Scottish Parliament, 22 September 2005

354 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Official Report 22 September 2005

Economic Policy

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3321, in the name of Mark Ballard, on economic policy.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The motion cuts to the heart of the debate about the purpose of government. What is government for, to whom is it accountable and what should its top priority be? If we asked the average man or woman in the street, they would tell you that the Scottish Executive's priority should be to improve the quality of life of the people of Scotland. However, the Executive has selected as its top priority growing the economy, as measured by gross domestic product. That one-dimensional focus on an abstract economic indicator shows a lamentable lack of vision and ambition. The truth is that GDP tells us little. It is simply the growth measure of market activity in Scotland—the amount of cash that has changed hands. As the headline measure of economic progress, GDP does not stand up to much scrutiny. It fails in four key ways.

First, it simply aggregates the value of monetary transactions and is unable to differentiate between beneficial expenditure and spending that is harmful. If a business kept its balance sheet by entering all the figures in the same column, an auditor would probably not be impressed. However, on a national level, that is exactly what we do, and we place great importance on the total.

If somebody buys a car, therefore, GDP goes up. Every time the car is filled with fuel, GDP goes up. The more inefficient a car is, the more GDP benefits there are. If a car is involved in a nasty road accident following which several vehicles must be repaired, GDP goes up. If the owner of the car is prosecuted for dangerous driving and engages a lawyer, GDP goes up. If he is then sued by one of the other drivers, GDP goes up. A pattern is beginning to emerge.

Crime, divorce and pollution are all treated as economic gains. Perhaps that is why I cannot understand Murdo Fraser's amendment. He spoke passionately about the tragedy and the cost of road accidents in last night's members' business debate on the A9, but today he is supporting a measure of economic growth that counts such accidents as a good thing.

Secondly, GDP is oblivious to the inequalities of wealth distribution. There may be more money sloshing around, but in whose pockets? Too often, GDP has risen while the gap between rich and poor has widened. Regional inequalities are also important. Scotland's economy is becoming more concentrated in the cities. Edinburgh and Glasgow are doing well, as is Inverness, but what about our rural areas? GDP is blind to the skewed distribution of wealth.

Thirdly, GDP champions all monetary transactions, but ignores many valuable services that take place outside the cash economy, in spite of the importance of such services to our communities and our society. Whether it is voluntary work with young people to help tackle to the root causes of antisocial behaviour or work done to manage communal land in a crofting township, the Executive's chosen measure of success ignores such work and the enormous contribution of the voluntary sector to our society generally. That is very regrettable.

Fourthly, GDP treats the depletion of natural capital and resources as income. As we use our finite, irreplaceable oil reserves, it is vital that we account for their depletion. What would the auditors say if a business sold off its capital assets and treated the money raised as income? Likewise, if we exploit our fish stocks beyond their safe biological limits, we are depleting that natural capital.

Surely it is time for us all to accept that GDP is simply too crude a measure to meet the needs of a modern, sustainable economy in the 21st century. There have been signs recently that the political landscape is shifting. The First Minister now talks about

"economic growth, but not at any cost."

"The Framework for Economic Development In Scotland" has a vision:

"To raise the quality of life of the Scottish people through increasing economic opportunities for all on a socially and environmentally sustainable basis."

All of which begs the question: why do we hold GDP, an indicator that tells us nothing of social or environmental sustainability, in such high esteem?

It is not just us who have a problem with GDP as a measure of national progress. A Labour Party policy document on the environment spelled out that party's disquiet:

"For too long, economic and political success has been measured solely in terms of the rate of growth of economic activity. This is difficult to justify. Few people actually want a higher level of GDP for its own sake."

However, the Executive's amendment talks about sustainable economic growth, despite the fact that the Executive's prime focus on sustainable economic growth through GDP considers only the economic pillar of sustainable development; it does not consider the social or environmental pillars. If it were a stool, it would fall over.

Simon Kuznets, one of the economists who developed the concept of GDP, said:

"The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income ... goals for 'more' growth should specify of what and for what."

When it comes to economic development, quality is every bit as important as quantity; and quality, as we have seen, is something that GDP simply does not recognise.

It does not have to be this way. If we want a better measure of the direction that our economy and our society are heading in, we should seriously consider other measures, such as the index of sustainable economic welfare, which is being trialled in Wales. The ISEW takes into account social resources and environmental degradation and can differentiate between desirable and harmful economic activity. Obviously, we need to keep on measuring GDP, but let us replace it as the headline indicator and measure it alongside something that tells us about the social and environmental impacts of all the spending.

Ultimately, there does not need to be a conflict between a healthy economy and a healthy environment, in spite of what some people, such as Fergus Ewing, would have us believe. We do not have to make that choice. I would go further and say that a sustainable environment and strong social justice are absolute prerequisites for a stable, healthy economy. That is surely what the people of Scotland want and it is no more than they deserve. That is why we need to measure what matters.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the top priority of the Scottish Executive, as stated in the current Partnership Agreement, is "growing the economy" but reminds the Executive that GDP, its preferred measure of economic growth, makes no distinction between beneficial and harmful economic activity, ignores many socially beneficial and highly desirable practices and treats the depletion of natural capital as income and is therefore a very poor indicator of economic development; agrees with the Labour Party Policy Commission on the Environment that "For too long, economic and political success has been measured solely in terms of the rate of growth of economic activity"; considers, therefore, that if Scotland is to enjoy economic development that does not compromise social justice and environmental sustainability it needs a more meaningful yardstick than simply measuring the monetary value of goods and services produced in Scotland; remains committed to assisting the positive economic development of a healthy Scottish economy and considers that placing sustainability and national well-being at the heart of Executive policy will ultimately lead to a stronger, healthier and more innovative economic future for the people of Scotland, and urges the Executive to consider alternatives to GDP with a view to adopting a more suitable measure of national progress as its top priority.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The powers of devolution have given us a fantastic opportunity to give Scotland a strong competitive edge in a growing international market. We are determined to make the most of Scotland's potential. That is why we made growing the economy our top priority. The First Minister reiterated that position in his recent statement on the legislative programme.

I agreed with much that Mark Ruskell said, but clearly not all. Our priority of growing the economy is not at the expense of sustainable development more generally.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

In those circumstances, can the minister explain why GDP is the Executive's measure of progress, when GDP cannot account for sustainable development because it does not mention social or environmental impact or the distribution of wealth?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

GDP is obviously an indicator of economic growth. As I am sure Mr Ballard is well aware, we have a number of other indicators that are used across a broad range to chart our progress towards sustainable development more generally.

Scotland has a small, open economy and the increasing globalisation of trade—global trade has grown twice as fast as world GDP over the past decade—means that the linkages between Scotland and the rest of the world have a critical influence on our economic performance. However, we do not wish to see increasing economic growth and international integration at the expense of sustainable development—the point that I just made.

We have an excellent business environment and a support framework that works for Scottish firms and inward investors. Our workforce is skilled and well educated; higher education participation is at a rate that other countries envy; and major investments have been made in transport and electronic infrastructure. That all translates into a positive economic performance. For example, the most recent GDP data, which are for the first quarter of 2005, showed growth over the year of 2.0 per cent, which is the highest for four years and is above our long-run annual average.

The Scottish labour market continues to perform strongly, with all the main indicators moving in the right direction. The trends have remained strong and consistent. Employment indicators and social indicators are as important as wider economic indicators in measuring the success of economic policy. For development to be sustainable, we have to close the opportunity gap and give economic and employment opportunities to all our fellow citizens, not just to those who currently benefit.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister tells us that all the indicators are going in the right direction, but is that in absolute terms or in relative terms? There is still a relative gap between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. When will that gap be closed? When will that indicator be positive?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As Jim Mather in particular will be aware, the trend is certainly moving in our direction. Overall growth in Scotland's economy this quarter last year was twice that of the UK as a whole. However, the longer-term issue is clearly to close the gap in the growth rate between the Scottish economy and the economy of the UK more generally. We can agree about that; it is the reason why—to answer the Greens' point—we make growing the economy our top priority. By closing that gap, we will create greater wealth, which will allow us better to distribute the employment and economic benefits that I spoke of earlier.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will take the Tories.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful. As we are bandying around statistics, will the minister tell us whether the Executive is satisfied that Scotland has fallen four places in the UK regional competitive index since 1997? We were fourth out of 12 regions of the UK in 1997; today we are eighth. Is that a record of success?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The member makes a fair point. Obviously, we would wish to be more successful than we are currently. However, to grow the economy over the year at 2 per cent—which is the highest for the four-year period that I referred to, and which is above our long-run annual average—demonstrates progress towards our objectives, as I am sure Murdo Fraser would agree. That is not to say that everything in the garden is rosy. I do not argue—and I have never argued—that it was.

However, Murdo Fraser knows that I emphasise the importance of employment. Unemployment was the scourge of the Scottish economy—dare I say it?—during the period of Conservative control.

Over the most recent period—May to July this year—unemployment is down. It is around its lowest level since quarterly records began in 1992. More and more Scots are being encouraged to participate in the labour market, and our economic activity rate is above that of the UK as a whole. Critically, employment is around its highest level since quarterly records began.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The minister is in his last minute.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The rate of employment is above that of the UK and is among the highest in the 25 European Union countries.

Life sciences are very important to the Scottish economy. In sectors such as life sciences, microelectronics, energy and renewable energy—to which we are committed—financial services and the creative industries more generally, Scotland is, I would argue, world class.

Our ambitions for Scotland are to provide all Scots with opportunities for good jobs, fulfilling careers and safe communities—safe communities are a vital part of the social progress that is part of sustainable development more generally—to fulfil all Scots' potential and to help them to achieve their ambitions. All of that must be achieved in an international economic environment, and sustainable development is at the heart of our economic development agenda.

I move amendment S2M-3321.4, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"supports growing the economy as the top priority of the Scottish Executive; believes that economic growth must be sustainable; agrees with the Partnership Agreement commitment to assess economic development policies against their impact on sustainable development indicators; notes that the Framework for Economic Development in Scotland has made sustainable development the principal objective; welcomes the stronger emphasis on sustainability in the refresh of A Smart Successful Scotland; endorses the Executive's determination to drive forward its green jobs strategy, and endorses the Executive's commitment to sustainable development."

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In moving my amendment, I will accept the general thrust of the Scottish Green Party's motion. We have our own reservations about GDP. However, economic growth is the key to improving living standards and quality of life, and to neglect economic growth is to create more inequalities between Scotland and elsewhere, and inequalities within Scotland. Such inequalities still occur, and have been occurring for 30 years.

I agree that GDP is not an accurate reflection of performance, especially in a branch economy, which Scotland is becoming. GDP is subject to arbitrary adjustment and poor presentation. We have had the simple and painless recalibration of GDP, which, in essence, wrote off great chunks of our manufacturing and engineering without the bookkeeping that would be required in any company; we have had the indexation of GDP, showing both Scotland and the UK as equalling 100 in 2001 in order to mask the differences and iron out the disparities; and we have had an emphasis on GDP per capita, which further muddies the waters. When we get down to the last pensioner and one off-shore oil rig, she might be a poor pensioner but her GDP per capita will be great.

Many of the measures that we actually need to measure performance are available—measures such as population and average life expectancy, and the personal family binary measure of whether our children are living and working in Scotland. However, we also have distortion and deception in the data. For example, labour participation and unemployment are calculated after ignoring 630,000 people in Scotland—20.5 per cent of our working-age population—and average incomes now discount people who work less than 18 hours a week. I hope that the Greens and others will join us in our repeated calls for an independent Scottish office of national statistics.

There is also distortion in the data on our natural resources. The McCrone report that was uncovered last week was optimistic, but it resulted in data—

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will make my point first.

The content and thrust of that report was repressed for 30 years and the value of our oil reserves was denied. The report was used as a basis for taking the wind from the SNP's sails—as the report says. It actually missed the target and took the wind from Scotland's sails for 30 years.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Jim Mather calls the employment data a distortion, but of the 630,000 people that he mentions, how many does he believe to be available for employment?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I think that an accurate number is 188,000. That is the number of people who are stepping forward and saying that they would like to work. However, I would suggest that, in a different climate, and in a faster-growing Scotland, the number might be higher.

I want to go back to oil and talk about last week's spectacle in a green context. The McCrone report made it clear that oil has been used in Scotland at a voracious and imprudent rate. Much of it was used to fund failure—policies that did not work in the 1970s, were subject to the false hope that they would work in the years between then and now, but have not worked. Those policies have caused great damage—viz the population, viz growth and viz the migration of people from Scotland.

Happily, we have a second golden chance. The reserves are there—there is at least as much as has already been taken out—and the price is solid and likely to rise. The technology is there to get every last drop of it out.

The key points are these: Scotland does not have nine lives; Scotland has worn a hair shirt for 30 years; Scotland does not need another self-denying ordinance; and Scotland needs a process that will grow our economy on a robust and solid base so that it converges with other economies. I am fed up with tired policies that result in the continuing widening of the gap. I see Jeremy Purvis smiling at the mention of the widening gap; does he think that it might just keep his party in power?

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

I am not smiling; I am laughing at Mr Mather.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No more. I urge members to support the motion and the SNP amendment in my name.

I move amendment S2M-3321.1, to insert at end:

"as a pre-requisite for a new era in which, no matter how national wealth is measured, the Scottish Parliament should have legislative responsibility for the management of all our natural resources."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Scottish economy. The Greens highlight in their motion an issue that they have raised consistently over a long period—that GDP is not the best assessment of economic strength. On one level, the Greens are correct. We on the Conservative side of the chamber have never argued that quality of life is mainly dependent on having wealth.

The fact is that, under the Executive, the factors that are damaging the quality of life for so many Scots, such as the drug-fuelled violence in our communities, are chiefly non-economic. We now know that, on one measure, Scotland is the most violent country in the world. Family breakdown, school indiscipline and the centralisation of local health care services are other examples of such factors. That is why the Conservatives are developing concrete policies to tackle those issues head on and to improve the quality of life for all Scots, especially those who live in vulnerable communities. However, I disagree with the Greens, in that I believe that such quality-of-life issues are inextricably linked to economic growth.

A strong and healthy economy is the necessary foundation for a good quality of life for all our citizens. A strong economy provides jobs, which reduce dependency and give people both the security to provide for themselves and their families and a sense of worth. A strong economy creates the wealth to pay for the quality public services that all of us—even the Greens—are in favour of. The GDP growth measure that the Greens deride is an extremely useful and important tool for assessing the extent to which Executive policies are helping or hindering the economy, on which our quality of life depends. It is unfortunate that, under the Executive's stewardship, Scottish GDP has consistently trailed behind that of the UK as a whole. As a result, it is hardly surprising that Scotland has fared so badly on several quality-of-life measurements.

Our amendment highlights the fact that growth in the Scottish economy in the first quarter of 2005 was 0 per cent, whereas growth in the UK economy in that period was 0.4 per cent. There is no doubt that it would suit the Executive for us to stop drawing attention to those figures; in fact, I am surprised that the Executive has not grasped with both hands the opportunity that the Greens have offered it to move away from the use of GDP, given that it has failed so dismally on that measure over the past six years. However, the Executive probably appreciates that it would lack credibility if it took that route.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The member condemns the Executive for its GDP results, but if he is wedded to the use of GDP and to improving it as the top priority, surely his approach would make no difference.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not agree with that at all. As I will outline shortly, and as our amendment states, we believe that a change of Administration and the resulting change in Executive policies would deliver higher GDP growth. It is not a necessary function of the Scottish economy that our GDP growth must lag behind that of the rest of the UK. In spite of what the minister said, the gap between Scotland and elsewhere in the UK continues to grow.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the member will forgive me, I will not give way at the moment, because I want to make some progress.

