Scottish Parliament, 9 March 2006

401 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Official Report 9 March 2006

Point of Order

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, you will recall that I raised at close of play last night the question of the votes, which seemed—to some extent—to be inaccurate. Having discussed the matter with officials, it appears that one of the consoles was not functioning. Although the result of the vote on the debate on the Shirley McKie case is not in dispute, the numbers are. I wish to record the fact that Margaret Mitchell voted against Cathy Jamieson's amendment.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Your point is now on the record, Mr Aitken.

Energy Policy

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S2M-4074, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on future energy policy.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is with a sense of déjà vu that we find ourselves standing—or sitting—in this room once again. We must also be experiencing déjà vu because the Conservatives have chosen to debate energy so soon after our last debate on the subject.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, thank you, not at the moment.

The fact that we have brought to the chamber again the issue of Scotland's future capacity to generate electricity is a reflection of the sense of urgency that we feel about the matter.

It is essential that we are able to guarantee affordable and available supplies of electricity in future. That is essential not only to the Scottish economy, which cannot function without regular power supplies, but to ensuring that fuel poverty does not become a bigger and bigger problem for the least well-off in society and those who are least able to protect themselves. For that reason, we are trying to instil a sense of urgency in the debate on how Scotland generates enough electricity to meet its future requirements.

Through our Executive, we have set a target of 40 per cent of electricity being generated by renewables by 2020. Despite the difficulties with grid connections, there is no shortage of applications to deliver on that. However, too many people in Scotland and in the chamber have accepted that 40 per cent target without considering how we will generate the remaining 60 per cent. The truth is that the lifespan of many of our power stations will expire before the 2020 deadline is reached. Unless we make radical decisions now, there will be a shortfall and all the ensuing problems will arrive on our doorstep.

We have raised the subject for debate again today because too many of the decisions that have to be made, particularly those on our large generating capacity, such as nuclear or new coal-fired stations, will take a long time to pass through the public consultation and planning processes. If we do not act immediately, we face the serious danger that that replacement capacity will not be available when it is needed, which is when the existing stations that they are to replace are being decommissioned. That is why we have brought the issue back to the floor of the chamber so soon.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does the member accept that the market has begun to take action already with, for example, Scottish Power's decision on Longannet power station?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The decision to install the scrubbing equipment at Longannet will lengthen the lifetime of that power station, but it will not extend its lifespan significantly beyond the time limits that we are discussing today. It is a relatively short-term measure. Ultimately, decisions will have to be taken on replacing coal-fired capacity in Scotland, just as they will have to be taken on our nuclear capacity.

The amendments are interesting. In the main, they clearly and honestly express the views of the parties that lodged them, which is exactly what we wanted to be expressed in the debate. We wanted to provide the platform for an open and honest debate, in which individuals and parties could put forward their own views and not be hampered by the restrictions that politics can place upon them. It is, therefore, disappointing that the policy that the Labour Party expressed at its conference only a few short days ago, when it indicated clearly that it wants to pursue an energy policy that includes the replacement of nuclear and coal-fired capacity, has been removed from the Executive amendment.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

rose—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, thank you, not at the moment, Shiona.

Our disappointment at the Labour Party amendment is further increased by the fact that, in the debate on BBC television last night entitled "The Generation Gap", the Deputy First Minister, Nicol Stephen, felt no restriction on how he expressed Executive energy policy. From his seat in the television studio, he said exactly what he thought the Executive's energy policy for the future should be. However, the policy that he expressed was not Executive policy but Liberal Democrat policy.

Worse still, Nicol Stephen took a view that the Executive would never dare to take: he said that if we do not take the serious decisions that have to be taken, we will still be able to rely on our supplies of energy from the North sea. Although much North sea gas is found in Scottish waters, the problem is that it is part of a world and European supply network, which means that it comes at world or European prices. For that reason, not only does our domestic gas supply have a limited lifespan, but it could become extremely expensive.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Alex Johnstone was not present yesterday when we had the opportunity to sign up for personal energy tariffs under green schemes. Will he consider joining the significant number of Scottish National Party MSPs who have signed up to divert some of their energy payments to green energy suppliers, thereby helping to secure Scotland's future energy needs?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will consider it. Indeed, I can discuss at great length the measures that I have taken in my personal life to try to reduce my energy consumption, but perhaps that discussion is for another debate.

We have debated the need to replace nuclear and coal-fired generating capacity many times. I believe, in common with many in my party, that it is absolutely essential to the future economic well-being of our industry and our people in Scotland. If we are not prepared to address the issue now, it could well be too late to do so. The lead-in time for new capacity is so long and the difficulties that new proposals face are so severe that we must start the process now. Even people who oppose the replacement of nuclear and coal-fired capacity must understand the significance of the timescale.

We have brought the subject back to the chamber today because it is one of the most urgent issues that faces the Parliament. We want to ensure that the Executive takes clear and concise decisions. We are extremely disappointed that the views of the Labour Party have been completely removed from the Executive amendment. The Labour Party is being led by the nose by the Liberal Democrats, who have an ulterior motive—the decimation of Scotland's electricity generating capacity.

The arguments in favour of renewable energy, micro-generation and fuel efficiency are all worthy. We should pursue relentlessly all such avenues. However, failure to replace base-load generation capacity in the Scottish market will result in job losses and a reversal of economic growth. It will create a catastrophe of immense proportions for Scotland. Now is the time to have this argument. Now is the time to make difficult decisions. Members on the Labour front bench need to commit themselves to that. After all, Labour is the only party in the chamber that has failed to address this key issue. The time has come to address this matter. We look forward to the Executive's response.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Executive to support the adoption of a balanced energy policy to meet the energy needs of the nation, including the promotion of clean coal technology, new and replacement nuclear build, as well as oil and gas and renewables and therefore considers that immediate plans must be started to replace or renew our existing coal-fired and nuclear generating stations where required.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am happy to reply on behalf of the Executive. As Alex Johnstone correctly pointed out, it has been only six weeks since I stood before Parliament—albeit in a different place—and stated our commitment to our continuing policy objectives of increasing the proportion of energy that is generated from renewable sources; tackling climate change and fuel poverty; and ensuring security of supply for Scottish consumers.

Much has happened in the interim, and Scottish Power's decision to make a significant investment to extend Longannet's life well beyond 2015 is, as our amendment suggests, a welcome move and demonstrates confidence in the continued development of clean coal technology in Scotland.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Given Scottish Power's welcome announcement and the clean coal technologies that are available, does the minister agree that black is now the new green?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I have heard it said that nuclear is the new green. However, I agree that coal has a future in meeting Scotland's electricity needs. Scotland is at the forefront of clean coal technology, which will have a long and healthy future.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I agree entirely with the minister's comments about coal. However, his amendment is inaccurate. Longannet cannot supply the base load for Scotland in the winter, which is 6,000 to 7,000MW. Hunterston and Torness together generate 2,500MW, and traditionally have helped to supply the summer and winter base load. Does the minister agree?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I do not agree that the amendment is inaccurate, because it

"notes the progress made at Longannet to secure future base load energy supplies".

The base-load supply for Scotland—or, indeed, for the United Kingdom—cannot be secured by one energy source or by Longannet alone. I and the Executive fundamentally believe that our future energy needs must be met by a balanced mix of energy resources.

During the past six weeks, the first two volumes of the "Scottish Energy Study" have been published. They give a factual overview of energy supply and demand trends between 1990 and 2002 and provide us with good evidence with which to develop our energy policy. However, the information in the study is only part of our approach. We are also maintaining regular dialogue with the UK Government as it takes forward its UK energy review. As I have said before in the chamber, that review will not concentrate only on nuclear power. It will assess progress on the four goals that were set out in the 2003 UK energy white paper: first, to put the UK on a path to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, with real progress to be made by 2020; secondly, to maintain the reliability of energy supplies; thirdly, to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond; and, finally, to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated. Affordability is critical to all those considerations. The review will consider all options for delivering on those objectives and meeting the UK's future energy needs.

Clearly, the energy issues that face the UK also face Scotland, but there is also a Scottish perspective to this whole matter. For us, the key issues are: securing energy supplies, although we must acknowledge that the energy mix and infrastructure are different in Scotland; addressing the other side of the supply and demand equation by constraining growth in energy demand through energy efficiency improvements; reducing carbon energy levels to meet the challenges presented by climate change, which I suspect will be one of the key drivers of future energy policy; achieving the Executive's target of generating 40 per cent of energy from renewable energy sources by 2020; and providing affordable energy at a price that does not unduly constrain economic growth or exacerbate fuel poverty.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Yes.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call Alex Johnstone.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Murdo Fraser, actually. [ Laughter. ]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I am sorry, Mr Fraser.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to say that we are not usually confused so easily.

I am sure that the minister was present at last weekend's Labour Party conference in Aviemore. Will he tell the chamber whether he disagreed with any part of the energy motion that was passed at that conference?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I was indeed present at that occasion and I made a valuable contribution to the debate. In response to Mr Fraser's question, I should say that, as a Labour Party member, I support Labour Party policy on these matters.

The policies that we develop in Scotland must recognise that we must find solutions that meet our future energy demands in a way that improves energy efficiency and reduces the environmental impacts of climate change. Our progress so far has been noteworthy, although I suspect that I do not have enough time to go into great detail on that. However, I should point out that we are developing—and will, later this year, publish—our own energy efficiency strategy, which will acknowledge the important role that the micro-generation of renewable energy could play in the drive to meet climate change objectives.

I could say much more on the matter, but I will conclude by saying that energy policy is not about knee-jerk reactions. I fundamentally agree with Alex Johnstone's point that we have to take a long-term view. The real solution to meet Scotland's long-term energy needs lies in a robust policy that does not depend on a single source, but that seeks to capture Scotland's potential to have a wide-ranging, secure and balanced energy mix.

I move amendment S2M-4074.3, to leave out from "calls on" to end and insert:

"notes the progress made at Longannet to secure future base load energy supplies; supports the Scottish Executive's commitment to the development of a wide range of renewable energy technologies in Scotland as a key element of a balanced energy supply mix; supports the Executive's target that 40% of electricity generated in Scotland by 2020 should come from renewable sources; looks forward to publication of the revised Scottish Climate Change Programme and the consideration given to the contribution of energy efficiency and renewables to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; endorses the Executive's commitment to tackling fuel poverty; acknowledges the Executive's commitment to not support further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved; welcomes the release of the first two volumes of the Scottish Energy Study; recognises the importance of the UK Energy Review, and supports the Executive's engagement with the UK Government, Ofgem and the energy industry to ensure that the future energy supply needs of Scotland are met."

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The SNP welcomes this debate on one of the most important issues that will face the nation in the years ahead. The decisions that we take over the next few years will affect generations to come and determine the Scottish economy's success.

I should begin by saying that the Tory party and the Labour Party in Scotland seem to have signed some nuclear treaty. After all, they are the two political parties that will go into next year's Scottish Parliament elections with a pro-nuclear policy. However, the Scottish Labour Party's decision at its Aviemore conference to cave in to Tony Blair and give nuclear power the thumbs up has left it with egg on its face, in light of a BBC poll that was conducted a few days later in which the people of Scotland gave the decision the thumbs down. Indeed, a few days after that, the Sustainable Development Commission, which was set up by the Scottish Labour Government that has—as I must make clear—just come out in favour of nuclear power in Scotland, also gave the move a huge thumbs down.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am really interested to find out what the SNP's energy policy is. Does it think that the nation's future energy policy and needs should be determined by BBC opinion polls?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I realise that a BBC opinion poll is not the be-all and end-all, but I expect that on this issue it is more in touch with the people of Scotland than is the Scottish Labour Party.

