more important, do something about it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is completely untrue. More than 50 per cent of the people who are seen by the NHS are treated immediately—they do not wait at all. About 70 per cent of people are treated within three months. The people who used to wait for more than 12 months to receive in-patient treatment no longer have to wait that long; those who used to wait for more than nine months to receive in-patient treatment no longer have to wait that long; and the number of people who wait for more than six months between their initial appointment and their operation or other in-patient activity is coming down at a dramatic rate. It is right that that is our priority.

I ask patients right across Scotland who has their interests at heart. Is it those of us who are prepared to ensure that they receive treatment regardless of the source from which it comes or is it the Scottish National Party, which would deny them treatment from the independent sector, purely for ideological reasons?

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-1464)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expect that at the next meeting of our Cabinet we will discuss in particular policies that will improve opportunities for Scotland's children and young people.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister will forgive me for thinking that the Cabinet might also discuss the situation in the health service. It might care to reflect on the comparison between the situation in Scotland and the situation south of the border. The Executive's own figures show that, per head of population, spending on health in Scotland is some 14 per cent higher than it is in the United Kingdom as a whole. Will he please explain why it is that the number of people on waiting lists has gone up by 23,550—which represents an increase of some 26 per cent—since 1999, when the number of people on waiting lists in England has fallen by 20 per cent over the same period?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is partly because the two sets of waiting lists are not comparable. It is also the case that we have made a conscious decision to ensure that what is important in our NHS is what is important to the patient, which is not whether they are on a waiting list, but for how long they are on it. That is why the waiting times in our NHS are our top priority and why we in Scotland, rather than our colleagues south of the border, were the first in the UK to offer guarantees about the maximum waiting times for in-patient activity. That is why patient waiting times in Scotland are still lower than they are not just in England, but elsewhere in the UK. Waiting times will remain our priority until we drive them down, not just for in-patient treatment, but for out-patient treatment and for consultations.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That is all very well, except that the facts show that the waiting times to which the First Minister refers have lengthened considerably. In 1997, the median wait—of which the First Minister is fond—for out-patient treatment was 34 days; in December 2004, it was 56 days, which is a substantial increase by any standard. The Conservatives have never said that no improvements have taken place in our health service in the past five years—significant improvements have been made and I give fair credit for them.

However, as my first question clearly demonstrates, the health service down south is improving far faster than the health service up here is. The improvements down south have come about as a result of reforms that were designed to increase capacity by extending the use of the independent sector. Accordingly, will the First Minister say when we will see the introduction of independently run diagnostic and treatment centres, which have played a major role in reducing waiting times and lists in England, as I am sure he would acknowledge? How extensive will the programme be in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As Mr McLetchie will be aware, we announced before Christmas a significant increase in independent activity. Discussions are continuing on permanent contracts for that and other activity is taking place, for example, in Aberdeen in the past fortnight, if what the Minister for Health and Community Care tells me is accurate—of course, I am absolutely certain that it is.

Comparisons must be made—of course the health service has improved in the past five years, because the years of underinvestment and neglect of our health service under the Conservatives had to be turned around. However, to use one of the phrases of the moment, it is also important that we move forward, not back, in relation to our national health service. We will continue to ensure that our national health service is free at the point of need in Scotland; that the longest waiting times come down; and that we use capacity for our health service, wherever it may come from. However, we will not use Mr McLetchie's solution, which is to ensure that those who can already afford to pay have a subsidy and to take money and capacity out of the health service. That would be the wrong direction for our national health service. We will ensure that the same level of health care is available for all, including those who need it most, not just those who can pay for it most readily.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Our proposal would take us in exactly the right direction, because only by expanding capacity will we have an independent sector that can treat national health service patients. That is what our proposal is all about. The half-hearted measures—they can be called only that—that the Minister for Health and Community Care and the First Minister announced are a classic case of too little, too late and are representative of a Scottish Executive that had its head in the sand for five years and got the whole issue fundamentally wrong.