The latest evidence came from "The UK Competitiveness Index 2005", which was produced by the University of Sheffield and which represents the most up-to-date, thorough and authoritative benchmarking of the competitiveness of the UK's regions and localities. It showed that whereas in 1997, under the Conservatives, Scotland was ranked fourth out of 12 regions in the UK, it is now ranked eighth out of 12—a fall of four places. What a testament to the Executive's track record.

Perhaps we should not be surprised at those outcomes when we consider the Executive's approach to our wealth creators. In spite of his attempts to cosy up to the business community at the recent business in the Parliament conference, Jack McConnell let the mask slip at last week's Labour group meeting, when he is alleged to have referred to business leaders Janette Anderson and Ian Graham as idiots. Perhaps some of the Labour members who are present would like to tell us whether that remark was made, because the First Minister's press officers are reluctant to confirm or deny whether the story is true. When the First Minister displays such contempt for our business community, is it any wonder that Scotland is not regarded as a good place in which to do business?

In Blackpool this week, the new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning said that he wants business rates in Scotland to be reduced to below the level of those in England, to give us a competitive advantage. I am delighted at our new enterprise minister's conversion to Conservative policies. What a pity that, for the past six years, his predecessor and the Executive as a whole told us that we did not need such a reduction. It is clear that the Conservatives have won all the arguments on what is wrong with the economy and that the other parties are playing catch-up.

I do not think that the Greens have much to offer when it comes to turning around our economic underperformance. Measures such as increasing fuel tax will simply damage businesses, especially in rural areas.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The member is in his final 30 seconds.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is quite wrong to seek to disregard GDP growth as a measure of economic success, even though it might suit the Executive to do so.

The Conservatives are winning the arguments on what needs to be done to turn around our economic underperformance. People from other parties, including the new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, are queuing up behind our manifesto proposals.

I move amendment S2M-3321.2, to leave out from first "GDP" to end and insert:

"the Scottish economy actually experienced zero growth in the first quarter of this year; believes that GDP growth is an extremely important measurement of quality of life because a strong economy is crucial to providing individual financial security and the necessary investment for quality public services; further believes that the Executive's stewardship of the economy has been detrimental to the quality of life of many Scots; notes that Scotland fell four places in the UK Regional Competitiveness Index between 1997 and 2005, and therefore calls on the Executive to take concrete action to reverse our economic under-performance by cutting red tape, privatising Scottish Water, increasing investment in roads and public transport and specifying a date for the proposed cut in business rates."

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

The debate has been useful, interesting and thought provoking. I listened to Mark Ruskell's speech with some interest, but I pose a question about the Greens' treatment of capital. Perhaps their representative can deal with that issue when they sum up. I can see where their argument is coming from when it comes to a financial resource such as oil, but I wonder how they would account for renewable energy and nuclear energy, for example. That is a worthwhile discussion.

Although the subject of today's debate is of interest to me, the minister, the Greens, Murdo Fraser, Jim Mather and all the other members of the Parliament, it would not set the heather alight in a pub in Lairg or at the Lairg sheep sales. I want to return to an argument that I have made in the past and will make again in the future, which is that the situation is not as bad as the Opposition makes out. Of course there is room for improvement but, when I look at my constituency, I see progress. However, there are two fronts on which we could do something impressive.

The first of those is renewable energy. Members will be aware that there are proposals for harnessing tidal energy between Jim Wallace's constituency of Orkney and the mainland of Caithness. Although the proposals are in their infancy, that is an exciting project. It has been said that, with its tidal flow, the Pentland firth could become the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. That will take investment and scientific research, but if we get there, we will lead the world. That takes me to my second theme—my favourite—which is that at all times Scotland should play to its strengths rather than its weaknesses. We have renewable energy potential—we have the wind and the tide and we can do things with them.

Another of my favourite subjects, which I mentioned during a workshop at the business in the Parliament conference, is that although food production in Scotland is a strength that we play to, there is more that we could do in that regard. I am thinking of home-grown meat, in particular, and home-grown fruit and vegetables and the issue of eating produce that is in season. As I said in a debate two weeks ago, it is a fact that Scottish beef is produced to a higher standard than the South American beef with which it competes. Schemes for care of the animals and quality control are in place at all levels. If we promote and sell such produce, we will do our farmers and producers a great service.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The point that the member makes about local food economies and local distribution is important, but does he not realise that the more we export and import food, the more that adds to GDP? The vision that he is in favour of does not fit with a sustainable economy.

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

Although I respect the worthiness of what Mr Ruskell says—he makes an interesting point—his argument is somewhat sterile. Crofters, farmers, businesspeople and others in my constituency know full well whether or not they are doing well. They do not need statistics, even though such data have a value. We must adopt a commonsense approach and keep an eye on the situation.

I will give the Parliament an example of useful work that has been done and which could lead to great things. In recent years, the Prince of Wales has taken up residence in the Castle of Mey every year. For a good year and a half, he has single-handedly spearheaded the Mey selections brand. I will not go into detail, but that has enabled quality beef and lamb and other quality Scottish produce bearing the prince's hallmark to get into supermarkets. That is a fantastic achievement and much can be done on that in the future.

To sum up, we should play to our strengths and remember what we are good at. This country has quality products, both in food and in tourism.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

This is a very short debate, so I must keep members to a tight four minutes.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The Executive has numerous indicators, so why is such a crude one the top priority for government? If government's purpose is to work on behalf of all the people and to protect the natural resources on which we all depend, and if sustainable development is the big goal, why is GDP growth still at the top of the pile in the partnership agreement?

Beneath GDP growth, there are lower priorities. In the summer, the Executive published its "Indicators of Sustainable Development for Scotland: Progress Report 2005." Out of 24 social, economic and environmental indicators, only six showed some evidence of positive progress. In spite of the minister's optimism, indicator 13, which is on renewable energy, has moved in the wrong direction. The number of children in workless households and the number of families that are assessed as homeless have increased in recent years.

Many indicators—including the numbers of people who suffer from depression, asthma, obesity and so on—are not yet included in the set that the Executive uses. The Executive's health strategy acknowledges the ever-expanding health gap between the rich and the poor. People who live in deprived areas are more than twice as likely to have a long-term illness and their life expectancy is 15 years less than that of people who live in affluent areas. The Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that the top 10 per cent have increased their share of wealth from 47 per cent to 54 per cent since Labour came to power in the UK. It has also shown that women are more likely to live in poverty. The rich and the poor live in different worlds. Poverty and the health gaps remain a blight on our society.

So much for GDP. For those members who believe in market-only solutions and the trickle-down effect, I point out that the evidence is not on their side.

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

Perhaps the member will remind us whether it is Green party policy to renationalise Scottish Power, Scottish Gas, Scottish and Southern Energy plc, British Telecom in Scotland, First ScotRail and all the bus companies. Would that not give considerably more money to the shareholders of those companies and bankrupt the country at the same time?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Perhaps the member should have stayed a bit longer at the Lib Dem conference when it debated the Royal Mail and what should happen to it.

According to Cardiff University, people's overall sense of well-being has hardly improved at all since the depression of the 1930s, despite decades of GDP growth. The GDP measure does not encompass the depletion of natural capital or the effect of development on our natural resources. It cannot assess poverty or people's quality of life, nor can it measure the extent of Scotland's ecological footprint on the world. If everyone in the world lived as we do in Scotland, we would need two more planets to support everyone. That is our ecological footprint and it is why even the Executive recognises the need for a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions—not the paltry 7.7 per cent since 1990 that was announced with such enthusiasm yesterday.

The Executive's amendment implies that the priority is sustainable development. Why does the Executive not just say clearly that the priority is environmentally and socially sustainable development rather than GDP growth? In measuring Scotland's environmental and social progress, why not consider some of the emerging alternatives, such as the index of sustainable economic welfare? When will the Scottish Executive start measuring and prioritising what really matters? We need a measure of environmental, social and economic development. With that, we can start to build a better Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Presiding Officer, before you vacate the chair you might be relieved to hear that I have no intention of following the front bench's lead and descending into a sterile exchange of economic statistics. This is the first Green party debate in which I have had the pleasure of participating, not because I am one of the chamber's shrinking violets but because it is rare for the Greens to have a debate on their own terms. It is in that spirit that I would like to respond.

First and foremost, the Green movement calls on us to recognise our very temporary stewardship of the earth's resources, and I for one have no doubt that history will look favourably on the Greens' role in pinpointing issues that demand—or should demand—humanity's attention. In listening to today's headlines at 6 am, which is not my usual hour, I was struck by the signs that the Green movement is asking some of the right questions. In Scotland it is highlighting the issue of asylum seekers and globally it is highlighting the issue of global warming on a day when the United States is preparing for only its fourth category 5 hurricane.

I am not suggesting—nor would the Greens suggest—that they have a monopoly on conscience in politics. After all, we can go back as far as Moses to find people who had compassion for the exile or to the time of Noah to find people who worked to care for the earth's resources. However, the special and distinctive role of those of us who enter public life is not simply to care or even to prophesy, although both of those have their place. It is to devote our time and energy to come up with the right policy prescriptions.

The motion quotes favourably from Labour Party policy. Who can disagree with that? It calls for better measures of well-being. Again, who can disagree? It calls for a more innovative economic future for Scotland. Who can disagree? I return to the special challenge of politics, which is to deliver on the visions of the people. Yes, we can applaud the Greens for their role in putting issues such as climate change and the measurement of well- being on the agenda, but in conscience we cannot follow them to their policy prescriptions.

Last night, I did my Green colleagues the honour of reading their party's manifestos for the previous Scottish and general elections. Their policies include the nationalisation of all Scottish utilities, as we heard from Jeremy Purvis this morning; an end to public-private partnerships, which are helping to build 300 new schools in Scotland; and a range of new Scottish taxes including corporate, personal and land value taxes. Most critically—I invite the Greens to reflect on this—their policies include their misguided protectionism and opposition to international trade agreements. Not only do those agreements give the poor the chance of trade not aid, but two thirds of Scotland's income depends on international trade. We will not enhance our GDP or well-being by attacking the basis of two thirds of our income.

I genuinely congratulate the Greens on calling their first-ever economic debate and I welcome their role in consciousness raising. They add to the Parliament, but I encourage them to think more deeply about the deliverability of sustainability. Perhaps—I say this as someone who worked for the Labour Party in the 1980s—they should think about abandoning once and for all the knee-jerk policy posturing of the old hard left, which continues to pollute some policymaking on their side. Yes, the stakes have never been higher, but our responsibility is to do more than simply to plan for the future. We also have to be willing to build it.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I did Mark Ballard the honour of reading his motion last night, but I am afraid that I never got round to the Green party manifestos. However, I read the motion and listened to Mark Ruskell's speech with interest.

As Jim Mather said, the SNP, too, has reservations about the reliability of GDP as the sole indicator of a country's growth and well-being. We hear a lot about sustainable development, which surely includes human development, and the fact that it should underpin all Government initiatives both nationally and internationally. Although the United Nations' human development reports update the eight millennium development goals annually, only one of those goals relates directly to the economy and it is about strengthening partnerships between poor countries and rich countries.

I looked at what the European Commission has been saying. The Lisbon European Council developed a set of structural indicators that are designed to measure progress towards the European Union's goal, which is:

"to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion."

That is the key. When we are trying to grow a country and its economy, that growth should be about quality of life.

Even the United Kingdom Government has examined closely different measures of economic growth and well-being. The Sustainable Development Commission has welcomed the UK Government's commitment to deliver new indicators to measure the nation's well-being. The commission is right to say that we need a radically different approach to measuring economic progress, because environmental and social goals should be included and jobs should be safeguarded. Income and GDP should not be the sole components of a nation's happiness. We all know that good health, stable families, meaningful work, secure neighbourhoods and strong communities are all vital components of personal and collective well-being.

The UK Government Cabinet Office has examined a study on life satisfaction as an example of an indicator of sustainable development. That works on the concept that increases in GDP—the traditional indicator—do not necessarily lead to greater quality of life for citizens. The Executive's amendment says that growing the economy is a top priority. I suggest that the population's well-being should be the top priority. Such matters can be considered in tandem. In the report that the UK Cabinet Office has considered, economic growth—if measured as GDP—looks good and shows a steady rise from 1970 to 1997. However, the life satisfaction figures are static. People are not necessarily happier and do not feel a greater sense of well-being just because the GDP happens to look good. I would like that to be taken on board and I would like the minister to say whether the Scottish Executive has tapped into what the UK is doing in that research.

Everyone knows that everyone in the SNP believes in independence for Scotland.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Half of SNP members do.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do—truly and deeply.

My vision is of a radical approach in our country. Independence would allow us to measure our country's growth not only purely in economic terms, but in how our people feel and the well-being of our citizens. I urge all members to consider that for Scotland and its people and to move forward accordingly.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I sincerely hope that the Green party will not take Wendy Alexander's advice—I am sure that it will not—to become just like the Labour Party. The difficulty in politics today in Britain and in Scotland is that too many parties are just like Labour. Elections have such low turnouts and disengagement from the political process is so large because the parties are all the same. They say the same things and they stand for the same policies. It is important that the Greens and the Scottish socialists continue to hold the standard high for those who believe in a different way to organise our lives and in a different social and economic approach that places human beings and not profit at the heart of our society.

It is interesting that, according to all the latest statistics, GDP, gross national product and national output—the measure can be described in different ways—are up. The figures are 0.7 per cent in some research and 1.7 per cent in other research. Industrial output has increased. The problem is that the inequality-of-wealth gap has also increased, so the increase in industrial production and output in no way tackles the gross and obscene levels of inequality that scar our nation.

In April this year, a report in the BMJ said that the difference in life expectancy between Britain's rich and poor has not been as unequal as it is today since Victorian times. It is 2005, but the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor is that of Victorian times. That is the reality of the free-market philosophy that all the political parties apart from the Greens and the socialists adopt and promote.

We have a job on our hands to tackle an economic system that means that the life expectancy of a male in Glasgow is 11 years less than that of a male in east Dorset. The life expectancy of a female in Glasgow is 8.4 years less than that of a female in east Dorset. The poorest 10 per cent in Britain receive just 3 per cent of the total income that is produced throughout the UK, whereas the wealthiest 10 per cent consume 28 per cent of all the wealth. That is the fundamental problem that we must attack. If we are to raise sustainably the quality of life of all our citizens, we must redistribute the wealth that we produce and we must base measurements of our society's outputs on matters such as life expectancy, infant mortality and the ability for citizens to engage fully in life and in what others take for granted.

In the four minutes that I had for my speech, I am heartened that Lord Browne of BP has just made another £40. In a society that is protected by the new Labour Tories, the old Tories and the SNP, individuals such as Lord Browne earn £15,000 a day, when 1.5 million Scots earn less than £15,000 a year. That is the inequality that we must tackle and that is why debates such as this are vital to show the difference between the approach of other parties and those of the Greens and socialists. We want to put people first before profit; the rest just want to continue to worship profit.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The turnout that Tommy Sheridan should worry about is the plummeting support for the Scottish socialists. To be frank, the thrust of his speech shows that the Scottish socialists' intent is to strangle rather than produce economic growth.

Perhaps the Greens are more savable than that. I noticed the careful construction of their motion, which is a little more cautious than some of the statements that Mark Ballard has made in the Edinburgh Evening News and which his colleagues have made elsewhere. It is important to understand whether the Greens oppose economic growth or believe that economic growth should be constructed slightly differently. Do they believe that economic growth is vital to produce jobs and improvements in society or that it is too high a price to pay? That issue is not well addressed by debates about whether GDP is the right measure.

Mark Ballard and his colleagues may wish to know that the Finance Committee has tried to pin down the Executive to say whether GDP is the chosen measure. We have not succeeded in doing that, so the Greens might want to examine that in relation to their motion's veracity.