Scotland is self-sufficient in energy and, with the right policies, can remain energy-independent. We must get away from the claim made by Tony Blair in London that the UK will be starved of energy in the near future, and instead discuss the facts. Scotland is an energy-rich country. We have more than 60 per cent of Europe's oil reserves, more than 12 per cent of Europe's gas reserves, 70 per cent of the UK's coal reserves, 25 per cent of Europe's wind potential, 10 per cent of Europe's wave potential and a quarter of Europe's tidal potential. Let us talk about the facts in this debate, not the scaremongering of the Tory party and the Labour Party.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Mr Lochhead talks about potential. If—heaven help us—the SNP took over in 2007, would he just close down the nuclear power plants and have nothing on stream in their place? Can he give us some concrete dates for when he expects the energy mix that the SNP prefers to deliver Scotland's requirements? At the moment, if we switched off nuclear we would not be self-sufficient.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The SNP's long-standing policy is that nuclear power stations in Scotland will not be replaced at the end of their technical and economic lives. The debate is about whether Scotland needs new nuclear power stations, and the SNP is arguing that the last thing Scotland needs is more nuclear power stations.

There is no answer to the waste issue. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has already said that the issue cannot be resolved, so the coalition's current policy is in tatters. Why cannot we update the policy, put the issue behind us and realise Scotland's potential for cleaner, safer and cheaper energy alternatives? That is the way forward for Scotland.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Lochhead give way?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

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

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I apologise; I do not have time to take an intervention.

If we take the disastrous decision to go for nuclear, it will undermine not only renewables—which can create new jobs and give us clean energy resources—but energy efficiency, which we have to talk about more in this Parliament.

To find a solution for Scotland's energy needs, we need to have energy powers in this Parliament. According to the BBC opinion poll, 82 per cent of Scots want decisions on Scotland's nuclear future to be taken in this Parliament, not in London. Scotland's Deputy First Minister, Nicol Stephen, said on television last night that he wants more energy powers to come to the Scottish Parliament. The Steel commission is talking about more energy powers coming to this Parliament from London. Why cannot we just do what is right for Scotland, not what is right for Tony Blair, and say no to nuclear by supporting the SNP's amendment today?

I move amendment S2M-4074.2, to leave out from "calls on" to end and insert:

"believes that there is no case for the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland and that decisions on our energy future should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament rather than the UK Government, in line with the wishes of the people of Scotland."

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Energy policy undoubtedly remains one of the most urgent and most challenging issues facing us today. [ Interruption. ] There seem to be problems with the sound system. My goodness, what are we to do if we cannot even get the sound right?

The choices that we make over the next few years will shape the future of our children and grandchildren. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer, it seems that I am speaking into the wrong microphone. I am sorry. We Greens cannot always be right, although I suppose that we are right about 99 per cent of the time. [Laughter.]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Yes, just get on with it.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

There are clear signs that too many people in the chamber are not thinking the energy issue through properly. The Tories' motion makes it clear that they consider energy policy to be synonymous with electricity supply. We need to raise our game and recognise that electricity accounts for less than a quarter of final energy use. Any energy policy that simply ignores the other three quarters is doomed to fail from the word go, because our road, rail and air transport uses energy and our homes use energy.

I hope that everyone in the chamber accepts that climate change means that we cannot go on as we have in the past, but there is another factor, almost as pressing, that will have just as great an influence on our energy future. We have grown up in an age of cheap oil that is now coming to an end. UK oil production peaked a few years ago and the global oil peak will probably happen in the next five to 10 years. We need to move to a low-carbon economy as a matter of urgency, whether we like it or not. The profligate way in which we have been using energy in recent years will have to come to an end and we will all have to tighten our belts.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On profligacy in the use of oil, does Shiona Baird have any comment to make on the fact that Robin Harper appeared to come to Parliament today in a chauffeur-driven Lexus?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

He was sharing the car. He had been having an early morning breakfast meeting and was offered a lift. Mr Davidson misunderstands the Green approach. We are not against cars as such, but let us not kid ourselves. Oil is running out and there are no magic wands that we can wave and no silver bullets for replacing cheap oil and gas.

We cannot just build more nuclear power stations. Doing so will not let us carry on as if nothing has happened. I wish it were so. If I believed that nuclear power offered a genuinely sustainable energy future and an answer to climate change and oil depletion, I would embrace it, but nuclear-generated electricity supplies less than 8 per cent of our total energy needs.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will Shiona Baird give way?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I cannot, as I will not be allowed extra time for interventions.

The Sustainable Development Commission spent a year examining the case for nuclear power and the role that it could play in a low-carbon economy. Its conclusion was that nuclear power is not the answer, for five main reasons: waste; economics; inflexibility; security; and the distraction that it would be from more effective energy strategies. That is not knee-jerk polemics from environmental ideologues but a carefully studied and well-reasoned analysis. It is notable that the Westminster Conservative energy spokesman, Alan Duncan, said that the Government should pay close attention to a report that puts a spanner in the works of its nuclear ambitions. Perhaps Mr Duncan should have a word with his Scottish colleagues, because it is clear that the Scottish Conservatives still have the same blinkered attitude to nuclear power, irrespective of the growing evidence that it is a dead end and a blind alley.

At least the Scottish Tories are not going down the blind alley alone. The Scottish Labour Party, with one or two honourable exceptions, seems intent on making the same mistake. We will watch that Tory-Labour nuclear pact with interest, but one thing is for certain: whatever the Tories and Labour think about nuclear power, the majority of Scots want nothing to do with it. The BBC poll clearly indicates that nuclear power is an energy source of last resort. We are a democracy and we need to listen to what the people are saying. It is equally clear that we are no nearer to finding a resolution to the waste issue, irrespective of the First Minister's sophistry.

There are no easy answers. The future holds many challenges but also many opportunities. We need to reduce and to manage energy demand. We must recognise that we can reduce our energy use by around a third without much effort. We will not need any new nuclear if we achieve that level of energy efficiency, which we can do in far less time than it takes to build new nuclear. Why are we allowing ourselves to be distracted by a technology from the past that will play no role for at least 10 to 15 years? Evidence is now stacking up that we might not have that long before we get to the point of no return with rising CO2 emissions. We need to recognise the enormous potential of Scottish renewables, while accepting that that sector will need a great deal of financial support for the foreseeable future. We need to think about how we generate and distribute our power, as regional and local networks are far more efficient and accountable. I was heartened to read that the Westminster Tories, too, are beginning to recognise the value of decentralised networks.

Most of all, we need energy efficiency. We must save resources, save money and protect the climate. How many more reasons do we need? There are challenges and opportunities. There are some tricky choices but no easy answers. We cannot afford to get energy policy wrong. I move amendment S2M-4074.1, to leave out from "calls on" to end and insert:

"acknowledges that the development of stable, secure and sustainable future energy policy is one of the most pressing and most challenging tasks facing the present generation; recognises that any future energy policy must consider all energy and not merely electricity, which accounts for only around one-fifth of total energy demand; accepts that such a policy must take into account the twin problems of climate change and dwindling supplies of oil and other fossil fuels; welcomes the recent publication by the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) of its position paper, The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy; supports the conclusion of the SDC that nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply; further notes the results of a BBC Scotland opinion poll indicating that a majority of Scots favour more renewable energy while a small minority supports new nuclear power, and calls on the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scotland's future energy policy involves radical energy efficiency measures, the expansion of all renewable technologies, decentralised networks and the widespread adoption of microgeneration."

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Another debate, another opportunity to make the Liberal Democrats' opposition to new nuclear power stations crystal clear. The Tories do not agree. Their motion calls for new and replacement nuclear build. That makes the Tory position clear—or does it? Launching the Tory energy policy review in February, Alan Duncan said that his party had

"no fixed opinion on nuclear energy".

This week, he went further still and said:

"you can't go against the grain of public opinion on nuclear power ... We are open-minded but we start from a position of suspicion."

On 2 March, David Cameron said that we want decentralised energy; on 9 March, Scottish Tories call for more nuclear power, which requires a centralised energy system. Young David plans a wind turbine for his roof; Murdo Fraser calls for a moratorium on wind energy. Alan Duncan is suspicious of new nuclear power stations; Alex Johnstone is positively excited by them. How interesting it is that the Scottish Tories continue to embrace nuclear energy while the English Tories are much less happy about it.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will Nora Radcliffe tell us what Lord Thurso's views on nuclear power are?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Lord Thurso has made his views on nuclear power clear. They are his own views, not the policy or views of the majority of the Liberal Democrats. We can accommodate people who disagree with us on one policy issue.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Nora Radcliffe is the only Liberal Democrat member in the chamber—

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, there is another one here.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I apologise to Jeremy Purvis. Is it not the case that, in the Executive, the tail is wagging the dog and constraining the minister from making the statements that he would like to make on the Executive's policy?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

That may or may not be true. We have a four-year agreement on a programme for government that both parties are honouring. That is to be commended.

Tony Blair seems fixated on having new nuclear power stations. Perhaps he regards it as one of his legacy issues, but it seems careless that it comes with an expensive and hazardous legacy for generations to come.

Over recent weeks and months, we have been deaved by the mantra that nuclear power is the only game in town and that, without it, the lights will go out. On Monday, the Sustainable Development Commission—the UK Government's official advisory body on environmental issues—debunked that myth. Its clear advice to UK ministers is:

"there is no justification for bringing forward plans for a new nuclear power programme, at this time".

The commission rejected nuclear power on no fewer than five key grounds. Members should read its report.

Last year, the Department of Trade and Industry admitted that questions about finance, Government support, market mechanisms, public support and the storage of radioactive waste are all still unanswered.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is Nora Radcliffe aware that there are other people who take an opposing view to that of the Sustainable Development Commission? According to the Royal Academy of Engineering, the cost of nuclear power is less than half the price of wind power. The fact is that the uranium that is used in our nuclear power stations is at least 97 per cent renewable. It sounds as if nuclear power should be considered on cost grounds at least.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Ted Brocklebank should look at the tag on the report to which he refers; I suggest that there is a strong vested interest.

I outlined what the DTI admitted last year. One year on, there are no proposed solutions to those fundamental questions, unless we count the suggestion in a leaked report from Sir David King, the chief scientific adviser, that new nuclear power stations should be funded by a levy on everyone's electricity bill.

Are we, the public, to pay twice over for new nuclear power stations? No. We must grasp the economic and environmental opportunity that renewable energy offers to Scotland and make that our priority. In Scotland, where Liberal Democrats, in partnership with the Labour Party and with the support of other parties, have put renewables at the top of the agenda, we are on track to achieve and exceed our target of 18 per cent renewables by 2010, while it looks as if the UK Government will fail to achieve its target of 10 per cent. That is no coincidence. Let us also be clear that it is the involvement of Liberal Democrats in Government in Scotland that has led to the Executive policy of building no new nuclear power stations while waste issues remain unresolved.

For many years to come, we will have a nuclear industry in decommissioning, but new nuclear generation is not the answer to our energy needs here and now. Apart from anything else, it cannot be ready in time to replace old coal and old nuclear power stations. The future and the opportunities are in clean coal, carbon sequestration and, most of all, a revolution in renewables, energy efficiency and micro-generation.

I call on members to support the Executive amendment.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I open with a couple of quotations:

"The UK's leading engineer, Sir Alec Broers, the President of the Royal Academy of Engineering has warned that renewable energy will not stop global warming or blackouts. He has said that the UK Government's plans to generate 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 were unrealistic and investment in nuclear power was critical if shortages were to be avoided."

The other quotation comes from the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee's report "Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs", which is dated 16 March 2005. The select committee stressed:

"It is ... vital that decisions are taken now, to obviate the possibility of, quite literally, the lights going out in Scotland in the foreseeable future."

I cannot understand why the Labour Party, which obviously agrees with all that we have been arguing for, is frozen like a rabbit in car headlights and is not making a proper public commitment to the policy that it has just been talking about.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does David Davidson appreciate that he is scaremongering and misleading the people of Scotland? The statistics that he just read out are UK statistics, not Scottish ones, and our energy profile is completely different from that of the UK. Will he please tell the truth and give the facts?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To be frank, if Richard Lochhead is prepared to accept a BBC poll as the substance for his arguments, he should not be talking about numbers.