If the First Minister accepts that we have a major problem in Scotland—as he must when he sees the statistics today—why are he and his Executive not prepared to be much bolder in their approach, to champion the interests of patients and to take on the vested interests and political prejudices that hold us back?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Many of us are suspicious of the strong support among Conservative members for the subsidies that Mr McLetchie wants to give to the private health care sector. He does not want to use the money inside the national health service to improve capacity there as well as in the independent sector, while ensuring that that is delivered through the health service, not through subsidising those who can already afford to pay, which is the Tory solution, as reaffirmed last week by Mr McLetchie and his colleagues.

Mr McLetchie's assertions about today's statistics are simply wrong and I am certain that they are motivated by political prejudice. For example, the statistics show that the number of people who are on a waiting list for an out-patient appointment in Scotland is down by 9 per cent, which is long overdue. The number of people who are on a waiting list for a first out-patient appointment and who waited more than 26 weeks is down 15 per cent on the previous quarter. The results are similar in a range of other areas, particularly in relation to people who suffer from the killer diseases in Scotland, including those who require heart treatment. Waiting times for those people continue to come down, quarter after quarter. That is right because we have chosen the right priorities: the longest waits; the killer diseases; and now out-patients, too. It is by concentrating on the key priorities that we will improve the whole of the health service in Scotland.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Is the First Minister content to accept the findings of the civil service commissioner in relation to the conduct of senior civil servants working on the Holyrood project in the light of the information contained in the report—which is now public—that was commissioned from Gardiner & Theobald by the Auditor General for Scotland? The report states unequivocally that

"guidelines, rules and procedures set by the Scottish Executive, the Treasury and the European Commission have been blatantly"

"broken" and "ignored".

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The report by the civil service commissioner was not a report for me; it was a report for the permanent secretary and was commissioned by him as the head of the home civil service in Scotland. The permanent secretary will take whatever decisions he requires to take, not only in the light of that report but to ensure that we have a modern, efficient civil service in Scotland.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister whether he will attend the make poverty history demonstration prior to the G8 summit. (S2F-1478)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As First Minister of this devolved Government, I would not normally intervene in matters reserved to the United Kingdom Government, just as I would not expect it to intervene in devolved affairs.

However, the G8 summit coming to Scotland is a unique event and a unique opportunity, and I am publicly supporting the make poverty history campaign. The people of Scotland want us to speak clearly with one voice to the leaders of the G8 and to ensure that they act not just on climate change but on poverty in Africa. My attendance at events in the week before the summit will need to be decided nearer the time.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I look forward to seeing the Prime Minister on the demonstration. I will be there, marching alongside the socialists.

Does the First Minister agree with the make poverty history campaign, which contests that the major cause of world poverty is

"the glaringly unjust global trade system",

or what we socialists know as capitalism? Will he acknowledge that the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider and that 30,000 children die each day from preventable diseases—a figure that throughout history has never been higher? If he accepts those facts, will he also accept that that barbarity is the direct consequence of the policies promoted by the very people who will be wining and dining at Gleneagles in July?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I certainly support fairer trade. I continue to give my full support to that campaign. I do not believe that the Scottish Socialist Party or planned economies around the world have the right solution, but I welcome at least the SSP's in-principle support for the make poverty history in Africa campaign. We have got a job to do over the next few months, not just to influence the G8 leaders but to raise awareness in Scotland. I intend tomorrow to launch a competition for Scottish schoolchildren that will ensure that they are involved in this work. I hope that one of them—or at least a group of them—will win a very special prize indeed.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I remind the First Minister that the make poverty history campaign believes that the G8 is responsible for the fact that more people around the world live in abject poverty than at any time in history. Perhaps he can tell us who he believes is responsible, if not the G8. Unlike that other killer, the tsunami, poverty is no natural disaster. The G8 has been promising to eradicate poverty for more than 30 years. Whose side is the First Minister on? Is he on the side of the billions who suffer the misery and despair of poverty, or is he on the side of the elite who enjoy riches and luxury beyond the wildest dreams of the mass of humanity? Is he a champion of the poor or an accomplice of the rich?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I congratulate Colin Fox on his election to replace Tommy Sheridan as leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, not least because he clearly does not have Mr Sheridan's ability to change his supplementary questions when he hears my first answer. He will have to do an awful lot better than that. I said in answer to his first question that I fully support the make poverty history campaign. Its three objectives are crystal clear and they are right for our time. They deserve and demand our support, and they have mine. They have the full support of every Labour and Liberal Democrat MSP in the partnership parties and we intend to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard, but heard peacefully, in advance of the G8 summit.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I was delighted to hear what the First Minister said about involving young people and increasing their awareness of international development issues. Can he give us any more information about that? What steps is the Executive taking to involve the range of international development organisations in highlighting the needs of the developing world?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Members will be aware that the primary responsibility for external relations matters in the Executive lies with Mr McCabe, but that in the autumn last year we agreed, as part of the new ministerial responsibilities, to give Ms Ferguson a specific responsibility for dealing with international development issues. In that role, she has been liaising closely with a wide range of non-governmental organisations and other bodies, not just to support Scotland's efforts in relation to the tsunami disaster but on other areas of activity.