I disagree a wee bit with some of what Wendy Alexander said. Fairly substantial progress has been made on developing better management of the economy in the direction of sustainability. I highlight the green jobs strategy, to which the Labour amendment refers. That strategy has been broadly welcomed by many who are involved in progressing a green agenda in its broadest, non-political sense—most recently the Sustainable Development Commission—as a good example of what can be done by bending economic policy to deliver more sustainable jobs, better initiatives for matters such as recycling and waste management and a better focus on making the best of the new tasks that we must undertake to improve our performance on climate change, recycling and other measures. I am talking about practical steps that the Executive has taken to deliver meaningful progress that will benefit the whole of Scotland—urban Scotland and rural Scotland. Taking a Scotland-wide pragmatic approach is important.

It seems to me that there are two levels of debate. There is a catcalling debate in which people shout about the general, broad principles of achieving growth. The Greens do not have a sensible case at that level. My constituents require jobs, and they now have more jobs than they had in the past. We must ensure in our economic strategy that employment is maintained and improved. There is also the micro approach. In creating the kind of jobs and the type of strategy that we want, we must be more friendly towards, and aware of, the possibilities of wave power, alternative energy sources, solar energy and the other forms of technology that will be required and will result in increasing economic benefits for the future.

Those are the practical steps that we must take, but they must be linked not to a messianic approach that says that there must be no growth, but to the pragmatic delivery of economic growth. We know that delivery of growth is associated with a series of social benefits, such as health improvement, better education and better services and support for our young people. All those things depend on growth, but balance is needed in our drive to achieve that growth. We need to be aware of green issues and to progress the green agenda, but we should not be driven by the wrong green approach, which can sometimes be seen in the statements of Green politicians.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When I first read the motion, I wondered why it was needed. The Liberal Democrats do not believe in total reliance on the GDP. Our manifesto states:

"Gross Domestic Product as a measure on its own does not convey the full impact on the wealth and quality of life of economic activity and, in particular, ignores the environmental degradation caused by some activities. Government measures must address this."

The coalition has proposed policies that take in the wider picture because we recognise that. The minister and Des McNulty mentioned the green jobs strategy, renewable energy targets and recycling improvements. We have spent money on policies that cut into economic deprivation and social disparity. All those policies have been implemented without deflecting from improving the GDP. There is not an either/or situation, but a GDP plus position.

Shiona Baird said that we need a measure, but I can see Scotland sinking under measures. I suggest that we have enough measures. Jim Mather may not wear a hair shirt—he referred to Scotland wearing a hair shirt for 30 years—but his general pessimism about the economy must mean that he wears a scratchy semmit at least.

Murdo Fraser, in speaking to his amendment, seemed to be totally obsessed with the GDP, which reinforces the view that the Tories may claim to know the cost of everything, but they singularly fail to recognise the value of wider objectives.

I thank Jamie Stone—who is not in the chamber at the moment—for raising the debate from the abstract and discussing the practicalities relating to where the country is. By playing to its strengths, the country can raise its GDP and achieve wider objectives.

Like Wendy Alexander, I read the Greens' manifesto—I did so at 7 o'clock and assure members that it is equally scary at that time of day—which should carry a warning that it might damage the country's wealth. If the policies and statements in the manifesto were to be carried through, that would seriously knock the Scottish economy. I will refer to three of those policies; the manifesto states that there would be a rise in fuel tax

"to reflect the real cost of transporting goods",

that the Greens would phase out nuclear power stations at the earliest opportunity and that they would halt completely all major trunk road building in Scotland. What would such policies do other than knock the economy? Perhaps the Greens want to move away from using the GDP because such policies would adversely affect it.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Does the member understand that, as we heard in the debate in the chamber yesterday afternoon, to tackle climate change we must change our transport policy away from a reliance on polluting fossil fuels and that we must reflect on the real cost of using fossil fuels? We must recognise that high fuel taxes and high fuel prices are here to stay and make the transition to sustainable transport.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mark Ballard has one advantage over me—he was a member of the Parliament before I was. However, I have picked up the fact that the coalition has been investing in wider public transport initiatives, which is how we are progressing our transport policy. Those initiatives are part of our sustainable policies. We are having the debate because the Greens are frightened of the GDP as a measure and they want a more woolly, greeny measure in place.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Once again, the debate is too short for the problems of Scotland's economic policies to be explored fully. We heard Mark Ruskell speak eloquently in support of the motion, but the Conservatives think that he rather misses the point about the GDP. It is not unreasonable to argue—as Mark Ruskell has done—that economic activity and output are an insufficient yardstick by which to measure our country's success or failure in its broadest sense. However, it is a fundamental yardstick, however crude, which is widely understood and allows comparisons with other countries and economies. Currently, those comparisons are less than flattering for Scotland, as the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, has admitted.

We can all talk about add-ons that are desirable in themselves, such as sustainability and social justice—as Shiona Baird and Linda Fabiani did—but they are deliverable only after taxes have been gathered and a certain level of GDP has been attained. To put things simply, we must first create a strong economy that delivers a level of taxation that allows us to provide better public services for the Scottish people, but as Jim Mather said, we are not doing that. Indeed, our quality of life has been damaged by the lack of growth in the Scottish economy. That is a problem not of the Green party's making, but of the Scottish Executive's making.

Murdo Fraser alluded to the intolerable burden of business rates. The Conservatives have constantly drawn that matter to the Parliament's attention over the past five years. Business rates are about to be abolished by Jack McConnell, who opposed doing so, but we all want to know when that will happen. The tax has not only cost our business communities £838 million since it was imposed, but it has almost certainly discouraged many potential investors from locating and investing in Scotland. Businessmen are risk takers, but they like to be made welcome and to feel welcome in the communities in which they seek to invest. It is regrettable that Scotland is not perceived as welcoming at the moment. All other things being equal, businessmen will not knowingly put themselves at a disadvantage by locating in an area in which it is difficult to do business. Sadly, Scotland falls into that category.

It has been alleged that the First Minister regards our leading businessmen and entrepreneurs as idiots. That is unhelpful, to say the least. If he did not call them idiots, he should say so. In addition, water charges on businesses are now so high that I am aware of several businesses that are under severe pressure as a result. It is simply not reasonable for our aged and decrepit water and sewerage infrastructure to be rebuilt off the back of Scottish businesses, and the business community certainly resents that being done. In particular, it resents being overcharged by £44 million per year, which the Executive has recently admitted has happened. The poor quality of the water and sewerage infrastructure to which I refer also acts as a brake on business development.

Transport links in Scotland are poorer than in other areas. The Institute of Directors recently described our transport network as a "national disgrace" and a "major drag on business". However, I must welcome the completion of the M77 upgrade and the dramatic impact that that will have on the Ayrshire economy—I am certain that it will have such an impact.

It is important that the Parliament supports business development in every way that it can. The Parliament must shake off the perception that it is not business friendly and, in that respect, actions speak louder than words. We must appreciate that wealth creation must precede wealth redistribution and foster a climate that welcomes and understands the business community and its needs. As a result, I urge members to support the Conservative amendment.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

In recent times we have heard a great deal of the blood-curdling phrase, "Scotland is the best wee country in the world". To a large extent, this debate is about how we judge whether Scotland is the best wee country in the world.

I find it difficult to believe that we are the best wee country in the world when we have the highest rate of violence in the developed world. I find it difficult to believe that we are the best wee country in the world when the Executive brags that 25 per cent of our children live in poverty and that one-third of our pensioners live on or near the breadline, when 300,000 people in Scotland are, for one reason or another, economically inactive and when we have one of the lowest gross domestic product growth rates in the UK and in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It beats me how anyone can look at those statistics and conclude that we are the best wee country in the world. It seems to me that it is not Janette Anderson and Ian Graham who are the idiots; it is those who see those statistics and describe Scotland as the best wee country in the world.

I accept the Greens' argument that GDP is not the only measure of success. As Linda Fabiani pointed out, the annual UN human development index, which takes many factors into account, is a very good measure of economic performance and social well-being. If the Greens and others consider the countries that are at the top of the UN human development index, they will see that the same countries are at the top of the league for GDP growth and GDP per head. Conversely, the countries at the bottom end of the UN human development index tend to have lowest growth and GDP per head.

That tells me that there is a strong correlation between GDP growth, with all its flaws, and general human well-being. It is no accident that the countries that are at the top of the GDP league and the human development index have several common features. The first common feature is high investment in their economies; on average they invest 20 per cent of their GDP in their economy in education, health, manufacturing and other services. Secondly, most of them strive for full employment. Thirdly, they have far fairer societies. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Austria have 2 per cent child poverty, not 25 per cent. There is a definite correlation with GDP. I agree with the Greens' criticism of using GDP as the only measure, but it is an indicator or proxy for social as well as economic well-being.

I have no time to develop my argument, but I will say this: had we access to the oil in the same way as Alberta and other places do, we would be top of the league instead of bottom. We could then say that we were one of the best—one of the best—wee countries in the world.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I would like to take the route that was set for the debate by my colleague—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

He has forgotten his name.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Des McNulty. Des McNulty. I repeat it for anyone who failed to grasp the significance of what I said. Growing the economy is not just about statistical indicators going in the right direction. As Des McNulty said, it is about real people, jobs, businesses and ensuring that our actions in the chamber enable future generations to enjoy the best possible quality of life. Des McNulty articulated that today.

I do not disagree with what Alex Neil said about GDP as an indicator. It is easy to argue, as Mark Ruskell did, that GDP alone is not a comprehensive measure of a nation's prosperity because it does not measure the environmental and social changes that are associated with production. However, as Alex Neil said, no one has yet developed a better indicator that is universally accepted as the new standard. GDP is an internationally recognised measure and a GDP figure is produced by all OECD member countries. It therefore allows the level of activity of Scotland's economy to be compared with other developed countries.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that knowing whether the well-being and welfare of our poorest people is increasing is more important than simply comparing ourselves with another country in the world?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I do; that is a point that others have made. In fact, from the Greens' perspective, I would have thought that it would be worrying that the point was made by Tommy Sheridan on their behalf. Economic growth is central to delivery of public services and social justice. That is the real dividing line between us. The Greens believe in environmental protection and environmental justice, but their policies on economic growth would lead us into an economic wilderness that would deny us the social justice and public services that we seek. Tommy Sheridan made that point and Des McNulty answered it. If the Greens want to go in the same direction as Tommy Sheridan's socialist party in popular opinion, they should follow his advice. If they do, that is where they will end up.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I invite the minister to confirm that it is not just the Greens and the SSP that support nationalisation of the railway network: the Labour Party does, too.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I believe in a mixed economy. There is a place for public sector ownership of our utilities in certain circumstances. I supported the revision of clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution because I do not believe that all the means of production, control, distribution and exchange should be in the public sector. I believe that that is one of the reasons why Tommy Sheridan is no longer in the Labour Party.

Wendy Alexander deprecated the fact that we had not got down to discussing sustainable development more generally, and that we had got into a sterile debate on statistics. I blame my Opposition colleagues for that. Every time I get up and try to debate the economy, I am confronted with one statistic or another that has usually been plucked from a small European country that the Opposition likes to compare us with while ignoring all the other statistics that are relevant to that country.

The Greens did that again today, so I remind them of my advice to them. They picked one sustainable development indicator—renewable energy—and pointed out that it was going in the wrong direction. However, it is doing so because the proportion of renewable energy that we sourced from hydro power in the year in question had reduced because there had been a reduction in precipitation during that year. In other words, there had been less rain and snow. Hydroelectricity generation fluctuates in direct proportion to the prevalence of snow or rain in our climate. Although I can do a lot in this chamber and Alex Neil might claim that independence is the solution to all our problems, not even he could claim that the Government can influence the amount of precipitation in our climate.

Our trend for energy generation is on target to allow us to fulfil our objective of providing 18 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2010 and to meet our ambitious target of providing 40 per cent from renewable sources by 2020. Members must look at the overall picture rather than pick out individual statistics to suit their arguments.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I am pleased to be able to close this interesting debate, which is the first Green party debate on the economic future of Scotland. What more important thing can the Parliament do than hold the Executive to account on its top priority of increasing GDP, and on why it chose that as the top priority?

There has been wide recognition that GDP is a poor measure for assessing how well Scotland is doing. Murdo Fraser acknowledged much of the truth of the opening remarks of my colleague, Mark Ruskell, and Jim Mather highlighted some important things that GDP does not measure. Jamie Stone went so far as to say that crofters in his constituency need no statistics to know how well how they are doing and Tommy Sheridan issued an excellent clarion call on the need for Government priorities that put people before profit.

The debate has been filled with interesting tangents. I agree completely with Jim Mather on the need for an office for national statistics because if discussion of GDP or any other statistic is not to be futile, we need a firm basis for calculation of statistics.

Along with the rest of my Green colleagues, I was struck by Wendy Alexander's biblical analogies, which reminded us of our long history of care for other humans and care for the environment. Like her, I was a member of the Labour Party in the 1980s because I wanted to make a real difference to people's lives, to improve the lives of the many and to improve the environment; unlike her, I have stayed true to that vision.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the member take an intervention.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Wendy Alexander's second point—she will probably want to intervene again after I say this—was that trade is always good. However, like GDP, raw trade figures are purely a measure of cash flow, but do not tell us much about whether what is happening is positive or negative. The assumption that trade is always good is based on a purely economic vision of society that does not include the wider social and environmental impacts of trade. Rather than say that trade is good or trade is bad, we need to support positive trade. We need fair trade, not unfair trade.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The policy position of the Green party is that trade is bad. Given that two thirds of this nation's wealth is dependent on trade with other nations, should not the Greens move forward and learn the lesson that trade rather than aid is, as all of history shows, the way in which peoples of all countries prosper?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

We want fair trade, not unfair trade. We do not want the World Trade Organisation, which biases world trade in favour of rich countries and multinationals. I support fair trade; I will always oppose unfair trade.

Jamie Stone asked me to clarify in my summing up the difference between renewable energy generation and energy generation that is based on finite resources such as uranium or fossil fuels. The difference is clear: the latter depletes our natural capital, such as our declining stock of oil in the North sea, whereas the former does not. However, that key recognition is not included in measurements of GDP.

Andrew Arbuckle explained that his party's policy is quite similar to that of our motion, as his party has strong criticisms of GDP. However, when such policies are applied to Scotland or come from the Scottish Green Party, it seems that the Liberal Democrats think that they are woolly nonsense. That is a classic example of how the Liberal Democrats tell one story south of the border but, when they are actually in power, all their policies go out of the window.

Unfortunately, we heard some of the same old attacks that are repeated whenever we question whether GDP should be the number 1 priority. A classic example was given by Des McNulty, who said that the Greens are against growth. I remind Parliament that it is not how big it is, but what we do with it that matters. As Mark Ruskell argued, the key is to discuss the quality of economic development, not merely the quantity. It makes no sense to want growth for its own sake, so we should quantify what growth we want. It would be as daft to say—as the Scottish Executive does—that we are always for growth as it would be to argue that we are always against growth. We should measure the things that matter, such as progress and positive development, rather than simply GDP.

A slightly more sophisticated argument was advanced by, among others, Murdo Fraser and Allan Wilson. They said that growth is necessary for providing the job opportunities that will help the poor out of poverty and for producing the revenue to pay for environmental protection. However, that assumes that there is no contradiction between growth and the other objectives. We should remember that GDP does not take account of natural capital depletion, rising levels of poverty, income inequality or regional disparities.

Mark Ruskell pointed out in his opening speech that GDP increases can be obtained from activities that impose much larger environmental costs than any revenue benefits that they might produce. Members need only ask any community that has been blighted by opencast mining whether the limited number of jobs are worth the noise, pollution and disruption. Des McNulty mentioned the Executive's green jobs strategy. That is all very well, but where is its ungreen jobs strategy? Where is the Executive's strategy for dealing with jobs in the polluting industries that have a negative total impact on Scotland?