Our problems in Scotland are to do with the future sustainability of power supplies, their affordability and the fact that, although our energy requirements are increasing, we are not doing enough to become energy efficient. Energy efficiency must go hand in hand with power production; we must help people to heat their homes. I have no objection to somebody erecting mini-turbines on their house if they can get planning permission, but I do not understand why Scotland's countryside is being covered with miles of wind farms that cost energy in a way that nobody ever talks about.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will David Davidson give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In a moment.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I think not in a moment; you have about one and a half minutes left.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We must think about the mix of systems. The argument should be about the percentages of different forms of energy generation that we use. North sea oil and gas are a great source of revenue for the economy of the north-east of Scotland, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes in through the back door and, through stealth thuggery, takes millions of pounds away from that industry to the point that the major oil and gas companies are going to cut down on investment. If they do that, many jobs will be lost so, if the chancellor is to carry on with that policy, we must ensure that we now make decisions on and invest in the two sources that will meet our energy requirements: clean coal and nuclear. Sites for those are already connected to the grid, and we have willing staff and communities that are happy to accept those installations. We need to replace the two nuclear power stations that we enjoy and there is no reason why new ones cannot be commissioned alongside them.

The long and the short of it is that the Government in Scotland is too busy trying to appease its minor colleagues—the Liberal Democrats—and must stand up and be counted. It cannot carry on messing about and giving weird and wild quotations about this, that and the other without coming to a decision. I ask the minister to commit in his closing speech to a programme of nuclear renewal.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I have quite a lot of sympathy for the Tory motion and have been arguing along those lines for many years—a lot longer than some of my colleagues down south—but I question the Tories' motivation, which is, I suspect, to split the coalition. With Nicol Stephen doing such a good job of that, I am surprised that they are bothering to try.

The debate is about a reserved policy matter. Although the Scottish Executive has powers in planning, the UK Government will determine energy policy and I have every confidence that our colleagues down south will come to a sensible conclusion. However, as Nora Radcliffe pointed out, the Tories are slightly at odds with each other north and south of the border. Mr Cameron, their leader, has said that he is open minded about nuclear power and has appointed Zac Goldsmith, the editor of The Ecologist magazine and a well-known critic of nuclear power, to be deputy chairman of the Conservative party's wider quality-of-life review.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I point out that Scotland's proportion of nuclear power is far higher than that south of the border. Will Elaine Murray guarantee that her Executive ministers will not put a block on energy policy that is set at Westminster?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

They are not my Executive ministers, because I am not the First Minister, so I cannot guarantee anything.

I am one of those who were pleased to support the Amicus and National Union of Mineworkers motion on coal and nuclear power that the Scottish Labour conference agreed to. I support ambitious renewable energy targets; I do not include nuclear energy as a renewable source. We need to have energy efficiency targets and targets for non-carbon-generated energy.

The most recent statistics show that Scotland has been using 175TWh of energy a year. We have six major generating stations, three of which are nuclear. Just under 40 per cent of our current power generation is nuclear. I do not think that we can keep our industries and services running without a nuclear power component and a clean coal component.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

rose—

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry—I do not have time. The alternative, which was not supported by the Scottish people according to the recent BBC poll, is importing oil and gas or energy that is generated by nuclear means in Europe. I do not support that, either.

I draw the Parliament's attention to the comments of Professor Lovelock, a fundamental green. He was one of the first people to point out the problems with the ozone layer and one of the first people to mention the likely impact of global warming. He has pointed out to us that if we had 50 years to bring on renewable technology, we might be okay, but we do not have 50 years. The problem is far more imminent. We cannot tackle climate change unless we accept that nuclear power has to play a part, at least for the next generation. That will allow us time to develop renewables and to develop nuclear fusion technologies, which mean that, in the longer term, we might not require nuclear fission.

The Sustainable Development Commission, which has been mentioned in the debate, states:

"nuclear is a low carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK. Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK's energy supply."

There are a number of reasons why the Sustainable Development Commission came out against nuclear power generation on balance at the moment. I think that there are questions about some of the issues that the commission has. However, the commission was not nearly as damning of the nuclear generation capacity as some of the reports in the media have suggested. If we have a UK energy review that accepts new nuclear generation, I do not see why my constituents at Chapelcross should be excluded from the benefits of new-generation nuclear power if, just across the Solway, the people at Sellafield and Calder Hall are not.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It was interesting to hear Alex Johnstone talking about the need for affordable energy and the need to look after the less well off in society. I do not know whether I am the only person in the chamber who, on hearing a different Tory tune from the one that we heard in previous decades, finds it not totally believable, even with the new, cuddly David Cameron at the Tories' head, allegedly leading the charge.

Carbon, which we have talked about a lot today, is not the only contributor to global warming. In fact, methane is a larger contributor. When Alex Johnstone was talking about his personal contribution to the problem, I was wondering whether he had been able to do something about the way in which his cows' digestive system works.

I agree with the Tories on the urgency of the situation, of course. It is true that coal and nuclear power stations are nearing the end of their useful lives, although it is amazing how the useful lives of power stations prove to be much more elastic than predicted. That gives us a breathing space at most. My worry is that the Government appears to be far too optimistic in some of its targets. The Government has belatedly changed the renewables obligation order—I think that it was considered by a committee this week. However, I am not convinced that that will mean that sufficient investment will be put into the emerging renewables technologies that we will need if we are even going to meet the Government's targets, far less exceed them. I refer to wave and tidal power technologies.

There is a limit to how much wind power can be generated. It is unlikely that the wind will ever not be blowing somewhere in Scotland, but that is a possibility that we must cater for. We must get more investment into renewables technologies to make them commercially viable and we must do that by 2020. I am very much concerned that the pace of development is not fast enough.

We have heard a lot about clean coal technology, but we should not misuse such terms. On its own, clean coal technology will not reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by one iota. Even co-firing does not reduce the amount of CO2 over the long term; it just reduces the pace at which the same amount of CO2 is put into the atmosphere. Although that technology is welcome, we need to consider carbon capture much more seriously. Carbon capture is still theoretical. It has not yet been brought to market. What is the Government going to do to ensure that it is brought to market, particularly in those areas that are remote from the pipelines that lead back to the depleted oil reservoirs where the carbon can be stored?

I would point out to Labour members that there are some weasel words in their amendment. It says that new nuclear power stations will not be supported

"while waste management issues remain unresolved".

What does that mean? I suspect that it means until one or two months before the next general election, when it is no longer necessary to hold the coalition together. If Labour members vote for their amendment, they are accepting the possibility that waste management issues will remain unresolved for decades—perhaps for ever. They must have a strategy to cater for that situation. If they do not think that they can adopt such a strategy, they should vote against their own amendment.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We come now to closing speeches. We are quite some distance behind the clock.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

We live in interesting times. We have a new Labour Government that has moved well to the right; we now seem to have a Conservative party that is taking up the Labour Party's positions and using its own motions to do so. We have the Liberal Democrats who, on the face of it, sound entirely clear on their nuclear policy; in fact, they have some severe disagreements, with Lord Thurso saying that he feels that he is on the edge of persuading his colleagues to take up a different position.

We have heard a lot from the Conservatives today about the costs of different forms of energy generation and the minister said that affordability is critical. However, the Government's energy review in 2002 made it clear that nuclear power is one of the most expensive options. It comes in at between 3p and 4p per kilowatt, compared with onshore wind power at 1.5p to 2.5p per kilowatt. Even offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear power. If it is affordability that we use as our top criterion, we must develop renewables and we must let the nuclear power stations reach the end of their natural lives and be decommissioned.

The minister has talked about climate change, which is indeed a crucial issue. A nuclear power station emits as much carbon dioxide as the very cleanest form of gas-powered stations with combined heat and power. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. Nuclear power generation emits carbon during the building of nuclear power stations, the mining of uranium, the enrichment of uranium and the decommissioning of the power stations at the end of their lives, not to mention the storage of waste for thousands of years to come.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

No, I am sorry. I do not have time. The importance of energy efficiency was raised by both Richard Lochhead and my colleague Shiona Baird. The Government's performance and innovation unit has estimated that we can save 30 per cent of our energy requirements through cost-effective energy efficiency measures. Surely that is the very first fundamental step that we must take in considering future energy requirements. Efficiency in energy use gives us more efficient businesses, addresses fuel poverty, addresses climate change and is more effective than concentrating on the generation end of the equation.

We have heard about security. What is less secure than basing our future energy requirements on a generation of 10 new AP1000 nuclear stations, which have never been built anywhere in the world and about whose performance we know nothing, other than from computer modelling?

There is also the enormous question of waste. We still do not have a clue as to what to do with nuclear waste. Nirex estimates that to find, open and run a secure waste repository will take between 25 and 40 years.

We have heard from Elaine Murray about importing fuels. There are not huge quantities of uranium in Britain; 100 per cent of it is imported.

For all the reasons that I have given, I urge members to support the amendment in the name of Shiona Baird.

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

Scott Barrie asked the deputy minister whether black was the new green. Mr Wilson believes to an extent that nuclear is the new green. Of course there are practical arguments against nuclear, such as those expressed by the Royal Society. One question that has been raised is:

"Does the fact that it is expensive to create, almost cost-free to run, and then so expensive to decommission mean that in a private market someone will make the investment, run it, and then skedaddle leaving someone else to pick up the pieces?"—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 January 2006; Vol 441, c 779.]

That is a legitimate fear, which was expressed by Mr Alan Duncan, who is well placed to make such comments.

The argument is that no private investor, in isolation, has built a nuclear power station anywhere in the world since the events at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. When President Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed by Congress in August, he said that it would reverse the fact that no new power station had been built in the United States since the 1970s. However, the act included several massive incentives to encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants, including production tax credits, loan guarantees and risk protection for the companies that decided to pursue the first new reactors.

Nuclear power plants are not economically viable as investment opportunities, unless there is massive Government intervention, as of course there is in Finland.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

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

If I have time later on, I will give way to Mr Fraser.

Furthermore, our experience in this country tells us that once such plants are built, they are uninsurable. The low unit price of nuclear generation has to be offset against the financial cost of managing construction, as Alan Duncan said.

It is curious that the Conservatives are campaigning to be the party of loan guarantees and risk protection for energy companies. Why does that not apply to other companies that provide services to households or businesses?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

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

I wish to make progress. I will come back to Mr Fraser if I have time.

Richard Lochhead said that we are self-sufficient for energy in Scotland and that we export energy that we generate. What is wrong with that? In a previous debate on energy, it was said that we produce more whisky than we need in Scotland and we see considerable value in exporting it.

Shiona Baird explained helpfully that Mr Harper shared his Lexus this morning with his driver. She was right to say that with energy conservation we can reduce radically the need for new nuclear generation. I agree absolutely. Renewables are contributing to local and national generation, which is good for Scotland.

Phil Gallie asked in an intervention whether the tail was wagging the dog in the Executive. Much as I am tempted, I will not ask whether that is connected with the proposals on tail docking in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill.

Nora Radcliffe pointed to the curious fact that the Scottish Conservatives are calling for a new nuclear solution, which is a reserved decision, but their UK spokesman, Alan Duncan, said:

"I have had an instinctive hostility to nuclear power. I treat it with profound suspicion."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 January 2006; Vol 441, c 779.]

I read this week in that august journal The Daily Telegraph that David Cameron wants to put a wind turbine on the roof of his house in Notting Hill. Well done to him. I am sure that he cares not that that is contrary to the moratorium policy of his Scottish colleagues.

Alasdair Morgan talked about the complexities of technologies. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is currently considering the complexities of waste.

I agree with Chris Ballance that the starting point has to be energy conservation and efficiency. If we get that right and follow the Executive's approach, we do not need new nuclear in Scotland.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In this interesting debate we have, yet again, seen two sides. One side—Labour and Tory members—sits in Scotland and looks to London for the solutions to the problems that arise here, instead of presenting robustly the Scottish view that our conditions are different. Let us turn the map around. Do members of Unionist parties denigrate the potential for free sources of power in this country that we could try to export to other parts of the United Kingdom?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No. I do not have time. I want to develop my argument.