Tomorrow, at Holmlea Primary School in Glasgow, I intend to launch a nationwide competition—which will, I am glad to say, be supported by the Hunter Foundation—in which all young Scots in Scotland's secondary schools can take part. I hope that the special prize that the winners will receive will generate a lot of interest. In that way, we will get young people in Scotland interested in what is happening around the world. I hope that those young people, who are, of course, the future of our country and the rest of the world, will have an even stronger commitment than our generation has to aid and development in Africa and elsewhere.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister recently voiced a strong message of protest against George Bush over his inaction on climate change. I say to the First Minister that people throughout Scotland, the United Kingdom and Europe agree with him on the matter and want to protest at the G8 summit in Perthshire in July. Will he support the establishment of a safe location for the protesters who come to Perthshire, instead of allowing a free-for-all whereby thousands of people will arrive in the area with nowhere to go?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not personally involved in the detailed discussions, obviously, but it is my understanding that discussions are taking place, and that further discussions will take place, between those who are organising demonstrations, the security forces and Scotland's police forces. I believe that it is vitally important that the voices of Scots and others from around the world are heard at the G8 summit, but that they are heard peacefully and reasonably. I hope that people will have that opportunity, not just in Perthshire but in Edinburgh. It is important for us to prepare for all eventualities, but it is also important that we encourage peaceful protest and the expression of important views at that time.

NHS 24

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Executive will take to improve staffing levels in NHS 24. (S2F-1469)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is the responsibility of NHS 24 to recruit and deploy the right staff and ensure that members of the public receive a good service. NHS 24 is now an important part of our national health service. We should recognise the real progress that it has made and the high-quality service that has been enjoyed by the majority of people who have used it. We want the service to be enjoyed more consistently by an even larger majority. It is important to take stock and therefore the Minister for Health and Community Care will confirm this afternoon that an independent review group has been established to identify performance improvements that should be implemented by NHS 24.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I thank the First Minister for his reply and for his advice about the review group.

Only last week, I was advised that a parent who was worried that their young child might have meningitis had to wait several hours for a return call from NHS 24. I am sure that the First Minister will agree that that is quite unacceptable. Will the review group consider what steps can be taken to recruit nurses who are not currently employed in the NHS so that the staff shortage problem does not just shift from NHS 24 to the NHS? Will it also consider the recruitment of other specialists, such as psychiatric specialists? When I visited NHS 24 last summer, I was advised that about a quarter of calls relate to mental health problems rather than physical health problems and that those calls are time consuming.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that there are two issues there. First, it is important that individual complaints are addressed and properly followed through. Any complaints that have been raised with the Minister for Health and Community Care or with me in recent months have had such attention. I know that complaints are also taken seriously and treated properly by NHS 24 managers.

Secondly, the review group will address the issues that seem to arise in rural Scotland. Its remit, which will be published this afternoon, covers not only the responsiveness of NHS 24 and the linkages with other NHS partners, but services for callers from remote and rural areas, where the potential for problems will always exist, given the restricted access to a wide range of health care providers and staff.

It is important to ensure that the right staff are in place. I understand that recent figures have shown that NHS 24 recruitment is bringing people back into the service rather than transferring them out of it, and we want that trend to continue. That will be part of the review group's remit.