It is possible for GDP increases to increase regional disparities. For example, we can have overheating in Edinburgh or Inverness to the detriment of the rest of the country. Such overheating is not measured by GDP, but it can lead to wider social problems and affect housing costs and transport infrastructure. GDP tells us nothing about that. It is also possible to achieve GDP increases that serve to widen economic disparities. As Shiona Baird pointed out, GDP increases can mean that the rich get richer while the poor stay poor. As we have seen in Louisiana, the USA's relatively high level of GDP hides a huge array of income disparities.

Let us measure what matters. We should use some of the sophisticated new tools that are available for measuring how society is doing. Like Wales, we should investigate indexes of sustainable welfare. If we want a strong economy, a strong society and a healthy environment, we must measure what matters and end our obsession with GDP.

Asylum Seekers (Children)

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3323, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on children of asylum seekers.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Today, we bring the debate about children of asylum seekers to the attention of Parliament. This is an appeal to all members to express their concern about how children in Scotland are being treated by the United Kingdom Government. We welcome this morning's news that the First Minister will at last stand up to the Home Office. What he said had a remarkably serendipitous congruence with the subject of today's debate.

Members from almost all parties—Labour, the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Scottish Green Party—as well as the independents have recently signed motions in the names of Patrick Harvie and Bill Butler on the scandalous treatment of children during their removal and deportation from Scotland. I am happy to acknowledge that the SNP and Executive amendments are very much in the spirit of our motion.

Today's debate raises the issue of how we treat children, which should be a matter of concern to us all. What treatment of children we tolerate is an ethical issue that transcends party-political boundaries. The welfare of children in this country is too precious an issue to be left simply to party politics. However, political will is required, so the Scottish Parliament must take a stand and voice its concern.

Dawn raids by large numbers of immigration officers and police in body armour seem to be becoming standard practice during removal of vulnerable families with children. Immigration officers in bullet-proof vests waken children in their beds. Parents are handcuffed in front of their children and families are removed by van, on long journeys to detention centres that are prisons in everything but name. That is a traumatic experience.

In the recent case of the Vucaj family from Drumchapel, it was reported that 16 immigration officers kicked in the family's front door at 6 o'clock in the morning and that the children's father was handcuffed in front of them. It was also reported that a family member under the age of 18—a child under the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—was handcuffed. Eye-witnesses said that the children were still in their pyjamas as they left. How can we begin to imagine the fear and distress that that caused the Vucaj family?

Outwith politics, people in civic society have brought the matter to the attention of politicians in the Scottish Parliament and elsewhere. Kathleen Marshall, Scotland's commissioner for children and young people, has described such practices as terrorising vulnerable families and has called their treatment "inhumane". Scottish children are voicing concern about and taking action against deportations. Hundreds of pupils from Drumchapel High School—some of whom are present today, with support from their teachers—have organised petitions opposing the deportation of their classmates and school friends. What must it be like to go to school one day to find that one's friend has just disappeared? Teachers have described the impact of that as being almost as serious as the impact of a bereavement in the school community. From public bodies to children's organisations and school friends, there is recognition that scandalous immigration practices are causing trauma and distress, and that they blatantly disregard children's rights.

When Scottish society expresses such profound concern, it is right to expect the Scottish Parliament to do likewise. It is right that we should debate this issue in Parliament today. Parties across the political spectrum take different positions on the UK asylum and immigration policy. The Greens regard the present system as a disgrace.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does Robin Harper agree that the intervention of the schoolchildren in Drumchapel has shamed political leaders in Scotland and that those children have shown much more compassion than the people in positions of power?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

It is entirely wonderful that the children in Drumchapel took the actions that they did. I am certain that, as Tommy Sheridan says, those actions have had the desired effect—at least, the beginnings of the desired effect.

Clearly, as a result of UK policy, more and more families are being subjected to inhumane treatment. In that policy, there is little focus on the rights and needs of children and it is nowhere near being consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We recognise that in the devolved context the Scottish Executive has no direct responsibility for operation of the asylum and immigration system. However, it has responsibility for the welfare of children, for schools and for working with the UK Government to report on compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In its amendment, the Executive clearly acknowledges those three responsibilities.

The matter that we bring to Parliament today is undoubtedly related to the welfare of children in Scotland, so exactly when does the Scottish Executive acknowledge responsibility? When does its responsibility towards vulnerable children end? Is it when the asylum decision is made? Is it when there is a knock on the door at dawn? Is it when the door is kicked in? Is it when the handcuffs are on? Is it when children are being dragged from their home in their pyjamas? At what stage does the Executive hand over the welfare of those children to the UK Government? Does it believe that it is handing it over to people who respect the children's rights and their own responsibilities under the UNCRC? At some stage in the process, the Executive clearly hands over responsibility to the UK Government. When is that?

The Scottish Parliament has a responsibility here. The Executive has made it clear in its legislative programme that one of its future priorities

"is the need to protect the most vulnerable in our society."—[Official Report, 7 September 2005; c 18882.]

The First Minister placed children at the top of the programme and made a commitment to

"ensure that no child is left behind or held back"—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18773.]

All children in Scotland deserve that commitment from the First Minister. We should not and surely cannot pick and choose which vulnerable children to protect. I urge the Executive to pull out all the stops to ensure that we provide full and proper protection for all vulnerable children living in Scotland, especially the vulnerable children of asylum seekers.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges the trauma experienced by the children of asylum seekers when families are removed for deportation and the impact this has on school communities; believes that practices such as those reportedly used against the Vucaj family in Glasgow, including dawn raids, handcuffing of children and the removal of children by large groups of officers in uniform and body armour, are unnecessary and cause fear and distress to the children concerned; affirms its support for the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which states that governments should protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence; recognises that, while the Scottish Executive has no direct responsibility for the operation of the asylum and immigration system, it is responsible for the welfare of children, for schools and for working with the UK Government to report on compliance with the UNCRC; commends the First Minister for his aspiration "to ensure that no child is left behind or held back", and calls on him to give the greatest possible urgency to realising that aspiration for the most vulnerable children in Scotland who include those facing detention and removal.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am very pleased that in this important debate there is an Executive amendment that can be supported with considerable enthusiasm by both Liberal Democrat and Labour back-bench colleagues. It is a mark of the growing maturity of the Parliament that we are able to debate issues of this nature, which are very much on the reserved-devolved divide, and to do so in a confident and responsible manner. Colleagues will be aware, given my previous convenership of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on human rights, that the issue is very close to my heart.

As Robin Harper suggested, no cause is more central to the vision of the Scottish Executive and Parliament than the creation of opportunity for our children and young people to fulfil their potential in life. Day by day on our television screens, we see graphic pictures of horror and suffering from around the world, many involving children. Many members took part in the make poverty history march through Edinburgh on 2 July. Some of us, including me, have demonstrated at Dungavel. Our motivation stemmed in large part from natural and proper concerns for children—children who, with a different throw of life's dice, could have been our own children. Those children have been caught up in issues over which they have no control and which are often caused by catastrophic world conflicts that lead to huge movements of people around the globe.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I, too, welcome the initiative that the Executive has taken in lodging its amendment. However, I plead for additional lobbying of the Home Secretary regarding the possibility that children of Iraqis are to be sent back with their families to Iraq at a time when the websites of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights say that Iraq is an unsafe country. Can we keep them here until the country has become safe?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I will come to that point in due course.

It is entirely right that we debate the highly emotive issues of immigration and asylum, and that we do so against the background of the framework of human rights that is provided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and of international treaties on refugees. However, let us be clear about the context legally, constitutionally and democratically.

Parliament and the Scottish Executive have clear responsibilities under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. We have responsibility for provision of services to dispersed asylum seekers and to refugees, and for their integration into our society. We are responsible for ensuring that asylum seekers' stay in Scotland is as beneficial as possible to them and to communities and that, where their cases are successful, they can move into employment and fully participate in Scottish life. There is general recognition that the Scottish Executive has done that with great success and sensitivity. Our one Scotland ethos is working. It is clear that the children of asylum seekers have integrated exceptionally well during their time in Scotland, and we should be proud of that. It is not just a positive experience for the asylum seekers, but an enriching one for the other children in the schools that asylum seekers' children attend, and for their teachers.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions because of the limited time that is available to me.

We have commissioned research, which is due for completion in 2006, to examine the experiences of the children of asylum seekers in our schools and to identify examples of good practice to be shared among education authorities. Recently, we produced an education guide for asylum seekers and refugees, which is available in all community languages and informs them of what to expect on arrival, how to prepare and where support and assistance can be obtained. Such initiatives are within the Scottish Executive's responsibilities and are a good example of what we can do to ensure that asylum seekers' children have the best possible experience in schools in Scotland. Robin Harper was right to talk about the views of classmates at Drumchapel High School in that context.

However, the responsibility for immigration and asylum policy, and for any changes which should be made, lies clearly with Westminster. This is not a legal or constitutional quibble: it is a basic issue of accountability and democracy. United Kingdom ministers are responsible for and accountable for the policies and official actions in the area. Scottish Ministers are not, and it makes a travesty of the home-rule settlement that was approved so overwhelmingly by the Scottish people in the referendum of 1997 to try to suggest otherwise. That does not mean that the Executive is gagged on matters of asylum and immigration, particularly where children are affected. There is on-going dialogue with the Home Office at official and ministerial levels, which we must keep open and uninhibited and which works to the benefit of those who are affected. There is a responsibility on everyone involved—particularly the Home Office, which determines and runs the system—to lessen the effects of decisions on children.

Equally, I believe that throughout this Parliament there is a belief that, in the vast majority of cases, failed asylum seeker families do not pose either a security threat or a serious risk of flight. Many of us also have serious concerns about reports of the way in which some removals are carried out. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I am determined that in every case that involves children we will ensure that the Home Office works closely with services for children and young people prior to removal of the family. We will convey the concerns that are expressed in today's debate to the responsible ministers in London.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am sorry, but the minister is winding up.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The Executive amendment is intended to be one around which Parliament can unite: it is practical, helpful and focuses not on tendentious or headline-seeking rhetoric, but on areas in which the Scottish Parliament and the Executive have a legitimate interest and can expect to make a difference. I very much hope, in the spirit that Robin Harper moved the motion, that the Parliament will support the Executive amendment.

I move amendment S2M-3323.2, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"affirms its support for the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which states that governments should protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence; recognises that, while the Scottish Executive has no direct responsibility for the operation of the immigration and asylum system, it is responsible for the welfare of children, for schools, and for working with the UK Government to report on compliance with the UNCRC; commends the substantial work done in Scotland to ensure the effective education and inclusion of the children of asylum seekers; believes that, in the vast majority of cases, failed asylum seeker families do not pose either a security threat or a serious risk of flight; calls on Scottish ministers to give the greatest possible urgency to realising their aspirations for the most vulnerable children in Scotland, including those facing detention and removal, and urges them to continue discussions with the Home Office with a view to agreement that the Home Office will work closely with services for children and young people before the removal of any family and to convey to the Home Office the widespread concerns about practices such as so-called 'dawn raids', handcuffing of children, and the removal of children by large groups of officers in uniform and body armour."

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will speak to the SNP amendment, but also in support of the motion.

I note the terms of the Executive's amendment and have heard what the Executive has had to say on the matter—it is ridiculous. The Parliament has been debating the issue for years and it would be ridiculous to go overboard about a last-minute Jack fix-it. These people have been suffering for years. The issue has been debated over and over in the chamber and it is ridiculous to expect Parliament to welcome, in the words of its amendment, the Executive acting with "the greatest possible urgency". What has been happening for all these years? The Executive's amendment urges ministers to continue discussions on a protocol. Come on—let us get into the real world and what has been happening to families day-in, day-out in Scotland and elsewhere, which Robin Harper graphically described. The Executive's amendment is a fix-it that is too late.

The motion raises two issues that require to be addressed. The first is the morality of the deportation of asylum seekers in the first place when their application fails under a very harsh UK regime that makes dubious decisions about whether people will be penalised or victimised for their political views when they return. The second issue is that the regime distinguishes between asylum seekers and economic refugees. That is done in a country that has had more people go abroad as economic migrants than any other in the world: more than 5 million people of Scots descent are elsewhere. This is a different nation with different priorities and a different history.

How does that regime square with Jack McConnell's speech to the Parliament on the fresh talent initiative? He said:

"By 2009, Scotland's population will fall below the symbolic 5 million level. By 2027, there could be ... a quarter of a million fewer people of working age in Scotland. ... Population decline is serious."—[Official Report, 25 February 2004; c 5940.]

These people have children who are at school here, would go on to university here and would work here. They are the very people whom we need. I cannot see how the current regime squares with the First Minister's so-called obligation to the fresh talent initiative.

Robin Harper referred to the treatment of asylum seekers. Issues have arisen previously. The commissioner for children and young people stamps her feet and shouts. She is a wonderful woman, but she is toothless on the issue. She has no powers to do anything, although she has asked for such powers. I ask the Parliament to re-examine the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003 to investigate what powers we could give to that wonderful person who is trying to champion the rights of children.

The same situation occurs with respect to the role of the reporter to the children's panel. My amendment refers both to the commissioner for children and young people and to the reporter to the children's panel. I have had a lot of communication about the matter because, through the freedom of information legislation, I found out about a case in which six children had been deported from Scotland while they were subject to an investigation by the reporter to the children's panel. When I asked ministers how that had happened, there was confusion all round. I received letters from Peter Peacock and Malcolm Chisholm. I also received answers from Wendy Alexander and from the First Minister, but nobody could explain to me why children who were under investigation by the reporter to the children's panel were deported before the investigations had been concluded. Those children had been subject to reservations under various sections of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which took into account the fact that they were

"likely ... to suffer unnecessarily; or ... be impaired seriously in ... health or development, due to a lack of parental care"

or were

"likely to become, a member of the same household as a person in respect of whom an offence"

has been committed. The offence that is referred to is sexual offences against the children. Those children were sent back with the same people while the case was under investigation. What did the ministers here know about that? Nothing, because London paid no attention to the jurisdiction of the reporter to the children's panel and it pays no attention to what the commissioner for children and young people has to say. It will also pay no attention to the Executive's wishy-washy amendment.

I move amendment S2M-3323.1, to insert at end:

"and, separately, calls on the UK Government to give due regard to the different child protection measures in Scotland, in particular the remit of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the jurisdiction of the Reporter to the Children's Panel."

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have chosen not to speak about details of the experiences of the families mentioned in the Green party's motion; instead, I will keep to the general issues.

We will support the Executive's amendment as we feel that it addresses the real problems that are faced by asylum seekers and their families in Scotland. We will look for action in the fullness of time, not only promises.

We support the condemnation of

"so-called 'dawn raids', handcuffing of children, and the removal of children by large groups of officers in uniform and body armour."

Although that approach may be appropriate for other police operations, it certainly cannot be justified when, as Robert Brown has said, there is no security threat or serious risk of absconding. Although immigration is reserved to the Westminster Government, we in this Parliament should fully embrace and accept our responsibilities towards children and families in Scotland in respect of child protection, welfare and education.

It is surely a matter of concern that the recent report by HM chief inspector of prisons expressed disappointment that the previous recommendation that there should be independent assessments of the welfare of children at Dungavel had not been implemented. The report was based on an unannounced inspection of Dungavel in December last year. Although the report commends some progress at the centre, it highlights the need for urgent remedial action on health care. It may be more difficult to provide appropriate educational provision for all children, particularly those who stay for a short period, but the provision of health care and vaccine protection is essential.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It might be of interest to Mary Scanlon and to the Parliament to know that the Home Office policy since December 2004, subsequent to that inspection, has been that families should not normally be detained at Dungavel for more than 72 hours. Welfare assessment protocols are in place with South Lanarkshire Council for any child who may be detained for longer than 21 days. On 15 September 2005, there were no children detained at Dungavel, as was the case when I visited Dungavel in the spring.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that interesting information.