The Scottish perspective is different and the opportunities here are tremendous, as long as there is a fair degree of investment in renewables, which many members have suggested. Given the way in which past Governments invested in nuclear, we must ask ourselves whether the UK Government is going to use incentives like the Bush incentives to kick start investment in nuclear power again. The investment will be far greater; indeed, how much will be offered is incalculable at present. The amounts that are offered for renewables development are far too small. That is why such development is so slow.

The nuclear argument is predicated on the supply of uranium. We know that if the current number of nuclear power stations in the world— 400—is doubled, the supply of uranium will run out in 30 years' time. The cost of uranium, for which there is a world market, will increase. In any argument about the development of nuclear, we must acknowledge that the planning process for new nuclear power reactors will take 10 years and they will take 20 years to build. At the end of those 30 years, there might not be any fuel to power a nuclear reactor. There will be a big full stop at the end of 30 years. That is one of the major flaws in the Conservative argument.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is the member aware that the fuel element of the cost of nuclear generation is very small and that if the price of uranium rises significantly in years to come, we will be able to use the brand new source of uranium dissolved in sea water, which will be economic and so plentiful that there will not be a problem again?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Tories might place their faith in such experimental technology, but they might also tell us what the cost of the nuclear industry is. No one has taken a nuclear plant through the process from building to use to decommissioning to dealing with waste, so no one can put a figure on the costs for one nuclear plant, far less for the 400 in the world. Once again, the Tories try to make us believe that nuclear is a technology that we can afford.

There have been several speeches on the other side of the argument. Let us turn the map around. I can see more potential for power from the sea around Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, through wave and tidal power and offshore and onshore wind, than exists from coal, nuclear and other sources in Scotland at present. However, I hear nothing from Tory members about the development of such power or its transmission to the rest of the UK. The flaw is that they are in favour of big power, whereas we are in favour of a balance that is based on our free renewables.

The SNP amendment shows why members must reject the Tory and Labour approach if they want to have a Scottish perspective on energy.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

In my limited time I will try to deal with all the points that have been raised.

I turn first to Shiona Baird. I would have been more impressed with the Green contribution to the debate had Shiona not voted against the revision of the draft Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2006 in the Enterprise and Culture Committee only this week.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I voted against the order because it promotes energy from waste and applies renewables obligation certificates to energy from municipal waste, which is not renewable in any sense.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

There we go. The Greens are against something else. There comes a time or a day of reckoning when one must ask people to state what they are in favour of rather than simply what they are against.

In that context, Nora Radcliffe's speech was welcome, although I am afraid that she misrepresented the position of the Prime Minister and the UK Government on the UK energy review. There is no secret agenda and no foregone conclusion. The Prime Minister and the UK Government have made it clear that the UK energy review will be conducted as an open debate and that everyone, including the Scottish Executive, is entitled to contribute to it. It is concerned not simply with whether there will be a new generation of nuclear build; it is about our future energy needs as a nation. In that context, it is interesting that Richard Lochhead failed to address the fundamental issues—affordability, security of supply and combating climate change. Instead, we heard the pathetic excuse that policy should be determined by reference to public opinion polls.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Energy bills in Scotland are spiralling upwards. Does the minister accept that that is an indictment of the UK's energy policy, which has failed Scotland miserably?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Electricity bills in the UK are the cheapest in the European Union. Obviously, there are challenges due to the increase in oil and gas prices in the global market, but the answer is not to do what Richard Lochhead proposes and build new gas-fired power stations. In the current climate, that would be economic madness. Governments—

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way? He made a false accusation.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will correct another basic misunderstanding. Governments do not build power stations. Governments set planning policy and other environmental policies that are informative and illustrative for the industry and the market brings forward proposals—

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

No. I will continue if the member does not mind.

Many members failed to grasp the fact that Governments do not build power stations.

Unlike Richard Lochhead, Alasdair Morgan made a thoughtful speech in which he led us to believe that the SNP is thinking about the matter for the long term and without reference to opinion polls. He commented on the important issue of carbon capture and storage. I fundamentally agree that there is the potential for an 85 per cent reduction through the capture of CO2. We support the development of programmes and projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of that technology, including the important developments in north-east Scotland.

Chris Ballance demonstrated a complete failure to understand the economics of the industry and issues of affordability. Wind power costs 3p to 4p per kilowatt hour. If wave and tidal power are developed, they will cost five to eight times as much. Power from biomass, which is a potentially significant source of base load, costs about 4.5p per kilowatt hour. I accept that estimates of the cost of new nuclear power vary, but at the lower end the cost is 2.5p per kilowatt hour and the maximum is 4p per kilowatt hour. The cost of power from new gas-fired power stations is up to about 4p per kilowatt hour. If members do the arithmetic, they will come to a simple conclusion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We do come to a conclusion. I call Murdo Fraser to close the debate.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has been lively and instructive. The sight of the morning—indeed, the sight of the week—has been Labour members' flip-flopping around on the issue and trying to square the circle. I enjoyed the minister's speech and I particularly enjoyed the speech by Dr Elaine Murray. It is difficult to disagree with a single word that she said. It seems to me that she made a speech in support of the motion rather than a speech in support of the Executive's amendment.

There is a challenge for Labour members. Will they have the courage of their convictions and support the motion—we know that they agree with every word of it because it reflects the motion that the Labour conference in Aviemore supported less than 10 days ago—or will they vote for the Executive amendment, which they do not believe in? That is the question for Labour members, but we know that their hearts are in the right place. When I challenged the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning during his opening speech, he said that he supports Labour policy. We will see whether Labour members have the courage of their convictions at decision time, when they will vote either for Labour Party policy or with the Executive.

If the minister wants to give an explanation for his conduct, I will be delighted to give way.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The member will accept that we must find a solution to the problems associated with the disposal of nuclear waste. The Executive's position on that is crystal clear and is encapsulated in our amendment. We do not support the development of new nuclear power stations until the nuclear waste issue is resolved.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the issue of nuclear waste is so important, it is strange that it did not feature in the motion that the Labour Party discussed at its recent conference in Aviemore. However, that is a matter for Labour members to explain to their constituency members at the weekend. If they vote against the motion today, they will have to explain why they voted against a motion that supports Labour policy. The irony is that the Liberal Democrats have no such compunction. As Alex Johnstone said, when Nicol Stephen appeared on prime-time television last night, he was billed as the Deputy First Minister but he expounded Liberal Democrat policy on energy rather than Executive policy on energy. Surely Labour ministers should display the same courage.

For the avoidance of doubt, I point out that the Conservatives are not obsessed with new nuclear power stations. We support a mixed approach. Our motion refers to that—it mentions clean coal technology, oil and gas and renewables. We heard a little—although not enough—about clean coal technology and the opportunities that arise from it. To be fair, the minister mentioned it in both his contributions. There is tremendous potential to develop clean coal technology, which will involve both co-firing it with biomass and developing new technology to allow carbon capture and sequestration.

Those of us who were in Perth on Monday to attend the presentation that was arranged by Scottish Enterprise and Scottish and Southern Energy heard Mitsui Babcock talking about technology that is being developed that will enable us to use our ample coal reserves in Scotland. We could still burn coal but do so in an environmentally friendly way. It is exciting that Scotland is potentially the world leader in that technology. With a bit of investment and encouragement from Government, we could build an industry that not only meets our energy needs but creates a new industry for Scotland in which we are world leaders. I was delighted to hear the minister say in his closing remarks that the Executive is considering supporting that technology.

We also need to consider renewables. We welcome the developments in offshore technologies such as wave power and tidal power, but we must recognise that it will be many years before they can make a major contribution to energy production. That does not mean that we should not develop them, but we must have realistic expectations. I make no apology for saying that we have serious reservations about large-scale onshore wind developments because of the problem of intermittency of supply.

Jeremy Purvis talked about the cost of new nuclear power stations and said that they would have to be subsidised. However, the fact is that the most subsidised form of energy production is onshore wind. Nobody would be building a single wind farm anywhere in the country if it were not for the large subsidies that are put into that method of production. Let us not hear any lessons about the cost of nuclear power from those who are pro-renewables.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Does the member accept that the £76 billion cost of decommissioning current nuclear power stations is a subsidy? Does he agree that that sum is considerably larger than any other energy subsidy?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

All I can do is refer Mr Ballance to the comments of Professor David Simpson of the David Hume Institute who, in a paper that he produced in April 2004, calculated that—even including the cost of decommissioning—nuclear power is two and a half times cheaper than wind power. I can do no better than refer to that expert.

As we know, the problem with onshore wind power is the proliferation of planning applications all over Scotland. We have a ridiculous free-for-all that needs to be addressed through a review of our planning system. Communities up and down the country are under siege from planning applications. Unless we stop this madness and start considering realistic alternatives, we will be in danger of doing untold damage to our landscape and—more important—to our vital tourism industry. The SNP may want us to become Europe's giant wind farm, but we reject that ambition, as do many communities in Scotland.

A new consensus is building on energy. The BBC poll to which many members referred did not just say that people oppose nuclear power; when people were asked whether they would support new nuclear power stations if they stopped Scotland depending on imported energy, 54 per cent said that they would. We know about all the caveats that apply to opinion polls, but even that poll showed that people would support new nuclear power stations in some circumstances.

We can forgive the Greens their head-in-the-sand approach and we expect no better from the Scottish National Party. To be frank, the Lib Dems should know better, and we know that Labour knows better. There is a majority in the Parliament for more nuclear power—we and Labour members support it. Surely it is time for Labour MSPs to stop the Lib Dem tail wagging the Labour dog. They should ditch the sordid coalition fudge on energy and join us tonight in voting for what we know they believe in.

Drug Abuse

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We ended the previous debate 12 minutes behind schedule, which has inevitable consequences for whom I can call in this debate. I also have a note of four points of order, which could impact on the debate if they are made. They all concern the same point, so it might make more sense to deal with them now.

All the points relate to the amendment in the name of Hugh Henry to the motion in the name of Annabel Goldie, on drug abuse. The amendment contains a typographical error. It says,

"leave out from 'calls on'"

but should read "leave out from 'notes'". Members can be assured that the fact that the amendment was selected means that it was competent. The minister is not responsible for the typographical error and members will vote on the amendment as it should read, rather than as it is printed in the Business Bulletin.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank the Presiding Officer for his explanation of the technical point about the amendment in the name of Hugh Henry. If amendments are inaccurate, that is slightly confusing for parties that are to contribute to a debate and makes it a little difficult to consider what the amendments mean. Be that as it may, I accept the Presiding Officer's ruling.

The decision to debate drug abuse in our business time was taken long before the tragic death of little Derek Doran from methadone was made public. I make no apology for calling a debate on this crucial subject and I am pleased that the First Minister at least seems to have recognised the growing drugs problem in Scotland, which the state has exacerbated by its overreliance on prescribing methadone.

I do not have much time—I realise the pressure on time—so I will focus on methadone. I make it clear that my party has never called for that drug to be dropped. Unlike those who believe that methadone is some sort of panacea, we do not believe in a one-size-fits-all attitude to dealing with drug abuse. Unfortunately, the overwhelming response to addiction in Scotland is placement on a methadone programme.

When the Parliament debated drug abuse in 2004, many members of other parties hounded me for daring to challenge the use of methadone. The former Liberal Democrat drugs spokesman, Keith Raffan, said that we needed to shout about the benefits of methadone. He said:

"Drug misuse is an addiction—a form of compulsive-obsessive behaviour. What such people want is different from what they can achieve."—[Official Report, 27 October 2004; c 11192.]

I challenge precisely that dismissive and patronising attitude, which leaves many people parked on methadone. Do we really want to continue a pattern that will lead to the prescription of more than 1 million methadone scripts a year by 2012?