NHS 24 is a very important service, but it must deliver higher-quality performance more consistently than in the past. I am sure that all its staff are committed to that. The review group will help them to achieve that.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

To ask the First Minister why top-up fees are being charged in care homes. (S2F-1480)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Three years ago, we set out the circumstances in which additional fees can be charged to residents who choose a more expensive care home place. If others are being asked to top up fees for standard care home services, that is wholly unacceptable.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I welcome the inquiry into top-up fees in care homes that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care announced, but does the First Minister think that we also need an inquiry into the reasons for top-up fees and the increasing financial pressures on care homes? Is he aware that the Church of Scotland has just increased its charge for residential care by £106 per week to try to cover the increasing costs of care? Does he agree that until the long-running dispute over funding levels between the care home sector and the Executive is resolved, older people will continue to be caught in the middle and will end up paying the price?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Before the SNP decides that it wants to throw more money at anybody who asks for it, I remind the chamber that the review group that established the cost of care homes and the fees that should be paid included representatives of the private care home sector, who took part in the decision making that led to the fees that were established. The Scottish Executive has fully funded those fee levels.

If the SNP ever wants to form an administration at any level anywhere, it must learn not just to say yes when anybody comes along to ask for more money. A process of negotiation and agreement needs to take place. About six or eight weeks ago, Ms Sturgeon proposed in the chamber a cut of about £400 million from council budgets by freezing the council tax. Cutting budgets does not make extra money available for care homes. The SNP cannot have it both ways. It cannot cut taxes and make more money available for care homes. What is needed is a proper, balanced budget in which the numbers add up and the sums can be delivered. That is what we have in Scotland today.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Executive has to redraw local authority boundaries. (S2F-1460)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Scottish ministers have no plans to redraw local government boundaries. However, should local agencies bring a problem to the Executive that cannot be resolved through local discussion, we will of course consider the options that are available to us.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to hear that the First Minister will consider options. Given that Edinburgh residents this week halted congestion charging through a referendum, does the First Minister agree that local residents should also be able to halt through a referendum a move of their area into a neighbouring council area?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I certainly do not remember the Conservatives in Scotland giving anybody any choice over local government reorganisation through referenda or anything else back in 1995 when they tried to gerrymander Scottish local government and forced through boundaries around the country. That attempt was seen for what it was: in the Scottish local government elections in 1995, the Conservatives had their worst result, because people knew what was going on, saw what was happening and ensured that they were ejected as a result.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the First Minister agree that it is absolutely vital that, if any boundary changes to local government areas are considered in the future, that should come about as a result of proper consultation with local communities? As he rightly said, such consultation was not carried out by the Conservatives when they were in Government.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The approach that the member suggests is entirely sensible and I wholly endorse it.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — Education and Young People, Tourism, Culture and Sport

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Question 1 is withdrawn.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it has taken with sportscotland to develop accreditation schemes and new deal programmes to increase the number of people trained as coaches and sports assistants. (S2O-5527)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Through sportscotland, the Executive is taking forward a number of initiatives that have the aim of increasing the number of people trained as coaches and sports assistants.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The minister will be aware that a commitment to progress on that front forms part of the partnership agreement. I know that she fully understands the importance of coaches to the development of sports in Scotland. Would it be possible for the Executive to encourage young men or women who are involved in sport, either as professionals or serious participants, to take up training courses and accreditation through Scottish vocational qualifications and so on, so that they can begin to develop a career in coaching while they are still active sportspeople?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There are a number of routes into coaching. I am conscious that Donald Gorrie has a particular interest in the role of young sportspeople and in encouraging them to pursue a future career in their chosen sport or in a related sport. He is right to highlight the importance of such continued involvement.

Both he and I attended an event that I hosted at Edinburgh Castle last week, at which Sports Leaders UK was launched. The Executive and sportscotland already support that initiative and we hope to help to build on it. The contribution that was made last week by young people who are actively involved in that project bears testament to the idea that Donald Gorrie articulated.

It is important to note that my officials are in discussion with officials from Jobcentre Plus to consider how the new deal programme may assist in the provision of sports assistance, which is another vital area. The governing bodies of individual sports have a role to play in that, but of course we will assist and support them in their work.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

To ask the Scottish Executive what efforts it is making to find more effective ways of increasing numeracy. (S2O-5531)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Executive has put in place a range of initiatives to improve numeracy skills at all levels in our education system.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am delighted to hear that and I am sure that all other members are, too.