For educational provision, the extent and appropriateness of addressing a child's unique needs must depend on the length of detention. The inspection report states:

"The learning provision for children was deficient and required urgent attention."

Perhaps events have overtaken the report, but it is worth quoting because action was not taken as recommended.

The report also recommended that there should be

"an effective system for assessing and recording children's educational achievements, and for exchanging information with schools."

I hope that action will be taken.

I highlight the need for child protection training and enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks for staff who are in contact with children at Dungavel. I seek an assurance from the minister that appropriate action has been taken.

The fact that families stay so long in centres such as Dungavel is indicative of the chaos that the current Government has created within our immigration system. Instead of offering a safe haven to those who are most in need, the current system appears to have increased illegality. Desperate individuals have been forced into the hands of people smugglers and, when they reach Britain, they are open to exploitation in the underground economy. However, as the real and responsible Opposition party in the chamber, we welcome the Executive's response and the action that it has today stated it will take. We will support the Executive's amendment.

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

In the debate on asylum seekers in the Parliament in September 2003, my friend Robert Brown said:

"This is an important parliamentary occasion in which what we say in the chamber can enhance or diminish the Scottish Parliament."—[Official Report, 11 September 2003, c 1591.]

I hope that many members will agree that Robert Brown's motion that day, which allowed parties to coalesce around it, should be commended, as should his approach to the subject. The way in which the Parliament responds to sensitive, complex and emotive ethical and moral issues always presents a test for us.

In an island country with no internal controls on movement across the border between Scotland and England, it is sensible that immigration and asylum matters are reserved to the UK Government. It is not the job of the Scottish Parliament to review the asylum and immigration policy of the UK Government, but we have a constitutional right to debate and speak up for Scotland. The context in which I will express my views and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues is one in which far too many people are detained unnecessarily and for far too long in removal centres. There are many alternatives to detention, including the use of tagging or voice recognition and the requirement to report daily to a police station.

Although I support the Executive's amendment, which strikes the correct balance between establishing principles and recognising the work of the devolved Government, and although progress has been made this year on detention centres, I hold to the view that, where children are detained without limit of time at Dungavel or at Harmondsworth, Oakington and Tinsley immigration removal centres in England, they are held in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by the UK Government but from which it has a reservation on immigration matters.

The convention decreed that

"childhood is entitled to special care and assistance"

and that the child

"should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding".

Article 3 of the convention states:

"the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

In the past, as Robert Brown said, the Executive parties lodged separate motions and amendments on subjects like this. I am pleased that the Executive's position today is more robust. It is explicit in setting out our international obligations and representing the basic tenets of the Liberal Democrat approach.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

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

I hope that the member will forgive me, but I have only four minutes. Our time is limited this morning.

Liberal Democrats across the United Kingdom have argued consistently that children should not be held in removal centres that are designed only for adults, as those centres are inappropriate for children. We have reports from HM chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales, HM inspectorate of probation and HM chief inspector of prisons for Scotland. Only last month, we had a savage report on the holding centres at Dover, Gatwick and London city, which stated that those centres were inadequate. We have supported the use of other measures when families are removed from the United Kingdom. However, it is insufficient as much as it is ineffectual in ensuring that the rights of children are protected that the Home Office's current practices are continuing.

Within the broad framework of the commitments that were made in the partnership agreement to aid the integration of refugees, services in devolved areas such as language training, community integration, health care and education are provided. Inevitably, when those services are effective and children are integrated into the community—as can be argued in the case of the Vucaj family—it is harder for a family when a judgment is made that they should return to their home country. At each step of the way, it is incumbent on all Government agencies to approach asylum and immigration controls in a humane way and to have more accurate and reliable information. Equally, it is incumbent on the immigration service and the Home Office to recognise the deep concerns of the Scottish Parliament on the issue.

The issue is not an easy one; it is not a black-and-white one that can be solved straight away.

Currently, nearly 6,000 asylum seekers are living in Glasgow. The issue is not a small one nor is it easy to address. The Executive's amendment, around which I hope the Parliament will coalesce, sends out the right signals from the Parliament that the interests of the child are at the centre of all our policies.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I call Dr Elaine Murray. I apologise for not calling you earlier, Dr Murray. You have four minutes.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Thank you, Presiding Officer; your apology is accepted. I am also grateful to "Good Morning Scotland" for advising me this morning of the Executive's policy on the issue. I was pleased to hear it. When I read through the Green party motion, I did not find a great deal in it with which I could disagree. I, too, was shocked to hear the report on the way in which the Vucaj family were removed from their home in Glasgow—a move that involved an 18-year-old young man being handcuffed as if he were a violent criminal and his 13-year-old sister being removed in her pyjamas.

As soon as I became aware of it, I signed Bill Butler's motion on the subject. I also congratulate the schoolchildren who supported the family in the way that they did. If the reports are correct—and there has been no real denial—the officials who carried out the operation did not act in accordance with the statement on the removal of failed asylum seekers that a Home Office spokesperson made, which I found on the BBC website. The statement said:

"This is always done in the most sensitive way possible, treating those being removed with courtesy and dignity."

Clearly, that did not happen in this case and the failure to do so should be investigated. Advice and guidance should be issued on how to deal appropriately with families whose asylum application has been refused.

However, we need to acknowledge that most people in this country believe in controlled immigration and asylum policies. I get far more representations from constituents who think, mistakenly, that we are too soft on asylum and immigration than I do from people who are concerned that we are too tough. Unfortunately, asylum seekers are often exposed to prejudice and racism. Often, that is fuelled by inaccurate reporting in the section of the press that tends to be of the more conservative disposition. If the UK does not have an open-doors policy—for which, as I said, there is little support in this country—we have to find a suitable mechanism to deal with cases where asylum is refused.

We also have to recognise that, as some asylum seekers have been in this country for many years, the circumstances in their country of origin may have changed and may now be safe. However, the memories of the asylum seekers will be of the country as it was when they left. They may need reassurance—perhaps from the consulate of their country of origin—that things have changed. They may also need some form of assistance and counselling.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry, but I do not have much time. I would give way if I could.

Four and a half years ago, I removed my children from their school in Prestwick to a school down in Dumfries. My two younger children were distraught beyond my expectations about having to leave their school friends and move 60 miles away from their home. Imagine the situation of the child of an asylum seeker who may have been in Scotland for many years. They will have been educated in this country and have little memory of the schooling and other aspects of the country from which they came. They will also have become used to speaking in English with their school friends, yet they will be sent back to a country where they do not speak the language. They will probably never see their Scottish friends again and may completely lose contact with them. People in those sorts of circumstances need to be treated with understanding, sensitivity, compassion and support and not with handcuffs or body armour.

On "Good Morning Scotland", Patrick Harvie asked when the UK Government takes responsibility, as did Robin Harper in the chamber. The Government takes responsibility at the time at which the asylum application is refused. I believe that Scottish Executive agencies have an important role to play in supporting those families as they prepare for their return to their country of origin. We need to focus on the ways in which we can help and support those families. We do not accept that people should be thrown out of the country as if they are criminals.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The tone of the debate was set by Robin Harper who, in an eloquent speech, spoke about the fundamentals of the subject. The fundamental aspect of the debate is about the fundamental values that define our society and transcend religion and party politics, which those of us in the fortunate and privileged position of having been elected to the chamber have a duty to uphold.

At the moment, it is de rigueur to be critical of the United States of America. Indeed, I have taken part in debates in which I have criticised the actions of the US Government. However, one has only to look at the constitution of the United States to realise that its founding fathers got many things right. One of the things that they got right is that some matters are self-evidently true. Some values are simply self-evident; they transcend moral codes—whether the one on the tablets that Moses brought down or others—and are self-evident to mankind. Some things are simply right and other things are simply wrong.

We live in a democracy and civic society through which the rule of law permeates. In a just society, what is important is how we treat not just the powerful and the rich but the weak and the powerless. Fundamentally, the debate is about the values of our society. It is about how we wish to define ourselves and how we wish to be seen by others. Frankly, I think that the situation is shameful. I do not wish to go into immigration policy or the particular circumstances in detail—they have been enunciated much more eloquently by others—but what took place and is taking place in Glasgow is shameful.

The Executive's position is untenable. I was happy to march with Robert Brown under the banner "Not in our name" when we were opposing what was self-evidently wrong—a war in Iraq without backing from the United Nations. What is happening to asylum-seeking families should not take place in our name. The fact that what is happening is fundamentally morally wrong and against the creeds and codes of all in society has not changed; the only thing that has changed is that Robert Brown is now in ministerial office. He is trying to defend the indefensible, rather than standing up and saying that it is fundamentally wrong and refusing to accept it.

We welcome the Executive's shift to saying that it will take action, but when will it do so? When ministers are successful in an election and are elected to office, they are given responsibility, which brings with it rights and obligations.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Mr MacAskill accept that the UK Government is accountable and has a democratic mandate in this area? It holds the keys to the various institutions. Should Kenny MacAskill not address his concerns to the UK Government, rather than pursue this excessive constitutional matter?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No. I stand four-square behind Kathleen Marshall. Some things are self-evidently wrong. Even Dr Murray touched on that. The situation is simply untenable. To seek to justify or support such things is unsustainable. Ministers are given an opportunity when they are elected to power. They have a duty to stand up and act. The Executive's position is to pass the buck and say, "It's nothing to do with us," but that is fundamentally unacceptable. Ministers have it within their power not to go down that route, but they choose to do so.

We need the Executive to stand up for the fundamental values that have been enunciated by political parties, the churches and the children's commissioner, and to represent what we believe is fundamentally right about our society. We do not need the Executive's limp-wristed, hand-wringing position that it will do its best and will go once more cap in hand to London to say, "Please don't do this." What is happening is fundamentally wrong and should not be happening.

Robert Brown marched under the banner "Not in our name", but he should now be taking action on something that is fundamentally wrong and goes against the tenets of our society. He is in power. He must act.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I congratulate Green party members on calling this debate, which is timely and important. The motion is thoughtful and couched in the language of practical politics, for which they deserve the chamber's thanks.

I welcome the young people in the gallery from Drumchapel High School in my constituency. Their efforts on behalf of their friends Nimet and Saida Vucaj and the Vucaj family have been exemplary. Those new and indigenous young Scots who have organised a petition that has already attracted hundreds of signatures—as they did successfully in March on behalf of the Murselaj family—are fine examples of the philosophy behind the Scottish Executive's one Scotland, many cultures campaign. My earnest hope, which I am sure is shared by every member, is that their efforts, along with those of school staff, the churches, Positive Action in Housing and hundreds of ordinary Scots, will prove successful and the Vucaj family will be returned to their home here in Scotland. I accept that the decision lies with the Home Office, but I hope that at the very least the decision is made to grant a stay of removal pending a full case review.

As a Glasgow city councillor, I was party to the decision to welcome asylum-seeker families and offer them refuge in my city. That was the correct decision to make and I am proud that my city took it. In the years since, the Executive has had, in co-operation with council colleagues, a good record in accommodating asylum seekers, assisting them in the process of integration and ensuring that they have the facilities and resources that they require. I congratulate the Executive on investing more than £2 million in integration projects and language classes; on persuading the Scottish Legal Aid Board to offer expert advice and representation to asylum seekers; on establishing the Scottish refugee integration forum; on introducing measures to integrate asylum seekers' children in schools; and on trebling core funding for the Scottish Refugee Council. Those practical measures assist and positively welcome to our country new Scots and those who seek to become new Scots, and we can take some small pride in them.

However, none of us can be proud of the way in which the Vucaj family—and before them the Murselaj family—were forcibly evicted from their home in Scotstoun in a dawn raid on 13 September by a 16-strong immigration snatch squad. None of us can be proud of an episode in which an 18-year-old boy is handcuffed by one of those officers and the youngest child is removed in her pyjamas. Such a procedure is utterly unacceptable and must be ended, which is why I am heartened and encouraged by the minister's amendment, which urges the Executive to liaise with its Westminster ministerial counterparts to agree a protocol to deal in a much more sensitive and civilised way with the children of asylum-seeking families who are facing detention and removal. I am also encouraged that discussions will take place to end practices such as dawn raids and the handcuffing and removal of children by large groups of officers in body armour.

I ask the minister also to consider opening up a dialogue with our partners in Westminster to explore the possibility of allowing children from asylum-seeker families who have already been in full-time education for a number of years at the very least to complete their education before a final decision is taken by the Home Office.

The Green motion and the SNP amendment contain nothing with which I disagree. I hope that the SNP will revise the position that it enunciated this morning. We have an opportunity. The Executive's amendment—and I mean this sincerely—is stronger and more proactive than the motion. It includes everything in the Green motion and also calls for action. I hope that members on all sides will consider supporting the Executive's amendment at decision time, so that the Parliament of Scotland can speak with one voice.

Asylum seekers and their families are an asset, not a liability. They are our friends, not our enemies. They are our brothers and sisters.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I bring to the chamber's attention the plight of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people, which is so often overlooked. Just over 100 children and young people are unaccompanied asylum seekers in Scotland. They are usually brought to Scotland by an agent, such as a friend of the family. Their pre-flight experiences are horrific. Their family members may have been persecuted and killed. They will probably have lived through the trauma of war. They may even have been persecuted themselves.

Imagine, please, young people and children arriving in our country whose parents have been persecuted or killed in war. What happens? Their hope of safety and sanctuary is not fulfilled. They can be faced with a lack of suitable accommodation. Many of them are forced to stay in homeless accommodation or are housed in some of the worst hostels and hotels for months on end. In that accommodation, they may not have access to cooking facilities and so have to live off takeaway junk food from the pitiful amount of money they have each week to spend on food. They are isolated, because of a lack of social support and social activities specifically designed to meet their needs. As with other asylum-seeking children and young people, racism is a major problem. Such experiences are all compounded by the fact that they may have no support from parents or guardians.

Unaccompanied asylum seekers have variable access to services. Unlike children of asylum-seeking families, unaccompanied asylum seekers are not supported by the national asylum support service. Children's organisations have said that the care that unaccompanied children and young people receive continues to be a lottery and is often inadequate. Many receive only basic services and are not provided with leaving-care support by local authorities.

A European Union directive from 2003 requires the appointment of independent representatives or guardians for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Home Office has consulted on that directive's implementation, but there is concern that Scotland has not been adequately included in the process. In his representations to the UK Government, the minister must ensure that unaccompanied children are appointed an independent guardian to advise, support and protect them in legal proceedings. He must ensure that such children have access to independent advice and advocacy. It is shocking that unaccompanied child asylum seekers are basically left to fend for themselves. The welfare of those children is paramount. Whether we have one child or 100 children in that situation, they require protection and support. I hope that the minister will press the issues urgently.

The Executive's amendment is all very well, but it does not go far enough; it does not acknowledge that what has happened in Drumchapel is unacceptable and unnecessary. Like Bill Butler, I, too, welcome to the gallery the young people from Drumchapel who have shone a light on the issue and led the support for the family concerned. I ask members to congratulate them. [Applause.] I accept Christine Grahame's amendment, but I support the Green party's motion.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I congratulate the Green party on its well-expressed motion, which deals with an important subject. I do not always congratulate the Executive, but I do so now. Its response to the motion shows growing maturity and its amendment is constructive. Most of the speeches have been constructive, too, although I have been trying to seek an analogy for Christine Grahame's speech. I recently re-read "Tam O'Shanter", and I had the thought that Christine Grahame's contribution to consensus was similar to the Cutty-sark's contribution to the tail of Meg, Tam O'Shanter's horse—she ripped it off. There is a place for Opposition—Kenny MacAskill expressed the SNP's view fairly—but a strident and wrecking approach is not helpful.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does Donald Gorrie agree that, if the forced removals this year were the first such removals, the Executive's amendment would have some potency, but the fact that the forced removals have been going on for several years makes the Executive's contribution far too little, far too late?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

There is a saying about taking pleasure in a sinner who repenteth. Tommy Sheridan's view is that the Executive is a bit late to the ball, but at least it has got to the ball and is kicking it in the right direction, for which it should take credit.