It is imperative that those who find themselves addicted to heroin, methadone or any other substance are given immediate support and rehabilitation to help them to end their addiction and to return to leading a normal life. The Government's job is to help such individuals but, instead, they are trapped.

The drug outcome research in Scotland study by Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow found that most drug addicts who seek help do so because they want to become clean and to change their lifestyle. The drug misuse statistics of 2005 showed that the majority of individuals who sought help did not want a prescription-based solution.

However, finding help is far from easy. England and Wales have a central directory of rehabilitation facilities, which includes those provided by the voluntary and private sectors. That gives individuals instant information about a variety of aspects, such as vacancies and locations. I reiterate my call for the Executive to establish such a directory for Scotland. We are a small country and surely that is not beyond the wit of man.

Alongside a central directory, a dramatic shift is needed towards offering individuals help and rehabilitation to come off drugs. I will quote a chilling passage from Professor Neil McKeganey's article in The Herald yesterday. He said:

"There is a simple truth here but one that is rarely shared, namely that methadone has all too easily become the drug-addiction treatment for the masses. There are no superstar heroin addicts or drug-dependent doctors signing themselves up for long-term methadone programmes. Residential rehabilitation is the gold-standard treatment for those who can afford it".

Rehabilitation and leading a drug-free lifestyle should not be an option that is open only to the well-off. Can we as a nation afford to leave so many languishing on methadone? If a person found that someone whom they cared about was addicted to heroin and that the only option open to that person was to be prescribed methadone, would they not worry and fear that the person whom they cared about was being consigned to a prescription prison? That is why I want the Executive to publish an analysis of whether the rehabilitation places that are available are adequate to meet demands and to say what it is doing to increase the number of places.

As I said it would, my speech has focused on the use of methadone. Much needs to be done to help addicts, but if we are to conquer the drugs problem, we must stop people taking drugs in the first place. It is deeply depressing and distressing that 80 per cent of people who sought treatment for the first time last year started to take drugs when they were under 20.

As I have said many times, we need to abandon the softly-softly know the score campaign and deliver a simple abstinence message.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I draw to the member's attention a quotation from David Cameron about a just say no campaign for children. He said:

"I don't believe it would work. But if we tell children the facts and the dangers, they might just listen."

Does that represent a difference in policy north and south of the border or is it just Mr Cameron's verbal gymnastics?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Not at all. The core of what Mr Cameron says is that we need to give children sensible information, not doctored information that implies that the problem is non-existent or far less serious than it is. The statistics that I just read out underline the gravity of what we are discussing.

We certainly need to use the voluntary sector more to develop clearer and more effective messages to educate people about the dangers of drug abuse. Politicians do not always know best and we need to use the vital charitable and voluntary organisations that work so hard to deal with drugs. They have a wealth of vital expertise and experience.

I have not commented on the amendments, because I did not understand one of them and because none of the others, in so far as they related to the motion, went to the core of what I regard the problem to be.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the increasing drugs problem in Scotland which has seen rises in the number of drug-related deaths and drug-related crimes; recognises that drug abuse destroys lives, tears families apart, leads to widespread and recurring crime and the disintegration of entire communities; believes that there should be a zero tolerance drugs strategy which aims to rid Scotland of drugs; believes that such a strategy should place an emphasis on early intervention and include a coherent education programme which prioritises abstinence, and believes that there needs to be a change in the help offered to drug addicts, away from an over-reliance on methadone and towards a drug-free lifestyle.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

This is a useful debate. Such debates are generally characterised by thoughtful speeches—I except those by Conservative members—in which members genuinely try to grapple with a difficult problem.

I was struck this week by a letter in The Herald from a drugs expert in California, on methadone and people who criticise its use. That expert said that the first potential problem is the impact that careless adults can have on children and that the second problem is that

"drugs most commonly cause insanity in those who have never taken them."

I thought that he was describing members of the Conservative party, to whose comments I refer members.

We must recognise the significance and scale of the drugs problem, which is why we have invested significantly in tackling it in recent years. We have invested in extra policing and the establishment of the Scottish crime and drug enforcement agency.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister said:

"drugs most commonly cause insanity in those who have never taken them."

I promise him that I am not trying to be insulting, but will he tell me which side of the divide he is on? Is he talking from experience or is he on the insane side?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

What I have said about whether people should take drugs is perfectly clear. I have never taken drugs—indeed, I abhor drugs—and I hope that David Cameron will be as clear and prescriptive in such debates as I am being.

We have invested in the police and in additional resources for treatment and rehabilitation because we believe that more needs to be done, particularly where children are growing up in drug-addicted households.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, thank you. I have only a short time.

Drug addicts must be helped to move towards drug-free lifestyles. A range of interventions is appropriate in that respect, which is why I have asked officials to consider what is being done about encouraging abstinence, about methadone and about alternatives. However, we must keep a sense of perspective. Methadone has made a clear and proven contribution to introducing stability to people's lives; equally, people—including those in the Conservative party and in all the other parties that are represented in the Parliament—are right to be concerned about it. However, medical doctors—not academic doctors or politicians—should decide whether methadone or an alternative should be used, although we must be assured about its use and ask questions about people who are on it, despite its proven success.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

The minister will be aware that the issue has come into sharp focus in my constituency in the past week and that there is serious concern that heroin addicts might be stabilised as permanent methadone addicts. Will he confirm that the objective is to get people off drugs and not to stabilise them on methadone for ever?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Absolutely. That takes me to the point that I was about to make. We must identify suitable treatment and a range of alternatives, but we need protocols for use. We must know who is responsible for allocating treatment, that there is a comprehensive care plan and an exit strategy for people who are on methadone and that someone has responsibility for monitoring the use and reduction of methadone and for getting people off it. At the end of the process, other things must be done to get people into stable lifestyles. We must ensure that they are helped into training and employment, for example. That is why we want the Scottish centre for healthy working lives to focus on helping people back into employment, but there are no easy solutions in that respect.

It is right to say that we need more information—that has already been mentioned. More information is needed about the number of addicts, where they are, what drugs they are on and the length of time that they have been on them. As a result, we have taken steps through the Scottish drug misuse database to improve the collection of data to help to shape and improve services. We need to give thought to the issue and we need consensus, not sterile, futile and—frankly—infantile political slogans.

I move amendment S2M-4073.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"recognises that drug abuse destroys lives and tears families apart; recognises that more needs to be done, particularly to support and protect children in drug misusing households; believes that there should be an early intervention strategy; believes that there is a need to help addicts to move towards a drug-free lifestyle by offering a range of interventions; believes that for those on methadone there should be a care plan which includes an exit strategy from methadone use; believes that there should be an education programme which continues to reinforce the dangers of taking drugs; believes that employability issues should be addressed as part of re-establishing a drug-free stable lifestyle, and welcomes the enhancements to the Scottish Drugs Misuse Database which should lead to an improvement in the collection of data to help shape and target investment and services."

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The content of the amendment in my name does not diverge widely from that of the Executive's amendment. I had hoped, therefore, that the Presiding Officer would adjudicate and not accept the Executive's amendment so that the Executive could support my amendment, but that did not happen. That is life. Ho hum.

It is important to consider three strands in the debate on drugs. First, we must help to move addicts towards a drug-free future. I do not think that any member would object to that statement. More controversially, however, it must be said that not every addict will complete that journey—it is simply not possible for every addict to do so—but we should continue to offer those who cannot complete it every form of help that we can to move further along it and look after them as addicts, and possibly addicts who still use drugs, which they might remain. However, that is a long-stop second-best option.

Secondly, we must stop as many people as possible being captured as addicts. That strategy matters for our young people in particular, and my colleague Fiona Hyslop will say more about it.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I cannot, as I have only four minutes.

Fundamentally, we must change the whole environment in which drug barons make immense profits. Number 10's policy unit, the Cabinet Office, has suggested that the profit margin in the illegal drugs industry is one of the highest margins for industries in the United Kingdom. Until we make progress towards reducing the profit levels and eliminating the pull for drug barons to turn to such an occupation, we will not change the environment. Reducing such profit levels ain't easy—indeed, if any member claims that they know how they can be reduced tomorrow, they simply do not understand the problem, or they are gratuitously misrepresenting it.

I want to mention a few details. There are around 51,000 heroin addicts—there used to be 55,000, so the figure is slightly down. As Neil McKeganey has said, more than half the number of addicts would like to get off drugs altogether and around 5 per cent of them want harm reduction. Are we helping them? We must provide residential programmes. Methadone is merely a bridge to abstinence and to greater help. In 2003-04, there were only around 1,200 placements on residential programmes. If that figure is set against the number of addicts, we can conclude that it will be 25 years before today's addicts are treated. That is a huge problem.

I recognise that more money has been made available. In 1999, there was £11.3 million for residential programmes, but more than twice that amount of money is now available. Therefore, some of the right things are being done, but we should not pretend that what is being done will solve the problem overnight. Incidentally, despite the Tories' protestations, I know where all the clinics for drug users are because they are listed in the Executive's research document, "Residential detoxification and rehabilitation services for drug users: A review." As usual, the Tories would rather go for soundbites than sound research.

We can debate the size of the industry, but it is worth in the range of £1.5 billion to as much as £5 billion. If it is worth £5 billion, it is the same size as our tourism industry. That is why we must focus on it and why we support every possible effort that the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency is making to tackle the drug barons head-on. Until we succeed in tackling them, we will not solve the problem.

I move amendment S2M-4073.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"acknowledges that drug abuse creates feelings of hopelessness, despair and low self-worth in individuals and communities; recognises that drug misusers are individuals who will vary widely as to the best approach to address their addictions and therefore dismisses single dogmatic solutions to this complex problem; believes that the Scottish Executive should focus resources on appropriate support and child protection measures for children in drug misusing families; notes that access to support for addicts varies widely across Scotland; recommends that substantial additional resources are focused on addiction services and on recovering profits from illegal drugs trade barons, and calls on all in public life to make common cause in the fight against drug misuse."

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Drug use and misuse continues to spawn real, difficult and complex problems for our country and our communities. More than six years ago, in January 2000, we debated drug misuse across the road in one of the first major debates in the Scottish Parliament's first session.

At the time, I said on behalf of the Scottish Socialist Party that we rejected the consensus-based approach that determined that we should invest primarily in drug enforcement, police and a criminal attitude to the drug problem. I argued that a step change in attitudes was required, which recognised that the drug problem in Scotland is primarily a social and health problem, not primarily a criminal problem. If that is recognised, a shift in the resources that are expended to tackle the problem is required.

During the debate, I pointed out that in 1998 there were 365 recorded premature deaths related to heroin misuse—one a day—across the United Kingdom. In 2004, there were 356 heroin-related premature deaths in Scotland alone. The 1998 figure was for the whole UK, but the 2004 figure almost surpassed it in one country. In other words, the approach that we have adopted since the Parliament was established and in previous decades is not helping us to solve the problem. In fact, we have more premature deaths, increased addiction and increased crime. There has been an increase in the number of seizures and arrests, but that is not solving the problem, because we are not approaching it in the right way.

We believe fundamentally that part of our approach should be to shift investment from enforcement and beefing up the police into care, treatment and rehabilitation. At the time of the debate in 2000, official figures showed that for every £1 spent on drug treatment and care, £3 would be saved under other budget headings. Today it is not a saving of £3, but a saving of £9—such is the effect of that expenditure.

A shift in investment needs to be allied to changes in our drug laws, which are part of the problem, not the solution. We must end the criminalisation of millions of people for using cannabis, in order to focus on the real and serious dangers of that drug. Let us address those dangers through an adult, mature debate, instead of criminalising people for using a drug that is certainly harmful, but no more so than alcohol or tobacco. Let us take those users out of the criminal market and pilot the use of heroin substitution, as has been done in Germany and Switzerland with great success. Let us learn those lessons in order to take on the drug barons where it matters. The biggest opponents to the approach to drugs that I have outlined are not in the chamber but outside it, in the criminal drug networks. The way in which to undermine those networks is to take them on by removing their markets.