Has the minister noted the Justice 1 Committee's report on offending, which shows that there is a huge correlation between innumeracy and illiteracy and a propensity to offend? Is he aware of the recently issued circular HE/04/05, which reveals that there is a shortfall of 440 maths teachers in secondary 1 and secondary 2? Will he make efforts at Executive level to promote exciting and engaging ways of encouraging numeracy? I advocate especially the work of Jakow Trachtenberg, my previous obsession with which the minister knows about.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am aware of a number of Stewart Stevenson's previous obsessions. The first point that he made is serious. We know that many people who are in prison have struggled with literacy and numeracy from the outset of their education; indeed, the incidence of dyslexia in prison is noticeably higher than in the population as a whole, which is why we now spend a lot of time diagnosing such conditions much earlier and putting in place early intervention schemes and similar measures to try to support learning more effectively. If we can do that, it will save such people from being pushed to the margins of schools and, in turn, the margins of society.

On his point about maths teachers, I am encouraged by what we are achieving this year. We have achieved an 80 per cent increase in the number of maths teachers in training. That is purposeful; it is to try to hit our target not only to increase the overall number of teachers, but to reduce the size of maths classes in S1 and S2 in particular in order to ensure that we consolidate the benefits of learning in the early years.

I agree absolutely on the need to make maths more exciting. Last week, I attended an in-service day in Kelso for 80 primary school teachers in the Borders who were being taught new techniques to make maths more engaging for young people, especially boys, so that they can get more out of it, remain committed to their learning and therefore improve generally.

I am extremely encouraged that the Scottish National Party is showing signs of being interested in improving numeracy. That is not something on which the SNP has been strong in the past. I commend that change to the SNP finance spokesman, Alasdair Morgan, who is sitting next to Stewart Stevenson. I hope that it will help the SNP to balance its budgets in future.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in extending breakfast clubs to all schools. (S2O-5454)

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Executive continues to provide support to breakfast clubs, mainly through child care strategy funding to local authorities. There has been an increase in the number of clubs in recent months.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I am pleased to hear that there has been an increase in breakfast clubs. I am sure that the minister will agree that the provision of a healthy breakfast is beneficial to children's health and that research has shown that breakfast clubs are showing benefits to behaviour and performance in class. Does the minister agree that all Scotland's children would benefit from access to breakfast clubs, that the current piecemeal approach to provision is unequal and that it further disadvantages many children and young people who are already disadvantaged? Does he also agree that it is wholly unfair that head teachers should have to set up breakfast clubs on budgets that are so small that they cannot afford to use direct catering services but must instead rely on donations and volunteers? We are creating an unequal system.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will not allow speeches; you have asked your questions.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Yes, a good breakfast is helpful to the school day. I was in Eyemouth recently, serving a farmers breakfast to the children in the primary school there. It is interesting that kids like a healthy breakfast—in Eyemouth, they liked the fruit and the cereal that were available—and it is important to encourage them to adopt healthy lifestyles and healthy eating in future.

The child care strategy money will increase from £30 million this financial year to £43 million in the next financial year, which will allow local authorities to extend provision of breakfast clubs where they wish to do so. I note the progress that Glasgow City Council is making in that regard, which is the result of a decision that Greater Glasgow NHS Board and the local education authority took. That is an important way in which breakfast clubs can be extended.

A healthy breakfast at the start of the day is good, and I am encouraged by the fact that breakfast clubs are spreading in Scotland.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Sarah Boyack is not with us to ask question 5.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether additional funding will be provided to Scottish Screen to support its network of local film offices. (S2O-5538)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

It is worth my while to point out at the beginning of my answer that Scottish Screen does not have responsibility for the operation of local film offices, which act as independent partners in the Scottish locations network. The extent of any support that Scottish Screen might offer those partners is for it to determine.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware that Ayrshire will lose its dedicated film officer at the end of March for want of support from each of the three local councils in the area? The loss of professional expertise will undoubtedly mean that Ayrshire's share of the £25 million that film companies spend annually in Scotland will reduce, as will the knock-on benefits from film tourism. Is not it time for a rationalised film office network to be core funded nationally, so that the full potential of Scotland as a film location can be realised?