With all honesty, the Scottish Labour Party deserves a great deal of credit on the issue, because it is difficult for it to criticise the Westminster Government, which is run by the Labour Party, on the details of its treatment of asylum seekers or on the whole policy. The Executive's amendment is critical of some aspects of the London Government's policy, which shows growing maturity and is to be welcomed. The matter shows that a devolved structure can work. There are problems in such a structure, as Kenny MacAskill set out, but if the London Government instructs the police legitimately—but in our view wrongly—to act in a certain fashion, they have to do that. We cannot stop them and tell them to act differently; instead, we must try to persuade the people who make the decisions behind the scenes.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, but I must continue.

A devolved system has difficulties—there is a down side and an up side. We must work behind the scenes, which is what the ministers are doing. They have made progress on the situation at Dungavel, as Robert Brown said. The issue is a strong one and, although I am not a strong protester and would not progress very well in Tommy Sheridan's party, I have been to Dungavel with Robert Brown and others and found the situation there to be awful. However, we have secured improvement.

The Greens deserve great credit, the Conservatives have a constructive point of view and the SNP has legitimately made its point of view, but the best thing would be for the Parliament to unite around the Executive's constructive amendment and for the ministers to work hard behind the scenes to persuade Labour ministers in London that they have got the matter wrong.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I agree with Bill Butler and Donald Gorrie that the Executive amendment should be supported. I should state my interest in the matter, as a former resident in Dungavel, under a somewhat different regime.

In examining deportation, we must focus clearly on which issues are devolved and which are not. It is significant that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education has been involved in an inspection at Dungavel, although it was called to do that as an expert, on the invitation of HM inspectorate of prisons for England and Wales. It should be open to the minister to request that HMIE and the Social Work Inspection Agency should be involved whenever appropriate and that their recommendations should be most carefully considered. I say that because, under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—which I took through the House of Commons—the interests of the child are paramount. I know of no law to the effect that children in Dungavel do not come under the general umbrella of that act, so it is entirely possible that it applies to them. If that assumption is correct, it follows that local authority social services could have an involvement in the matter.

The five key principles of the 1995 act are clear: first, each child has a right to be treated as an individual; second, each child who can form a view on matters that affect him or her has the right to express those views if he or she so wishes; third, parents should normally be responsible for the upbringing of their children and should share that responsibility; fourth, each child has the right to protection from all forms of abuse, neglect or exploitation; and fifth, any intervention by a public authority in the life of a child should be properly justified and should be supported by services from all relevant agencies working in collaboration.

HM inspectorate of prisons for England and Wales published a report in March that expressed disappointment that one of its previous recommendations had not been implemented because of the Home Office immigration and nationality directorate's lack of engagement with the proposal. The recommendation was that independent assessments should be carried out of the welfare of children who are held in Dungavel, and fed into decisions about appropriate care for them. The March report's main recommendations were, first, that

"There should be proper and humane management of the movement of detainees, particularly those with children, who should not be subject to unnecessary and lengthy journeys";

second, that

"Agreed procedures for the detention of children, at sufficiently senior level, recording full consideration of all factors, should be adhered to";

and third, that

"The detention of children should be exceptional and for the shortest possible period."

I am bound to say that the delay in dealing with applications in the first place bears a major responsibility for the fact that we are having the debate at all. It is extremely important that children's issues are addressed with sensitivity. I hope that the Home Office is prepared to listen to our experts in the education and social work inspectorates, the recommendations of which are well founded. The Home Office must be reminded of the key point, which is that, whatever the parents may or may not have done to cause them to be in Dungavel or in reception centres, children are there through no fault of their own.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the Greens for having the debate, which is yet another debate among the many that we have had in six years about what is being done in our name to asylum seekers and their children in this country. We must keep the issue at the top of the agenda, because it has been ratcheted up and the situation is getting worse. Robin Harper spoke eloquently and at length about the Vucaj family's case, which again brought the issue to the public attention. However, such situations have been happening for years, over and over again.

It is all very well for the minister to tell us that the Executive is doing wonderful stuff with asylum seeker children who live here while their cases are being heard and their appeals are going through, but it can only be wrong to let those children live as part of our society and then send them away years later. The children may even no longer remember the place to which they are being sent, either because of their age or because they have managed to block out the horror of what their life was before they came to our country.

All of a sudden we hear talk about what the wonderful Executive is going to do. Last night I received a parliamentary answer—printed today—about that. It is the usual mealy-mouthed stuff:

"Responsibility for immigration and asylum ... rests with the Home Office ... The Executive is in regular dialogue ... on a wide range of issues."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 22 September 2005; S2W-19063.]

This morning, we wake up and discover that, while that parliamentary answer was coming to me, Jack McConnell and whoever else was sitting with journalists, trying to bail themselves out of the situation that they have got themselves into by allowing such things to happen to children in our country.

Robert Brown can say all he likes about the constitutional agreement and how that is what people voted for back in 1997, but that was before children were being dragged kicking, screaming and terrified from their beds in the middle of the night. I believe that if the Executive went to the people now and asked whether they thought that it was acceptable that that was going on, and told them that the Executive could do nothing about it, people would vote very differently for who was governing their country.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I have been asking for years what the Executive has been doing to ensure that the Home Office complies with the terms of the 1995 act. The answer that I get is: "It's the Home Office's responsibility. It's nothing to do with us." I do not believe that for a minute. The law that applies in this country under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 applies to every single child in this country. Is the Executive really saying that there is a little piece of Scotland—wherever an asylum-seeker family happens to be—that is not Scotland and over which the Executive therefore has no jurisdiction? If that is the case, the Executive had better think again about what kind of Government it is running.

Many have gone on about Christine Grahame and her decision to abstain from voting on the Executive amendment. I completely agree with her on abstaining, because the Executive has been abstaining for years from any responsibility. Let us consider what the Executive is saying in the amendment. It is saying that it will

"continue discussions ... with a view to agreement that the Home Office will work closely with services for children and young people before ... removal".

What is that? That is nothing. That is no more than the Executive trying to dig itself out of the hole that it has been put in by the strength of public opinion on the issue. I will tell the Executive what it should do: it should take a stand. It should say to the ministers in the Home Office, and all ministers at Westminster: "It's not happening here. We're not doing it." The Executive should use the Vucaj family as the benchmark and tell the ministers: "They're not going anywhere. They're staying here, because they are part of our country. They are the fresh talent that we are looking for."

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I start by congratulating the Green party on introducing today's debate and I join Robin Harper and Bill Butler in paying tribute to the students from Drumchapel High School—I was pleased to speak to them before the debate. We should all congratulate them and wish them success in their campaign. We were all moved by what they told us and they have been a great force for good on this issue. Schools are at the heart of preparing young people to live in a multicultural and inclusive society. Having asylum-seeker children attend our schools is not just a positive experience for asylum seekers but for all the children in that school.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

In a moment.

The positive and harmonious relations in Drumchapel and elsewhere are a standing rebuke to the scandalous negative images of asylum seekers that are so prevalent in the media and elsewhere and that are so damaging to asylum seekers and refugees, to ethnic minority communities more generally and to the vigorous anti-racist policy that we are determined to pursue, all the more urgently after the appalling increase in race-hate crimes over the summer.

I give way to whichever member it was.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The twins here.

Does the minister think that it is a positive experience for the children in Drumchapel to have their friends dragged away from them and to be unable to see them any more? I have had e-mails from some of those youngsters, who cannot understand why that is happening. Is that a positive impression of Government in our country?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

It is absolutely appalling. I referred to the positive and harmonious relations between asylum seekers and others in the school, if that was the starting point for the intervention.

We are determined to send out positive messages about asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland. However, that is not enough, which is why we are determined to pursue practical action. We must recognise the realities of the split between reserved and devolved powers in this area, and, having spoken out openly against the voucher system when I had responsibility for those matters as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, I will not take lectures from the SNP about challenging Westminster. The SNP and others must recognise the realities of what we can do and those issues about which we can only express our views and make representations. I refer the SNP and others to the key words in the amendment, which are that we will "continue discussions". I have already discussed this and other matters with the immigration minister, Tony McNulty. I have already conveyed to the Home Office the widespread concerns, but I will reinforce those following the views eloquently expressed in the debate. In practical terms, I will discuss this with a view to an agreement that the Home Office will work closely with services for children and young people. That is the practical objective around this specific issue. Within the powers that we have, we are willing to engage with the Westminster Government.

However, over and above that, we have our own widespread responsibilities to asylum seekers and refugees, which is why two or three years ago we formed the Scottish refugee integration forum and we had a wide-ranging action plan, which we are implementing and monitoring on an on-going basis; £9 million is being spent on that. There are far too many projects to mention, many of which work with young people. Operation reclaim in Sighthill in Glasgow, for example, provides asylum seekers and indigenous Scottish children with a safe environment in which to play sport and form friendships. Many other projects and initiatives are being funded, for example the frontline housing advisory service, which is run by Positive Action in Housing. I mention Positive Action in Housing because of the major role that it has played in this area in general and in the Vucaj family campaign in particular.

I shall be chairing a reconvened Scottish refugee integration forum very soon and will be updating the action plan. We are taking strong action in devolved areas. We are sending out and will continue to send out positive messages about asylum seekers as part of our anti-racist work. We shall also engage constructively with the Westminster Government.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I begin by reading to members:

"My name is Jamie. I am 18 years old and Elvis Vucaj is a really close friend of mine. It scares me that one day, me, Elvis and my mates can be out having fun—enjoying life. Then the next I am writing this, in the hope that someone realises the mistake they have made and allows this family to return to their home.

I remember the first time I met Elvis and Nimet. It was on a trip with our school. We went to Edinburgh castle. Both brothers were shadows of who they are now. Both have grown up a lot and become more confident in what they are doing. For what? I spoke to Elvis and Nimet on the phone the other day. They are not the happy, excited guys I knew a few weeks ago—they sound exhausted, tired and scared.

I told them not to give up, because I won't—Scotland deserves them and I miss them. I don't want to lose them."

I hope that members on all sides will agree that that is more powerful than any speech about devolved and reserved competencies.

Earlier this month, the commissioner for children and young people called for a "public outcry" against what she described as

"terrorising children of failed asylum seekers"

and the "inhumane" treatment of "wee, quiet families". Jamie has added his voice to that outcry. As we have heard, other people in Bill Butler's constituency, people from Drumchapel High School and the community around it—a community from which those children have been wrenched—have added their voices. The United Reform Church, the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church have added their voices.

Is there any sphere of life in which this situation would be acceptable? We have seen behaviour that falls short of what we expect in a civilised society. I am pleased that, after today's debate, we will be able to say that the Parliament did not remain silent. We have added our voices to the necessary outcry about the harm that is being inflicted on children and their families in Scotland. What matters next is that action is taken. We want to give the fullest possible emphasis to our devolved responsibilities for child welfare.

I am sorry that I will not have time to mention everyone who spoke, but I want to thank some members in particular.

Robert Brown said that we are discussing an issue on the border between devolved and reserved institutions and he was right to say that we should have the confidence to debate it. However, it is not only the issue but the children themselves who are being sent across the border. Asylum policy is the UK's responsibility, but if removals are being carried out in a manner that we do not think meets our standards of welfare, our responsibility does not evaporate.

Christine Grahame said that what is being done is too little, too late, that we have heard the Executive's words before and that we need action.

I agree, but I am glad that the Executive has gone further than it has in the past. It is more important now to continue to press ministers on the what, when and how of the commitments that they have made today than it is to lament what was not done in the past.

Mary Scanlon focused on the practices used and acknowledged that they are unnecessary. I hope that Mary Scanlon will consider supporting the Green motion, which specifically says that the practices are unnecessary. She also mentioned the education of the children of asylum seekers. Surely we all acknowledge that the Vucaj children were getting their education in Drumchapel High School and that they should go back there.

Jeremy Purvis applauded Robert Brown's constructive approach in previous debates. I hope that members will agree that the Greens have taken a similarly constructive approach. He mentioned the robustness of the Executive's position. He is quite right to say so, but I say again that we must press the Executive on the detail of what it will do, when it will do it and how it will do it.

Other members—some of whom did not get the opportunity to speak—entered the chamber hoping that they would be able to support the Executive's amendment but, I am sorry to say, feel less able to do so having heard the debate. We must hear concrete commitments to action rather than caveats about UK responsibilities. However, I share Bill Butler's hope that today's debate will lead to stronger action.

Donald Gorrie spoke of this Parliament's growing maturity. He is right to mention that, but the Vucaj children and others cannot wait long for us to find our maturity. The experiences that they have gone through have meant that they have had to grow up fast and so must we.

I thank the Executive and the SNP for lodging amendments that are in keeping with the spirit in which we brought this debate to the chamber. We understand that this is not an issue that should divide us on party lines. Of course, the parties have different positions on asylum policy. Too often, UK ministers use words such as "robust" and "control" when they are talking about asylum policy. I want ministers who are responsible for asylum to use words such as "compassion" and "welcome".

The Executive has gone further than it has before. It begins to raise its voice more strongly. I am sorry that I cannot support its amendment but that is only because it deletes that part of the motion that states specifically that the practices that are listed are unnecessary. It is important that the message that we send today is that the behaviour that we have witnessed is unnecessary and must stop.

However, if the Executive's amendment is agreed to, I appeal to all parties to support the amended motion. The Greens will certainly do so. More important than the precise form of words that we agree in a motion is the fact that our voices will have been added to the outcry. That is how it should be, but it must not satisfy us. The words of MSPs or of our motions will mean little if the dawn raids continue, if children continue to arrive at school to find their friends simply gone, or if the UK Government's policy does not change. Our words will also mean little if the Vucaj family are not returned to the community that has become their home.

The Executive has an opportunity to make clear its intention to act. We want it to say what it is going to do. We want it to come back to the Parliament to say when it has done it and what the results were. If the UK Government continues to remove these children from our country, we owe it to the children not to remove them from our consciences.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will support bids from Ratho adventure centre to stage international climbing events, including an event to coincide with the London 2012 Olympic games. (S2O-7603)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

EventScotland is our national events organisation charged with delivering our major events strategy, which aims to make Scotland one of the world's foremost event destinations by 2015. Any bid to stage an international climbing event at Ratho adventure centre would be considered by EventScotland.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I thank the minister for her on-going interest in the future of this world-class facility. Will she confirm that the Scottish Executive is ready to give support to the City of Edinburgh Council's welcome plans to acquire the centre, given the important role that it might play in relation to not only climbing but other sports? Will she comment on the possibility of climbing being added as a Commonwealth games sport as part of the 2014 bid?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The Executive watches with interest the progress that the City of Edinburgh Council is making in its bid to acquire Ratho adventure centre and we are in close liaison with it. Any further comment from me would be premature at this time. However, I point out to the member that climbing is not an Olympic or Commonwealth games sport, so the likelihood of having it included in either of those major events is probably not good.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

In any further talks that take place, will the minister bear in mind the fact that the Ratho adventure centre is a national resource of great significance? It is an unusual place with exceptional facilities.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am well aware of the points that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton makes and have no problem with him reiterating them for the benefit of the chamber. In fact, it was just that set of circumstances that encouraged me, having been approached by Margaret Smith, to convene a meeting of all those with a possible interest in the centre almost a year ago, and I am watching the on-going talks with a great deal of interest.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I remind the minister that there is an excellent climbing centre at Kinlochleven, which was built on the site of the old aluminium smelter. I hope that the minister will consider the fact that it would be a good location for any international climbing events that might take place, either during the Olympic games or at some other time.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That was just inside the limits of the question.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I repeat that climbing will probably not be an event in the Olympic or Commonwealth games—I can say that with some confidence. However, EventScotland would be happy to discuss any bid by the Kinlochleven centre in relation to any event that might take place in the future. It is our intention that our major events strategy should cover the entire country, which is why I have been pleased to support events such as the UCI mountain-biking event that took place in Fort William a couple of weeks ago.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Her Majesty's Government on the impact of high oil prices on the Scottish economy. (S2O-7583)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with the United Kingdom Government on a range of issues, including the impact of oil price increases.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that detailed reply.