I move amendment S2M-4073.2, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:

"calls for a radical overhaul of the unhelpful drugs laws which cause more problems rather than providing solutions; further calls for a pilot scheme to be initiated into the prescribing of heroin under clinical conditions; calls for massive investment in drug rehabilitation and treatment, based on the fact that it is nine times more effective to treat drug addicts than pay the cost of drug-related crime, and calls for a recognition of the role of extended family members, particularly grandparents, in supporting and protecting children in families where there is drug misuse."

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

Regrettably, there is confusion at the heart of the Conservative motion that we are debating this morning. The Conservatives are calling for a zero tolerance drugs strategy in Scotland, which is a major policy shift.

What should such a strategy look like? It could look like the strategy that was adopted in New York, which had many innocent victims because it did not include a new needle and syringe programme. By 1996, New York city had reported 17,000 paediatric AIDS cases. As well as meaning that there were no needle, syringe or water programmes, a zero tolerance approach would mean that there were no maintenance programmes—involving methadone, for example. It would involve compulsory treatment or sending people to jail, stopping the provision of any advice that resembled harm minimisation because it might send the wrong message or promote drug use, and expelling children from school if they were caught with drugs. The new Conservative policy is to abolish advice and harm minimisation.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I understand the diffidence of any Liberal Democrat in contributing to this debate. I make crystal clear that since the Parliament was established the Conservative party has consistently expressed huge concern about the permissive attitude to the use of illegal drugs that exists in Scotland. Zero tolerance simply means a change in culture and attitude. From everything that we have said in ensuing debates, it is obvious exactly what our view is. I have been asking for support to be provided.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That was a very long intervention. I will compensate Jeremy Purvis for it, although I scarcely have any time to do so.

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

I am grateful, Presiding Officer. Miss Goldie's intervention was as incoherent as her opening speech. A zero tolerance approach would start to reverse the trend of a 35 per cent increase in the most recent year for which figures are available in the number of new entrants into drug misuse database programmes. The figure refers to people who have embarked on reduction programmes. Such an approach would also reverse the 30 per cent fall in the number of people injecting drugs, which is one of the most dangerous ways of taking them.

The Conservatives have consistently attacked the Executive and the know the score campaign, especially for sending mixed messages, as Miss Goldie said. However, at the same time as they were making that attack up here, David Cameron was proposing to downgrade ecstasy from its status as a class A drug. Who is right? The Executive is right, and Mr Cameron was also right when he told a meeting last year:

"What people want is a realistic and sensible policy that gets to the bottom of the drugs problem."

It is clear that the Scottish Tories are the blocks to reform in the area.

What is the current scale of the drugs problem in Scotland? "Drug Misuse Statistics Scotland 2005" shows us that in 2004 7.7 per cent of people between 16 and 59 had used drugs in the previous year. The figure for the 16 to 19 age group was 22 per cent, but 21.3 per cent had taken cannabis. I do not claim that there is no problem—far from it. Drugs destroy lives and young people's aspirations, impoverish people and harm their physical and mental health.

During the February recess, I had a meeting in Parliament with 20 young people on a Fairbridge scheme. All were offenders and drug misusers. Those young people are not evil—they have damaged their health and the communities in which they live. They are certainly not helped by a facile call for zero tolerance. What they said to me in unison was very interesting. They had no view on whether decriminalising cannabis would make a bit of difference to their drug-taking patterns, but they argued strongly against the cheap availability of alcohol and its availability to people at a young age. All had started binge drinking at a very early age.

The figures for entrants to drug and alcohol programmes in the area that I represent are concerning. In 2004, there were 21 new entrants under 15 to drug schemes in the Borders, compared with 13 in greater Glasgow. There is a problem. However, one of the most extensive reviews of the effectiveness of treatment that has ever been done in Scotland found that methadone should be used. I have called for more residential abstinence programmes, which come with rehabilitation. They start with harm stabilisation and move to reduction, as the deputy minister said.

Miss Goldie's motion points to the number of drug-related deaths. There were 356 such deaths in 2004, fewer than in 2002 but more than in 1996. There were 313 deaths from mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol and twice that number from chronic liver disease. We need to have the debate, but let us have it free from hypocrisy.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Addiction destroys lives and wrecks families. However, in treating addiction, it is sterile and unhelpful to contrapose total abstinence to harm reduction measures. A range of options is needed although, of course, freedom from addiction is the ultimate aim.

In tackling the effects of addiction, let us not overlook its principal cause: poverty, despair about which often leads individuals into addiction. The Executive's principal policy aim—economic regeneration—can attack addiction's roots and undermine the illicit drugs economy in the process.

More people than ever are getting treatment for their drug addiction, and the use of drugs by schoolchildren is not rising, despite recent high-profile cases. The use of methadone as part of an individual's treatment is one of the range of options that are available. Where it is in use in family homes, child protection issues can arise, as in the recent tragic case in East Lothian. That is why the First Minister called for a review of Scotland's methadone programme.

Glasgow's experience in tackling addiction is illustrative of the points that I have just made. The city has 11,000 drug addicts, around 7,000 of whom are on methadone. However, they are not parked. Two thousand of Glasgow's addicts are parents; they care for a total of about 4,000 children. By any standards, those are major challenges. How is the city coping? Glasgow City Council and Greater Glasgow NHS Board formed an addiction services partnership 21 months ago. The partnership provides specialist in-patient services, day-hospital services, out-patient services, methadone programme services and community addiction teams. There are 10 front-line teams with nursing, medical and social care specialists, who provide direct access to treatment and care for individuals with addiction problems. The service that is provided includes advice, support, rehabilitation and access to a methadone programme. The staff in the front-line teams train jointly with, and are co-located with, children and families social workers, so they are always on the lookout for hidden harm to children.

Glasgow has 800 community-based rehabilitation places, which provide structured day care, personal development programmes and access to productive daily activities for individuals—many of whom are on methadone—whose previous lifestyles were characterised by drug injecting, shop lifting and prostitution.

Glasgow's minimum guarantee to some 5,000 of its methadone users is to provide regular access to social care support through the community addiction teams to enable them to move on to meaningful employment and training opportunities with a strong rehabilitative content. The addiction services have referred 2,100 individuals to employment, training and educational initiatives in the past 18 months. Glasgow appears to be going in the right direction, but there are still gaps in services, which are being discussed with the Executive.

What I have described bears no relation to the bleak caricature that was painted by Annabel Goldie, nor should it be supplanted by her simplistic, tried, tested and failed approach of, "Just say no."

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will focus not on the cures, but on the causes. Other members will debate the rights and wrongs of methadone; I agree that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

I want to look back on an inquiry that the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee conducted in 1999 and 2000—the report was published in 2000. Unfortunately, much of what was said in that report pertains today. The report began by saying that the committee

"had the impression, which was subsequently confirmed, that deprived communities, with poor housing, poor amenities and high levels of unemployment were the most seriously affected areas."

I heard what Charlie Gordon said about Glasgow. One welcomes initiatives that work, but the reality is that because of the deprivation in some council wards in Glasgow, people are 200 times more likely to be admitted to hospital with a drug-related problem in those areas than in the most affluent parts of Scotland.

Such deprivation is no longer located only in our urban conurbations; it exists in our small towns and rural areas, too. The minister referred to the Scottish drug misuse database, which is very useful. The most recent information reveals that last year in the Scottish Borders 31 young people under the age of 16 were reported to the database. That figure is an increase of 72 per cent on the previous year.

As we know, deprivation exists not only in urban areas. There are particular difficulties for rural areas because young people there do not usually access either heroin or cocaine, but take what comes down in a suitcase from the urban areas. Members of drug action teams in the Borders have told me that such young people take a cocktail of drugs, which makes their problems more difficult. Access to support and treatment is difficult in rural areas because people do not want to be identified, but in a small community it is easy for people to know who they are. If treatment is available anywhere, the person is likely to have to make a long journey for which they might not have the bus fare because they have a chaotic lifestyle. The problems are compounded in rural areas.

Deprivation has a knock-on effect on the family and when the system breaks down, the family can become a drug-using family. There are no simple answers. What the First Minister said was well meaning, but we must be careful, in certain circumstances, about removing children from parents who are drug users. The law of unintended consequences might mean that women and men who have children will not admit to using drugs because they fear that their children will be removed. I appreciate that the issue is delicate and difficult, but it must be addressed.

We must always remember that drug users are themselves victims. In the unfortunate case in East Lothian, we must remember that there is a mother whose child has died as a result of her drug addiction. That point must always be taken into account and we should not play the blame game. Such people are often deprived, they are often homeless and they are often put into prostitution. There are issues about the role of Cornton Vale, because most of the women are in there for committing acquisitive crimes to pay for drugs. When they come out of Cornton Vale, they find that support systems are not in place.

It is all very well to say that we support the families, but 35 per cent of all social work posts have been vacant for more than six months and The Herald reveals today that there is a damaging shortage of foster carers. I know from speaking to people in the Borders that children are brought to foster carers in the Borders because there is nobody in Glasgow to provide that service.

Those are serious issues. I know why we are pushed for time—I understand the Conservatives' point—but we should have a long debate on the issue. I would like the Communities Committee to go back to the 2000 report and investigate what has changed.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If anyone has not read "Curse or cure"—the article on methadone in the Holyrood magazine—it is well worth a read.

I regret the tone of the minister's speech, which demeaned his office and did not add to a mature debate.

I welcome the initiatives that Charlie Gordon outlined in his speech. We must examine best practice and I think that we are all big enough to do that. However, I did not welcome all of his speech; obviously, I did not welcome the last sentence.

I welcome this debate on drug abuse and the prominence that Annabel Goldie has given to the issue since she became our leader. The media spotlight in the Highlands this week has been on the Danielle Reid case and the failure of the social work department and others to protect a vulnerable child from her own family. Sadly, we seem to hear of children being left in vulnerable situations all too often. An estimated 50,000 children throughout Scotland now live with drug and alcohol misuse problems. In a recent letter to me, Highland Council confirmed that it provides support for 2,017 children, 390 of whom are in care. It also confirmed that 93 per cent of the 150 children on the child protection register are affected by parents with substance misuse problems.

Professor Neil McKeganey suggested recently that there could be up to 630 children in the Highlands who live with parents who misuse substances.

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

Will the member give way?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No. Sorry.

Those figures are shocking, given the recent cases of Michael McGarrity; the 11-year old who collapsed at school after taking heroin; and the tragic case, which was mentioned by John Home Robertson, of the two-year old whose death was reported at the weekend.

When we look round the idyllic surroundings of the Highlands, which are a world away from urban dereliction, it is difficult to imagine that young children could be suffering at the hands of their parents because they are unfit to care for them. One option would be to give parents of young children the choice of detox and rehab. It would be naive to suggest that that is an easy answer for all drug addicts, but it could surely be one option when the well-being and welfare of a child is at risk. As other members have said, many addicts, before they seek help, have led chaotic lives that have impacted on other family members. Addicts have often lost jobs and family relationships have broken down.

Unfortunately, detox and rehab is not part of the Executive's waiting times initiative. If it were, many people in the Highlands would be delighted to be seen within 26 weeks, but the truth is that the latest figures that are available, from July to September 2005, show that only nine people in the Highlands were given treatment for their drug addiction, while 89 others waited on a list. Of those 89 people, a third waited for more than a year. A response from Hugh Henry to a parliamentary question indicates that, throughout Scotland, more than 130 people waited for more than a year to get on to detox and rehab. When someone has reached the stage of asking for help, they usually need it desperately. It is cruel and heartless for them to be told to wait for up to and beyond a year, particularly when places are available in the independent sector.