Will the minister pursue with the Government in London the impact of high oil prices on the rural economy in Scotland and on poorer motorists and the need to have a countervailing reduction in either fuel duty or VAT? Is it not about time that the minister showed his Labour colleagues the same leadership on this issue as he has shown on business rates?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

As Mr Neil knows, it was announced in the budget that, due to sustained volatility in the world oil market and the now significantly higher price of oil per barrel, the normal inflation-based increase in main duty rates would be postponed until 1 September. In July, the Treasury announced that that would not go ahead and the matter would be reviewed in the United Kingdom Government's pre-budget report, which will be published before the end of the year. Therefore, certain steps have been taken by the UK Government.

I agree with Alex Neil that it is important that continuing representations are made, especially on behalf of rural and island communities in Scotland and on behalf of the road haulage industry. I have received direct representations from the industry about the seriousness of the situation that it faces. It is entirely appropriate that I, as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, and the whole Executive, on behalf of industries and communities across Scotland, make strong representations on the issue to Her Majesty's Government.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Given that the modelling exercise on the Scottish economy that was undertaken 30 years ago showed, as we now know from the report that Dr Gavin McCrone wrote for the Government of the day, that the potential windfall from taxes on petroleum revenue at about $20 a barrel was more or less eeksie-peeksie with or without independent sovereignty—and therefore taxation rights over oil—does the minister agree that it might make sense for a similar modelling exercise to be undertaken now, when the price is $67 a barrel, to show what options might be open to us?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I would far rather deal with the issues of today than with those of 30 years ago. The arguments were put and lost by the Scottish National Party back in the 1970s. There is a windfall to the Government as a result of the current high cost of a barrel of oil—everyone is aware of that. I envisage representations being made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on just such issues, and I hope that the Treasury and the chancellor will, ultimately, reach sensible decisions on those issues when further announcements are made.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports the pass plus scheme and whether it plans to assist in the development and funding of this scheme throughout Scotland. (S2O-7598)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Executive welcomes pass plus as a scheme that enables new drivers to gain additional experience and positive driving skills. The scheme is administered by the Driving Standards Agency, which chairs a board that promotes the scheme throughout Great Britain.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Recent responses from the councils in Mid Scotland and Fife show a patchy picture of uptake of the scheme. Some councils are enthusiastic supporters, whereas others are lukewarm about it. In the light of that situation, might the Executive implement a more co-ordinated approach throughout Scotland?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would be happy to look into the points that Mr Arbuckle raises, but I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the Executive to tell Scottish local authorities what to do in that regard. It is important that they come to their own views on the appropriateness of the scheme in their areas.

Nevertheless, I take his point about how effective pass plus can be in addressing the issue of young driver safety, in particular. The Executive also funds the Scottish road safety campaign for the development of key road safety education initiatives and publicity messages. One of the objectives of that driver behaviour strategy is the reduction of young driver casualties.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 4 has not been lodged.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it can take in respect of hoardings that are allegedly mobile which are placed without planning permission in off-road locations. (S2O-7582)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984, a planning authority may issue a discontinuance notice in respect of the use of a site for the display of an advertisement. That includes vehicles that are used exclusively or principally for displaying advertisements.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The hard fact is that the system does not seem to be working. Anyone who has travelled around Scotland recently will have noticed an increasing proliferation of such hoardings, many of which are placed there by large commercial organisations. If what the minister says is the case, local authorities are not taking advantage of their powers. Will the minister communicate with them to tell them that the hoardings are a menace that needs to be stopped?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I hope that Alasdair Morgan will do the same in his own area if there are issues with such hoardings. The matter should be addressed with local authorities, and I am happy to raise it in the on-going conversations that we have with them on the whole question of planning. The devil will be in the detail. Our planning commitments are to strengthen enforcement and to respond to local communities' concerns about the planning process. Therefore, I am happy to pursue the points that Alasdair Morgan has raised.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister tell us why previous transport ministers have not allowed signage on the A90 trunk road north and south of Stonehaven that could highlight facilities and attractions such as the harbour and the outdoor swimming pool, thereby assisting the local economy, while, at the same time, these unlicensed containers are scattered all around the area? Will the minister endeavour to have the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications review the situation?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Although I have an extremely good grasp of my own brief, I am not sure that I have a good grasp of the briefs of the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications and ex-transport ministers. I would prefer to respond to the member in writing, having been able to reflect on the points that he has made.

There are powers in the regulations to deal with such advertising hoardings where they have an impact on communities and amenity, and the matter is one for dialogue with planning authorities. In certain circumstances, it is also possible for signage to be put up; it is for the individual planning authority to define whether such signage is a hazard. If a hoarding distracts drivers, the regulations can address the matter.

If the member corresponds with me, I will do my best to respond in detail to the points that he has raised.

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

Is the minister aware of the cyclical event that takes place every four years, whereby fields sprout Conservative party hoardings and lamp posts sprout SNP hoardings? Notwithstanding the fact that fields are voting Conservative, lamp posts are voting SNP and people are voting Lib Dem, will the minister consider that aspect of the issue?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I always thought that the advertising industry took the view that advertising had to produce results; however, self-evidently, those hoardings have not produced the results that were expected of them. As responsible political parties, we make our case in any way that we can. The lamp posts may do one thing but I am sure that, when Labour makes its case to the electorate in Cathcart and elsewhere, the people will do another: they will respond not just by noticing the posters, but by voting Labour.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 6 has not been lodged.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will consider basing the disclosure system on a single-card system whereby each person's card would remain valid for a given period and through any changes in the person's role. (S2O-7599)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

A new vetting and barring system that is based on recommendations from Sir Michael Bichard is currently under consideration, including options for a facility for the on-going updating of information and for appropriate organisations to be able to check an individual's current status. That could mean that an individual's initial enhanced disclosure check to allow them to work with children or vulnerable adults would remain valid unless new information resulted in a change in their status. That would remove the need for multiple checks for different roles.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am not quite sure whether the minister's answer was yes.

It seems totally sensible that, just as someone passes their driving test once and does not have to pass it again every time they get a new car, somebody who has given good service to a youth organisation, who has been properly checked and who has got the certificate should be able to carry on—perhaps having their status reviewed every three years, or however often it might be. The business of people having to reapply every time they get a different or additional job is madness. Surely, the minister—who is an excellent and intelligent gentleman—can do something about it.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I was trying to make the point that the issue has United Kingdom implications. There are issues about information emerging from England, Wales and Northern Ireland that should also be available on the Scottish system. It is important that new information is made available to organisations; otherwise, children could be put at greater risk of harm. Therefore, although I do not rule out the issuing of a card such as the one that Donald Gorrie suggests, we must consider the system in the wider context, to try to get something that will avoid multiple applications being made. That is the key point.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I ask the minister again to consider having automatic, mandatory review of enhanced disclosure certificates every three years or so. Currently, if someone with such a certificate remained in situ for 10 years, the certificate would not be reviewed, although their circumstances may have changed and they may not be entitled to the certificate.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I remind Christine Grahame that we are in the middle stage of introducing more comprehensive regimes. On the introduction of the disclosures themselves, we have still to look at past disclosures and to implement that part of the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. As I tried to indicate, Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations must be brought on board to ensure that we have a workable system that does the trick across the board and is reasonably non-bureaucratic and effective in protecting children.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a single card, but I am anxious to know from the minister how offences that might be committed while a card is valid would be dealt with and how organisations could be made aware of such offences. Further, what steps is the Executive taking to help to clear the current backlog at Volunteer Development Scotland, where applications are sitting for up to six weeks at a time?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

On the second point, I have had concerns about the central registered bodies' processing, but they are in fact on target to have processed applications within eight working days of receipt by the end of the month—I think that they are currently about a week behind that. It is perhaps worth saying that the number of applications received between 2004 and 2005 went up from 7,461 to 12,514, so there has been a major issue of disclosures. I ask members to bear with the Executive on the final stage of the process, because we must take on board the wider implications, which are being considered in the context of Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive how successful freight facilities grants are in the Highlands, in the light of the decision by Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc not to continue Safeway Ltd's practice of supplying stores throughout the Highlands by rail. (S2O-7626)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Freight facilities grants can be successful in the Highlands. As a result of the Safeway FFG contract, almost 5 million lorry miles were removed from Scotland's roads between 1999 and 2005. I am disappointed that, following its takeover of Safeway, Wm Morrison has decided to stop supplying its Highlands stores by rail.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The members' business debate yesterday dealt with congestion on the A9. What further incentives can be given to businesses such as Morrison's and Tesco to encourage them to transfer their loads from road to rail? I also bring to the minister's attention the fact that Morrison's withdrawal from the FFG contract could mean the loss of railway jobs in Inverness, particularly for the signalmen on the night shift.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Those are fair points. In the context of the debate on the A9, it is important that we make further progress on moving freight from road to rail, not just with the supermarket companies that Maureen Macmillan highlighted but with other business users who can see both the environmental and cost benefits of a modal shift in freight transport. The Executive is currently monitoring the situation in the Highlands and Islands and we are working with businesses there where we can. We are also considering a number of innovative ideas to achieve objectives that meet environmental and cost criteria.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of any problems in the recruitment and retention of lawyers by the Faculty of Advocates. (S2O-7600)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No. This is a matter entirely for the Faculty of Advocates, but we are not aware of any such problems.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

I do not know whether the minister is aware that a number of advocates have recently refused to do work and that the dean of the Faculty of Advocates has backed that position. I think that the situation is a result of changes in how the Scottish Legal Aid Board allocates resources. If the situation continues, my concern is that we might find ourselves in the same situation as we have found ourselves with dentists who have gone private. We might find that advocates start to refuse to do criminal cases, which would clearly be a serious problem for the courts. I hope that the Executive will discuss and address the concerns within the Faculty of Advocates.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Mike Pringle's question raises a broader issue. There have been significant improvements since the introduction of the Bonomy reforms, but I know that those reforms have caused concern to some members of the Faculty of Advocates. Our main responsibility is to make the courts system more efficient and to try to ensure that public money is properly and effectively used. With the Bonomy reforms, we are seeing that happen.

However, there was an increase of £3.7 million in total payments to advocates or counsel and to solicitor-advocates from the legal aid fund in 2003-04. If Mike Pringle wishes, I could go on and give him more details about the significant increases that there have been to advocates and solicitor-advocates. Those increases have been 33 per cent compared with increases to solicitors of 4 per cent, in terms of the money going to support cases.

I would regret any consequences such as the ones that Mike Pringle suggests, but the improvements as a result of the Bonomy reforms are to be commended.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1819)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Cabinet next week will, among other things, receive a progress report following this morning's debate on the children of asylum seekers. I join other colleagues in welcoming the pupils from Glasgow who were with us for that debate and who have an immediate concern in its content. I give them an absolute assurance that, while we believe in a fair, consistent and firm immigration system, which has to include deportation and removal in some cases, we also believe that it is very important, given our child welfare and education responsibilities here in Scotland, that such a system is handled appropriately. That is why we want to have a protocol with the Home Office that involves Scottish education services and social services before decisions on the implementation of any orders for removal.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I congratulate the pupils from Glasgow, who have shamed the Scottish Executive into taking a stance.

When the First Minister outlined his legislative programme two weeks ago, he said, in relation to crime and disorder, that

"there is no excuse for non-action".—[Official Report, 6 September 2005; c 18774.]

Does he stand by that statement?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Of course. That is why we have the biggest programme of reforms in our criminal justice system that Scotland has seen for generations. It is also why, in the first two years of this session of Parliament, we have seen reforms of the High Court, reforms in the management of offenders, the introduction of antisocial behaviour measures—which were fought tooth and nail by the Scottish National Party—and a whole range of other measures. We now see reforms of the lower courts, which will release police time, and we see reforms in sentencing and in the powers of the police, which will ensure that all our agencies can act more effectively and will enable us to reduce crime and to tackle those responsible for crime much more effectively in future.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister, because he seems to have forgotten, that the SNP voted for the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. I can give him the Official Report later.

Is the First Minister aware of figures that were released to me under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 showing that in 1999, across Strathclyde and Lothian and Borders—Scotland's two biggest police force areas—1,100 people breached their bail conditions? By 2004, that figure had risen to 3,600—a threefold increase. Why has he taken so long to act to deal with what is a blatant and growing disregard for the law?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have two points. First, we have heard statistics from Ms Sturgeon in the chamber before that have proven to be very unreliable afterwards, so it would be wrong to comment on those ones.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Oh, come on! That is pathetic.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

However, it is absolutely right to comment on the importance of bail and remand—and no amount of shouting from Mr Swinney will take away from that fact.

It is important that we act on bail and remand, which is why, in the next few days, a comprehensive programme will be announced by the Minister for Justice. That will ensure not only a tightening of the availability of bail in Scotland, but a far more effective system of monitoring people who are out on bail, the conditions that have to apply and what happens to those who breach their conditions.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I hope that the First Minister is not doubting the veracity of the police figures, which show a clear picture. It is all very well for him to promise action in future, but we are not talking about a recent problem. Does he realise that the number of people who breach bail conditions has risen sharply every year since 1999? Is he aware that, six months ago, the Sentencing Commission for Scotland warned of

"the risks to public safety and good order when bail conditions are flouted"?

The commission went on to describe a "failing system" in which

"sanctions for breaches of bail are not always applied."

Is it not the case that the problem is not new—it has been six years in the making—and that the reason why it has got so out of control is that the Executive and the First Minister have turned a blind eye for far too long?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is all a bit much, coming from the Scottish National Party, which was probably opposed to the setting up of the Sentencing Commission in the first place.

Of course we recognised that there was a problem. That is why the Sentencing Commission was established and given the job of dealing with the issue as its first priority. That is why, when the commission's report came in, we did not just accept it, but considered whether additional measures would be required. We have a package of measures and I hope that, when those measures are introduced, Ms Sturgeon will be big enough and brave enough to welcome and support them, because that is what the people of Scotland expect. They want us to look to the future rather than to the past, as the SNP always seems to want to do. They want the Parliament to act in their interests, to take the right decisions for the future and to ensure that we have a safer Scotland as a result.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Sentencing Commission was the SNP's idea in the first place. The First Minister can peddle inaccuracies about the SNP for as long as he likes, but it will not detract from the truth, which is that on crime, as on so many other issues, the Executive talks a good game, but delivers very little. When will he stop promising action at some time in the future and start delivering on crime for the people of this country?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Let me give a few facts on the crime situation over the past few years. Scotland has record numbers of police officers and a record clear-up rate of crimes. A number of additional measures are coming in, such as the antisocial behaviour laws, which the SNP fought tooth and nail. The SNP was dragged in to voting for those laws at the end of the process, but it was strongly against them in the beginning.