We can criticise and condemn parents who take heroin and other drugs and we can justifiably criticise the more addictive substance of methadone. However, what the Liberal-Labour Executive should be ashamed of is that when people seek the help and support that they need, not just for themselves but for their families, it is not there.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Much has been said in the debate about the link between poverty and drug addiction. However, I want to pay tribute to the people who live in poverty but make positive life choices and care effectively for their children. We do them a disservice by saying that everyone who lives in poverty will find themselves going into prostitution, for example, and developing drug and other addictions. I pay tribute to the good parents I see every day in my constituency, who live in real poverty but make positive lifestyle choices. We should pay tribute to such parents, who are in the majority. However, I accept that there are those who suffer because of drug addiction and that they should be supported by an appropriate process.

I was enthused by the report that we received from Children 1st, which talked about the need to focus on the support of the wider family for those who suffer from drug addiction. From my experience of being an elected member for 13 years, I know that the support that is provided to the wider family could be improved throughout local authorities in Scotland. A great deal needs to be done to improve the systems that are in place. I welcome the fact that the social work review will consider the mechanisms that support families and try to ensure that they are supported more effectively. I do not think that we take sufficient account of the financial implications of not supporting families through the process and ensuring that wider family networks can support the parents and children of drug abusers.

Too often in the Parliament we do not recognise that we do not have all the answers on this issue, although we tend to say that we do. A wide range of organisations throughout Scotland, in addition to those that support drug users, can play a role in this area.

We have talked about the methadone programme and Annabel Goldie raised relevant points around the need for us to assess how effective that programme has been throughout its existence. More effective research must be put in place to ensure that such assessment is done.

The majority of youngsters in our schools do not involve themselves in drug addiction; we must recognise that and pay tribute to them. However, we must ensure that we support those who face challenges because of drug addiction. I support the amendment in the name of Hugh Henry.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Paul Martin began by paying tribute to individuals who make positive choices in their lives and he was right to do so. However, we should also pay tribute to other groups of people. They are the people—I have met some of them in Paul Martin's constituency—who not only make positive choices in their own lives, but work hard in their communities to encourage others to make such choices. Those people include police officers and addiction workers, and social workers who should be given the credit that they are due. It is wrong and simplistic to consider a high-profile case, however tragic and heartrending, and put the problem down, simplistically, to failure by social workers. Not only is that the wrong position to take, but it demeans a group of hard-working professionals who rarely get the credit that they are due.

Each amendment to the motion has something that I can welcome. The amendments and the motion recognise that victims of addiction are people whose welfare should be important to us. We must reject the tabloid simplicity of dehumanising stereotypes and recognise that people who are addicted are human beings. I believe—almost as an article of faith, to be honest—that human behaviour is purposeful and motivated; even self-destructive and harmful behaviour is purposeful and motivated. Human beings have a range of different experiences, attitudes, values and motivations. For that reason, a range of different responses is called for from us as policy makers and lawmakers, and from public services.

My reason for rejecting the Conservative motion is not about flexibility of approach. I do not always agree with what Annabel Goldie says, but I take on trust the sincerity with which she raised concerns about methadone. However, I believe that the approaches of "zero tolerance" and "abstinence", to which the motion refers, have been shown not to work, not only in this country but around the world. That is why I reject the Conservative motion.

The amendments all mention flexibility and taking different approaches and we should acknowledge that. The SNP amendment dismisses single, dogmatic solutions to a complex problem and calls for additional resources. Tommy Sheridan said that additional resources should be allocated to treatment and rehabilitation and that there should be a move away from the purely enforcement approach. I think that that is right.

I also think that politicians, not only here but at United Kingdom level, need to allocate far greater political priority and resources to tackling the production end of the problem. How many of us could honestly say that, if the choice that we were faced with was starvation for our families and violence from the local warlord versus producing poppies, we would not produce poppies? I do not know how many of us could say that. We need to ensure that the poppy farmers can make other choices. I would support, in the short term, buying the stuff in order to destroy it, if that was about creating a long-term future for the farmers.

Far more has been said in the debate than I have time to respond to. I am grateful to the Conservatives for the opportunity to discuss the subject, but I will not support their motion.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am conscious of time, so I will restrict my comments to two particular areas: methadone and children in drug-abusing families.

As has been said, methadone is one way of stabilising the chaotic lifestyles of heroin addicts. To think that it is other than just one of the options is naive. Annabel Goldie's suggestion was that we should make more use of the residential treatment approach. As a short-term option, that is successful. We have seen the rich and famous take advantage of residential treatment. However, that approach means that an addict will eventually go back into the circumstances that probably caused their addiction. That is fine for the rich and famous, who can continue to go back and forth to the Betty Ford Center or whatever, but it is not an option for many others.

We have considered how to stabilise people's lifestyles and we know that some heroin users' lives are so chaotic that to expect them to stop taking heroin and re-establish a regular lifestyle is too demanding and doomed to failure. However, the use of methadone should not be regarded as an end in itself. It should be part of a programme that stabilises addicts, before also withdrawing them from methadone use. I recognise that that may be a long process—for some, it might seem like forever—but it could be necessary.

We should not think of methadone substitution as anything other than part of a process. Members referred to the tragic circumstances in East Lothian when a toddler who took his parents' prescribed methadone died. I agree that the practice of taking methadone without supervision must be reviewed. However, I understand why addicts are given scripts to take away with them. The administration of methadone in pharmacies has caused people, perhaps unnecessarily, to feel threatened by the practice. I ask the minister to look further into identifying places where those who are prescribed methadone can take their dose privately and safely.

We have already referred to the tragic death of the toddler in East Lothian, and there have been other recent examples of young people affected by drug abuse—the young girl in Glasgow who was found to be using drugs, and the toddler in Edinburgh who was left to care for himself for a number of weeks after his mother died.

There is clearly concern about how children are affected when their parents or carers are using drugs. The First Minister has been criticised for saying that the best interests of the children should be the first priority. Some regarded that as an attack on social workers. Like Patrick Harvie, I would decry any such attack, but I did not regard the First Minister's words as an attack on social workers.

Social workers try to keep families together, and politicians should acknowledge that they put pressure on social workers to act as they do. For many good reasons, the policy has been to keep children with their parents; but the policy has not said clearly enough that keeping children with their parents is not ideal for all children. We should always consider the individual circumstances. Yes, we should support parents when possible but, as Children 1st has suggested, we should also consider the extended family and foster carers. Alternatives should exist and we must consider them. However, at the end of the day, the best interests of the children should be our priority.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Mary Mulligan ended with a reference to the use of foster carers as part of a support network for children in the households of drug-abusing adults. She is right. We should try to expand the use of foster care.

I want to put a point to the minister that I hope he will address when he sums up. We have to make use of an untapped resource—grandparents who can support children of drug-abusing households. I will quote from an excellent leaflet by the new fossils, which is a grandparents support group based in the east end of Glasgow:

"When the social workers arrived at Jean's home with her two grandchildren they only had the clothes they stood in. Jean had no toys, beds, bedding and little money. After six weeks Jean could not afford to buy an Electricity Power Card. She and the children would spend weekends in the dark sharing one bed. In desperation Jean sought assistance from a local charity."

Then there is another story:

"Charlie and Janet are both retired and with social work approval took their eight-week-old grandchild direct from hospital rather than have her placed in care. They received no financial support for clothes, cot, toys, bedding....nothing. For seven months they struggled to claim child benefits and income support because of the 'system' and had to use up much of their savings (at least they had some....many do not)."

I ask the minister, if we are going to pay for foster carers and a foster care network, why do we not offer grandparents financial support for the grandchildren they take into care? The majority of grandparents do not have the financial wherewithal to support children. It is way beyond time that the Executive made the radical decision to accord the same financial rights to grandparents who care for the children of drug-abusing parents that it accords to foster carers. That would be an important move.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

The machinery is already in place, but many of the 32 councils in the country do not make use of it. Up north, kinship carers receive £150 for each child. That should be expanded across the whole country. Some areas give nothing.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Thank you, John—that is exactly why I am raising these issues. I would like the minister to give us a positive indication that he supports such a step change.

I would also like the minister to comment on prison aftercare. Many premature drug-related deaths in Scotland are of drug addicts released from prison. Many of them die within two weeks of release because they use drugs of exceptional purity that they are not used to. We do not have enough pre-release programmes or post-release care. Can the minister tell me that we now have a seamless, joined-up approach that links community-based care with work done by the prison authorities?

Today's debate has been useful. We have not arrived at all the solutions, but we know that the simplistic, "Just say no", zero-tolerance approach of the Tories has been tried and tested and has failed over many decades. It is time to concentrate more resources on drug treatment and care, and to address the ridiculous drug laws that are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh South)

Drug abuse endangers the lives of many people across Scotland. Around a third of all recorded crime is linked to drug abuse, and there are 800 drug-related offences each week. I agree with Tommy Sheridan and my colleague Jeremy Purvis about cannabis; perhaps if we took a more liberal approach, we could substantially reduce the number of drug-related offences that come to court.

Each year, more than 300 babies are born addicted to heroin or other illegal drugs. In 2004, 356 people died drug-related deaths. The minister referred to the number of children—60,000 under the age of 16—who live with a parent with a drug problem.

Mary Mulligan mentioned Children 1st. I am sure that we all know about that organisation's family group conference service. It is a method of decision making that draws on the strengths of the wider family in finding how best to care for a child. Almost always, it is the grandparents who get involved.

I agree with Stewart Stevenson that the main task is to keep young people off drugs. Annabel Goldie mentioned the number of people under the age of 20 who get on to drugs. We have to help young people, male and female, to keep off drugs or never get on to them in the first place. I am not talking only about cannabis and other drugs, but about alcohol too.

Liberal Democrats are committed to moving away from imprisoning offenders and using enforcement to reduce reoffending. The emphasis must be on helping people to achieve a healthy lifestyle; it must not be on merely locking them away for having failed to achieve a healthy lifestyle in the past. Drugs courts will play an important role. Pilot drugs courts in Fife and Glasgow have proved successful—both in reducing use and in reducing reoffending. I therefore suggest that the Executive expand the scheme nationally.

To help people to achieve a healthy lifestyle, it is important to increase the number of people who enter treatment each year. Drug treatment is both successful and cost effective. It costs £30,000 a year to imprison a person, but the most intensive community-based drug treatment costs no more than £7,000. Almost half the offenders who have completed a drug-treatment programme have had no further convictions within two years.

The Scottish Executive has pledged an additional £6 million a year to support drug services—an increase of more than 23 per cent from the figure for 2004-05. The Executive should continue to support such treatment options.

Rehabilitation is a necessary part of reducing drug abuse. A programme that prioritises abstinence and prevention fails those who are already suffering from drug abuse. Rehabilitation serves as a type of prevention by reducing the risk of reoffending. I entirely agree with Paul Martin, Patrick Harvie and others about the dedication of the people who work in various rehabilitation services. I also agree that the vast majority of our kids are good and positive for society. In most of the issues that we have talked about in this debate, the number of children involved is small.

My Conservative colleague's suggestion to implement a programme prioritising abstinence fails to take into account the complexity of the issues. Instead, we must combat drug abuse by adopting a multifaceted approach that tackles each aspect of the problem. The most effective way of dealing with Scotland's drug situation is to cut the demand for drugs through rehabilitation and the adoption of a twin-track approach of harm prevention and reduction. A complex and dangerous issue requires a nuanced and integrated approach.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If the debate has a theme, it is about methadone, whether the country has moved on and whether people can move on. If the debate has a subtext, it is about whether the Government and the Parliament have made progress in how they tackle drug use.

At the Scottish Parliament's inception in 1999-2000, drugs was an issue that brought all the parties together. There was common agreement that it was not a justice issue only, but that it had health, social care and a variety of other dimensions. I fear that the impetus that was built up by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, the Parliament and the Executive is in danger of being lost.

Many good points have been made in the debate, but they were also made many years ago. The Parliament's job is to scrutinise suggestions and proposals and to ensure that agreements to make progress on certain matters are honoured. That is why the Conservatives are right to air their concerns about the use of methadone. We should review the progress that has been made as a result of methadone use but, in doing so, we should not be judgmental; that is why the Tories' position is a failure.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will Fiona Hyslop give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am sorry, but my time is limited.