What is more, the SNP condemned one of the most significant measures that the Parliament has taken over the past two years—the contracting out of the prisoner escort service, which released police time and got 350 more police officers back on the beat, doing the work that they signed up to do. The SNP was against that measure then and is against it today; it still condemns the Minister for Justice, even though that is one of the most effective things that we have done to help local communities and to get police back on the beat.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1820)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am looking forward to meeting the Prime Minister in Brighton next week and to hearing his conference speech.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We will all be going to the seaside shortly.

I want to pursue with the First Minister similar issues to those that Ms Sturgeon raised. He will probably be aware of the conviction last week of a man who committed two rapes in Orkney, the second of which occurred while the accused was out on bail and after a condition banning him from staying in Orkney had been overturned on the ground that it breached his human rights, which left him free to commit another rape.

I do not think that the First Minister has turned a blind eye to the issue. In his statement on the legislative programme, he talked about toughening up the granting of bail and imposing more conditions on those prisoners who are granted bail. I give him credit for that, but can he guarantee that the new conditions of which he speaks will not suffer the same fate as the condition that applied in the case in Orkney and fall foul of the European convention on human rights?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thank Mr McLetchie for the constructive way in which he put his question. Although it would obviously be remiss of me to comment on an individual case, it is important to talk about the generality of the policy and the actions that we propose to take.

We propose to take action to ensure that the conditions under which bail is available are far clearer and more consistently applied in Scottish courts. We want to ensure that the activities of those prisoners who are out on bail are supervised far more effectively, so that conditions that have been applied are properly implemented. We also propose to take action to ensure that those who breach bail conditions are tackled far more effectively and quickly than in the past.

We will outline that package of measures to the Parliament in the next few days. All three measures are important. They form an integrated package and all of them will have been properly scrutinised to ensure that they are compliant with the law in other respects in advance of the announcement.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Many of us are sceptical that a measure such as electronic tagging will necessarily have the effect of preventing people from committing serious sexual offences such as were committed in the Orkney case. I put it to the First Minister that the only effective way of protecting the public in such situations is to ensure that those who are charged with serious offences of that nature and have previous convictions are remanded in jail. Does he agree that we should return to the system that we used to have in Scotland, whereby there is a presumption against bail for certain categories of crime, such as murder, and a presumption against bail in situations in which the accused has a previous conviction for other serious crimes, such as rape?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr McLetchie makes a serious point. It is important that the law in Scotland is far clearer on the point and that it is more consistently applied across our courts. We intend to introduce a package of measures, as proposed by the Sentencing Commission and considered by the Cabinet during the summer months, among which will be provisions to deal with the specific issue. We will announce those measures to the Parliament next week.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I point out to the First Minister that, about five years ago, our law on bail was changed to bring it into line with the European convention on human rights. That change is preventing us from denying bail to certain categories of accused persons. Does he agree that we need to do more than simply tinker at the edges of the issue and that we have to get to the heart of the matter, which requires a review of the operation and application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the co-operation of Her Majesty's Government?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, it is important to reiterate that individual decisions about bail are, as they should be, the responsibility of the judge who is presiding in the court. That important principle is, of course, an integral part of our Scots law. At the same time, it is important that we have absolute clarity in the guidance, both in legislation and in other ways, to those who are responsible in our courts. We intend to do that.

We do not intend to tinker at the edges. We intend to ensure that there is a full package of reforms, not just in legislation, but in the way in which the courts, the police and other authorities implement and scrutinise bail conditions, to ensure that those who breach their bail conditions are properly dealt with. That package of measures will be announced to the Parliament next week. I hope that both Mr McLetchie and Ms Sturgeon will feel able to welcome it constructively.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There will be one important constituency supplementary.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

The First Minister will be aware of the sentencing of a man yesterday for rape in Glenrothes. He was on the sex offenders register, he had a previous conviction for rape and he had been assessed as being at high risk of reoffending. Moreover, he had previously failed to comply with a supervision order. In spite of that, he was able to be housed where he could commit his most recent crime. Will the proposals that will be presented to the Parliament next week contain measures to improve the operation of the register and protect our communities from the actions committed by such individuals?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The proposals that will be announced next week by the Minister for Justice will refer specifically to bail and remand. Again, I do not want to comment on an individual case, but my understanding is that that case was not affected by bail and remand and that Christine May's question is about the sex offenders register and the management of sex offenders more generally.

We are, of course, also considering a report from the committee that was chaired by Professor George Irving on the management of sex offenders in Scotland and the operation of the register. The Minister for Justice will announce our response to that report in early October. That response will not only include reference to the issues about the register that have been raised by Christine May, Paul Martin and others in the chamber in recent months, but will deal with the need for a national policy on the accommodation of sex offenders when they are in the community and not in custody. The issue has arisen in many constituencies and a national policy is needed to clarify how local authorities and others should deal with it. That should go alongside the national audit that has taken place of all serious and high-risk offenders.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1825)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I look forward to sharing a platform with the Secretary of State for Scotland on Sunday night in Brighton, when I am sure that we will discuss issues that are directly relevant to the delegates who want to ask us questions about the week ahead.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The First Minister will be well aware of this morning's debate in which we discussed the appalling treatment that was meted out to the Vucaj family when 16 people dressed in flak jackets smashed down their front door, burst into their house, seized the family, handcuffed the parents and dragged the parents and the children—still in their pyjamas—off to a van in which they took them away to England. Will he condemn that treatment here and now?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Robin Harper will know my position on not responding entirely to reports of what has happened in individual cases. However, the policy position should be clear. I congratulate Patrick Harvie and the Green party on constructively organising this morning's debate in a way that allowed other parties to come together with a positive policy in the Parliament on the issue.

When I met young students from Castlemilk High School and St Margaret Mary's Secondary School in Castlemilk on 27 June, they raised the issue with me very eloquently. They made the sensible and sane point that the young people under 16 who are affected by such removals also include those who remain in a school and have befriended the youngsters being removed in difficult circumstances.

Of course individual cases should be taken up by members of Parliament and should be properly reviewed—if that is what should happen—but it is important that we in the Parliament have a policy that education and social services should be involved in advance of any removal that involves a family with children who are under 16. That is in the best interests of those children and their peers in the local community, in which some of the children may have lived for up to five years.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

From the tenor of this morning's debate, I am sure that all members welcome the Executive's commitment to convey to the Home Office our serious concerns about what has happened in Scotland. Will the First Minister assure us that he will convey those concerns in the strongest terms to the Home Office? Does he agree that if he does not press the issues with the utmost force and does not—behind closed doors—condemn to the Home Office what has happened, we must entertain the possibility that we might not get far? If that happens, what will he do?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have made it clear that we should seek to establish a protocol with the Home Office on the issue. That should be achievable if we advance our arguments responsibly and ensure that those arguments are within our devolved responsibilities, which is exactly what we will do.

I recognise absolutely that people wish to make points about individual cases. Representatives in such situations should make those points forcefully. At the same time, we must recognise that some situations could be dangerous for those who are involved in implementing removals and deportations, which must be an element of any immigration system.

We must take a responsible approach. An immigration system must exist and its application must be firm, fair and consistent. At some time, that system will involve removals and deportations. However, with our education and child welfare responsibilities in Scotland, we want to ensure that any youngsters under 16 who are affected because they are in a family that may be removed or because they are back here and have befriended such youngsters are properly looked after in Scotland's interests. We will seek to achieve that and we will keep the Parliament informed of our progress.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the First Minister what safeguards are in place to ensure that suspected sex offenders cannot work with children or young people in sports-related and other environments. (S2F-1822)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Parliament passed the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003, which makes it an offence to employ an individual to work with children if he or she is disqualified from doing so. All organisations that recruit people to work with children can apply for an enhanced disclosure certificate from Disclosure Scotland, which will provide details of any convictions, state whether the person is on the sex offenders register or has been disqualified from working with children and give any other relevant information that is held by the police, including information on suspected sex offences.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Is the First Minister aware of the recent report by the Independent Football Commission, which reveals that young people have been vulnerable to abuse ranging from bullying by coaches and overaggressive parents to grooming by paedophiles who target them after seeing their pictures in match programmes or by masquerading as talent scouts? Is he also aware that the report indicates that teenage girls who work for contract caterers in football stadiums and other sports stadiums are often subject to inappropriate behaviour? The Scottish Executive has rightly taken the action that he has mentioned to protect our young people, but will he assure members that the measures that have been taken so far will cover the issues that the IFC has raised in its report?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have not seen the report to which Michael McMahon refers and would certainly welcome receiving a copy of it. I am sure that the ministers who are most directly involved with the issue will be keen to take up the points that the report makes in advance of our announcements in response to Professor Irving's report on the management of sex offenders and related issues. The two matters may be entirely separate, but there may be a relationship between them that would allow us better to inform the recommendations and proposals that we will put to the Parliament. As I say, I am keen to see a copy of the report. The issues that have been raised by people who have been affected are serious and we want to ensure that the package of measures that we are bringing forward will deal with everyone who might be affected.

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

Notwithstanding the First Minister's detailed reply on sex offenders and the proposals for bail, will he ensure that the bail reforms clearly recognise people's human rights—which should not be blithely brushed aside—and the fundamental view that a suspect is not an offender until they are found guilty by a court of law, which is a foundation stone of our justice system in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The points that Jeremy Purvis makes are valid. It is important that, in seeking to change the law and to improve the implementation of systems relating to sex offenders or to bail and remand, we put public safety at the core of our actions and decisions and achieve the right balance between the rights of those who are accused in any circumstances and the rights of victims who have been affected by people who have committed serious crimes. In making our proposals, I assure Jeremy Purvis and other members who have many concerns from different perspectives that we will seek to achieve such a balance, with public safety always to the fore in our decisions.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive will take to address the issues arising from a United Nations report that designates Scotland as the developed world's most violent country. (S2F-1834)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not believe that Scotland is the most violent country in the developed world, but I believe that the nation is dealing with the historical legacy of a booze-and-blade culture that affects too many of our communities. We are acting to deal with that culture through a variety of measures, which include tough new laws to tackle knife crime in the police bill, which will be published before the October recess; gun ownership restrictions, including additional restrictions on air-guns, which we hope that we and the Home Office will announce soon; stronger sentences for violent offences; and action to deal with the underlying causes of violence, such as alcoholism, sectarianism and a number of other social problems in Scotland that have contributed to that culture for far too long.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

With respect to knife crime, the First Minister could, through statutory instrument, have increased sentences under the Carrying of Knives etc (Scotland) Act 1993, which I introduced at Westminster.

Does the First Minister agree that the UN report does not sit well with the slogan that Scotland is the best wee country in the world? Should he not take the issues raised in the report very seriously? Does he agree that we require implementation of action, not talk of action? He would do well to start by ending the situation in which violent criminals are recycled through our courts and prisons through early release. Will he take early steps on that?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I remind Mr Gallie that automatic early release was introduced by the Conservative Government in a 1993 act; his Westminster Conservative colleagues were responsible for the introduction of that system into Scots law. I reassure the chamber that the coalition Government is absolutely determined to ensure that that policy is ended in Scotland so that we can have a reasonable and responsible system of sentencing and sentence implementation and so that people in Scotland will understand that, when we say that the sentence fits the crime, we mean it, unlike the previous Conservative Government.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister agree that there is a well-established link between violent crime and excess alcohol consumption? If he accepts that there is such a link, does he also accept that it is the Executive's duty to do as it is doing with tobacco and to try to reduce the overall consumption of alcohol across Scotland, not just in targeting binge drinking, but in recognising that alcohol is a very dangerous legal drug?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I confirm that we are determined to continue to act on the problems of alcoholism, alcohol abuse and alcohol overuse in Scotland. Perhaps the party conference season is not a great time to be talking about such matters, but they are serious problems in Scotland and they have been serious problems for far too long. We have to ensure that we have better licensing laws in Scotland and that we change our culture, particularly among our younger people.

I was particularly pleased to be able to visit a Co-operative store in a certain Glasgow constituency yesterday afternoon in which, as in all that company's branches, there is a strict policy of limiting the sale of alcohol only to people who are over 21, not just 18. Other shops and off-licences could consider that policy and support their staff in implementing it. The responsibility for such matters goes far beyond Government, but we will take our responsibilities seriously and lead the way.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

): To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Executive's position is in respect of ageism. (S2F-1821)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is important that we all stop thinking of older people as a burden and start thinking about how they can, and do, contribute positively to Scotland. With encouragement and support, older Scots can help to strengthen our communities and to give younger Scots a better start in life.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

The First Minister can be justifiably proud of the Executive's record on unemployment, which stands at around 4 per cent. Because of ageism, however, in the five years prior to retiral, 40 per cent of men and 41 per cent of women find themselves unemployed and thrown on the economic scrap heap. What plans does he have to remedy that situation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have two things to say about that. First, when we talk about the skills that are needed and the learning that is required by our economy and by Scottish society more generally, it is important that we ensure that the process of lifelong learning is not limited to those under 40, 50 or 60 but that it is genuinely lifelong and gives people a chance to replenish their skills and to readjust to new working environments so that they can work until retirement age.

Secondly, in the 21st century, we miss another point if we only concentrate on that. Many older Scots could make a positive contribution not just to our economy—although that is the case—but to our society through helping younger people to read, getting involved in voluntary activity in the community, supporting families and supporting those younger generations who might not have role models or older people who can be there for them.

I think that we need to turn on its head the approach that we have sometimes had to improving services. Although that approach has all been good and beneficial, we need now to think about what positive contribution from older people we can encourage and support. That is the next big challenge. I am sure that John Swinburne will want to work with us on that.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind the First Minister that media reports suggest that each month there are around 35 cases of elderly abuse, which is possibly the most ruthless example of age discrimination. What programmes are in place to end that horror?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Off the top of my head, I am not sure exactly what programmes exist, but I know that a considerable amount of work is going on to deal with the abuse of the elderly. That work includes monitoring as well as action to tackle the problem. I will ensure that the appropriate minister writes to Christine Grahame with a full answer as soon as possible.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Environment and Rural Development

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to review the regime governing contaminated land. (S2O-7606)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Scottish Executive has recently consulted on proposed changes to the regime relating to contaminated land as a source of pollution of the water environment; we are also planning to consult shortly on amendments to extend the regime to cover radioactively contaminated land.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank the minister for her response, although it affords only partial comfort.

The minister will be aware that redevelopment of farming and industrial sites in Scotland is becoming widespread, and that the current regime places no obligation on the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or local authorities to investigate suspected contamination. I ask her whether that is desirable. For example, at the Royal Ordnance factory site in Bishopton all parties, including the site owners, are genuinely ignorant as to whether contamination is present. Is it acceptable that I have had to submit a requisition under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the Ministry of Defence in London to find out?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am aware that the issue causes concern to the local community. I have answered questions and corresponded with the member before on the matter.

I understand that the owners of the site, BAE Systems plc, have no immediate plans to submit a planning application. However, if a planning application is submitted, it will be a matter for the local authority in its role as local planning authority to ensure that remediation is in force through compliance with planning conditions. If, however, no planning application is made, it is up to the local authority as the primary regulator under the contaminated land regime to determine what action is necessary to deal with the site.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton is in my constituency, and I hear the minister's guarantee that every square yard will be properly decontaminated if and when that procedure starts.

Although in the first instance this is a matter for local authority, does the minister agree that all interested parties, including local people, should be consulted? Does she agree that it is important that the written and spoken language of any consultation does not use jargon but is understandable to those who have legitimate concerns over such a proposal?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Yes. I repeat that I am conscious of the concerns that have been expressed to Trish Godman and Annabel Goldie about this issue. I would hope that consultation on any planning application—should one be forthcoming—would be in accessible language. It is hugely important that local people are involved in the planning process; that is why we are legislating on that important matter. In view of the level of concern surrounding contaminated land, the involvement of local people in this instance is particularly important.