I commend everyone who has sought to make changes in how we tackle the problem. In 2000, the Parliament had a full-day debate on drug misuse. I remember the conviction of Richard Simpson, Angus MacKay and Iain Gray in driving forward the Executive's proposals. Paul Martin and Tommy Sheridan have made points about family support that were addressed in recommendations 12, 13 and 14 of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee's report on its inquiry into drug misuse and deprived communities, which was published in 2000. What has happened to the children's change fund? Is it providing family support groups with sufficient support? In 2000, only one social inclusion partnership gave financial help to family support groups. If there is any lesson that we can take away from the debate, it is that the Parliament must refocus its attention on its scrutiny role, because there are measures that could and should be being taken.

I turn to the use of methadone as a treatment for drug addiction. The Executive responded favourably to recommendation 23 in the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee's report, which said that methadone programmes should be expanded. The information that Charlie Gordon provided about Glasgow was extremely helpful. Such activity should be part of a regular scrutiny process because I am not convinced that progress is as rapid as it should be.

I have some specific points about children. My concern is that if tackling drug use is to be a national cause, as well as being hard on ourselves, we must scrutinise the Government on the issue. I object to the First Minister making presumptions about where children should go, when the Executive has not delivered on its promises.

In November 2002, the Executive launched its child protection report, "It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright". The deadline on the proposals to improve information sharing expired in November 2005. Those proposals, which were about getting the police and health, education and social work services to work together, could have helped to prevent some of the problems that have been experienced and some of the tragedies that we have heard about. The Executive has failed to deliver a computer programme for producing integrated assessments that would help to deal with such situations and which would assist fieldworkers on the ground.

When it comes to tackling drugs, everyone has responsibilities. It is a complex area, so there is no single solution. It is easy to preach zero tolerance, but we must take our responsibilities seriously. Rather than spout platitudes, let us have accountability and scrutiny.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Unfortunately, because of a lack of time, I will not be able to answer all the questions that members have asked, but I will be happy to respond to any member who wishes to write to me.

Fiona Hyslop posed a number of valid questions. Although I would argue that, in some areas, we have delivered and moved on, she was right to say that Parliament needs to scrutinise what the Executive has done. We must think carefully about whether what we have delivered has had the appropriate effect or whether there is more to be done. I hope that in a spirit of working together, Parliament and the Executive can reflect on what we have done. Such a debate would be useful.

Stewart Stevenson mentioned education and the need to raise people's awareness of the harm that drugs do to stop them becoming addicts in the first place. The Conservatives have repeatedly made unfortunate comments about the know the score campaign. Some of our material is highly specific and extremely hard-hitting. We have produced adverts on heroin and cocaine that are blunt and to the point. If Annabel Goldie or any other member of the Parliament wants to sit down with me and my officials to examine the material and to discuss whether it is getting the message across or whether we need to change it in any way, I will arrange that. Some of our adverts, featuring programmes such as "Hollyoaks" and "EastEnders", have had national recognition—they have featured on "News at Ten"—which shows that what we are saying is the right way to get a message across.

Mary Scanlon spoke about the provision of help and treatment, but we have made available extra resources. When we announced that we would provide an additional £4 million in 2004, we insisted that organisations would have to reduce waiting times if they wanted to get some of that allocation. Other comments have been made, which I do not have time to address.

The Conservatives were upset by the comments that I made earlier. They do not like it when people such as me are fairly blunt about the crude message that they put across. Perhaps I should reflect on the language that we use, but perhaps they should do so, too. When I listen to what the Tories say, I sometimes get angry. On such an issue, I am genuinely disappointed that they will not work with members of other parties to reach a sensible conclusion. It is in the interests of everyone in our society for us to put aside petty views and to work together.

I hope that if Annabel Goldie and the Tories will not listen to me, they might listen to David Cameron. Although I do not agree with what David Cameron says on a range of issues, including some drugs issues, I think that the Tories should listen to his views on a zero tolerance approach, for example. At the Scottish Tories' conference, Annabel Goldie described David Cameron as a joy and said that he was their political adrenaline. Perhaps Bill Aitken should listen to some of David Cameron's comments. He thinks that the debate has been held back because

"Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown."

He also thinks that effective educational programmes are essential to reduce the demand for drugs and that it is no good just preaching to young people or telling them that drugs are all the same because they will not listen. His view is that

"The simple, bold answers are superficially attractive. Whether it is the authoritarian 'introduce life sentences for all pushers and zero tolerance on street users' or the libertarian 'legalise all drugs, destroy the black market and treat, rather than punish, those who abuse drugs', both offer seemingly easy solutions to a problem that haunts all western governments."

David Cameron is at least taking a more thoughtful approach to such matters. It is just unfortunate that the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament are not doing the same. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Scottish Tories to wake up, look around and be a bit more mature. As David Cameron said, drug abuse affects us all. Some people would prefer a tougher approach involving stiffer penalties, a pretence that illegal drugs are all as bad as each other and a just say no campaign for kids. I do not believe that that would work, but if we tell children the facts and explain the dangers, they might just listen; perhaps the Conservatives in Scotland might just listen, too.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

An intemperate approach, such as that of Hugh Henry in his opening speech, usually indicates vulnerability, and indeed the Executive is vulnerable on the issue of drug abuse. I remind Hugh Henry that we would not be having the debate if it were not for the Conservatives. We make no apology whatever for raising the matter time and again, against a background of stark and chilling figures. In 2004, 356 deaths were caused by drug addiction. In 2004-05, there were 41,283 crimes related to drugs. It is estimated that 50,000 children in Scotland are living with drug-addicted parents, while 411,000 methadone scripts are issued at a cost of £12 million. Are we not entitled to raise this matter? Should we perhaps be raising the matter even more forcefully?

Let us be clear: the Executive's response has been woefully inadequate. It is not that it does not know, but it underestimates the scale of the problem. It is not that it does not care—it does care—but its attitude sometimes verges on complacency.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will Bill Aitken give way?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Sorry, but I have only four minutes left.

The Executive's approach is that drug abuse is a problem that should be managed and contained and that, like the poor, drug abusers will always be with us. It need not be that way. Unless we take a different view, we will lose a generation to drug abuse and all its accompanying difficulties.

Some useful contributions have been made. Jeremy Purvis's was not one of them, but he made the commonsense point that we need this debate. He is right.

Charlie Gordon talked about Glasgow. I have some difficulties with the figures, but that might be because the city council and health board areas are not coterminous. I am surprised that there are only 11,000 drug abusers in Glasgow—perhaps that figure might need to be looked at. Charlie Gordon mentioned poverty, but Paul Martin correctly pointed out that many people from poor backgrounds lead perfectly ordered lives, so poverty is no excuse. We should address that issue.

Christine Grahame and Fiona Hyslop referred to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee report, published in 2000, on the effects of drug abuse on poorer areas. There was much to be learned from that report. One of the most depressing aspects of the problem, which was referred to by Tommy Sheridan, is that many youngsters from Glasgow are being looked after by grandparents. The drugs problem is getting worse. In some families, there are three generations of addicts: the youngster, the parents and the grandparents. We cannot be complacent when we have a situation such as that. I reject the overall sense of Tommy Sheridan's speech, but he made the point that prison post-release care is largely missing. The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee visited Barlinnie. Is it not ironic that there was a unit at Barlinnie to which prisoners could volunteer to go to stay off drugs? That was the only way to prevent their being tempted by drugs. What is the Executive doing to prevent continuing drug abuse in prisons? The answer is: very little indeed.

In a somewhat more conciliatory closing speech, Hugh Henry referred to various points made by David Cameron. There is nothing that the Conservatives are saying that is inconsistent with a greater degree of education about the evils of drug abuse. With the split message sent out by the Executive, such education is simply not happening. There is nothing inconsistent about a crackdown on those who seek to peddle human misery. The one thing that the Executive can perhaps claim is that drug seizures have increased, largely as a result of the commitment and effort of Grahame Pearson and others in the SDEA. Despite the Executive's inhibitions, the SDEA has made a positive impact. I do not, as Hugh Henry suggested, recollect any Conservative member saying that there should be mandatory life sentences for drug pushers. That was a misrepresentation. If I have misunderstood Hugh Henry, I fully concede, but that seemed to be the sense of what he was saying.

The Conservatives recognise that there are no simple solutions, but unless we approach the issue in a much more robust and determined manner than the Executive is prepared to do, we will continue to see many lives wasted, many crimes committed and, in many respects, an unbalanced and unstable society. Fiona Hyslop was right to say that a multi-agency approach is required. Drug abuse is not a justice or a health issue in isolation. The Executive seems unable to reconcile itself to the fact that what it is doing simply is not working. Why, for example, are drug treatment and testing orders not being made available in district courts? Why are the drugs courts geared at those with 40 or 50 convictions, when the street prostitute who is desperate to get off drugs, for example, is denied treatment? Is it not ironic that if someone wants drug treatment and rehabilitation in Glasgow, the easiest and quickest way to get it is to commit more and more crime, so that they will be sent to the drugs court? Surely that should be regarded as utterly unacceptable. The chamber should vote for the motion, as it represents the only constructive way forward for a situation that is becoming graver and graver as time advances.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with the Scottish Ambulance Service regarding the working hours of paramedics. (S2O-9181)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Officials in the Scottish Executive Health Department have met the Scottish Ambulance Service on a number of occasions in recent years to discuss the working hours of paramedics.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister may be aware of the concern that is being expressed by ambulance workers at rural stations in Grampian, and nationally, about on-call working. Some shifts extend to 106 hours, leaving ambulance staff exhausted and leading to what staff have called antiquated and dangerous conditions. Given the potential risk to patients, will the minister investigate seriously the concerns, which are shared by all of us in the chamber with the ambulance workers? One of my constituents, who on 13 February e-mailed the minister in detail about the concerns, is still awaiting a reply. Will the minister give an assurance that he will personally investigate that serious issue?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member can rest assured that I will investigate that serious issue. I have had discussions not only with paramedic trainees and ambulance crew trainees but with the management of our ambulance service. We need to bear in mind that while the ambulance station at Edinburgh north receives 70 calls a day, the Kinlochbervie and Bettyhill stations receive 100 calls per annum. The ambulance service has a large population area to cover. We can also reflect on the fact that action that has been taken to date has reduced the number of staff working under such arrangements from 640 to 420 since 2003-04, which suggests that significant action is being taken.

Of course, we want always to do more. Where stations are most under pressure, we are trying to deal with the issues. Some stations, such as Dunoon, Fraserburgh and Stranraer, have gone from part-time to full-time. Other stations are doing more joint working in order to ensure better rotas.

However, the substantial point remains about clinical safety and safety for patients. We are open and honest in our recognition that a degree of on-call working will have to remain in our health service in order that the service can cover the geography of Scotland. However, the average for any on-call ambulance crew working in Scotland is 38 calls per annum. We need to understand the context. Nonetheless, I do not seek to underestimate the concern that is being expressed by Richard Lochhead.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the minister recognise the effect that the rationalisation of accident and emergency services will have on the ambulance service? In South Ayrshire, if the Ayr hospital accident and emergency service was transferred to Crosshouse, it is estimated that 35 per cent would be added to paramedic-hours requirements. What guarantees will the minister give on that issue?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I must be cautious—I do not intend to go into specifics about consultations that are going on around Scotland. However, integral to any reconfiguration of the health service in Scotland is the inclusion of the Scottish Ambulance Service, to ensure that the implications of such reconfiguration are taken into account by the professionals who provide that service.

I remind Phil Gallie that, at the end of the day, given our modern health care service and ambulance service and the huge amount of paramedics who work in the service with clot-busting drugs and analytical equipment in the back of their ambulances, what is important is how long they take to get to the patient. The patient's destination will be chosen based on the patient being stabilised and treated in transit to the local accident and emergency unit.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment has been made of the length of time it will take to remove development obstacles in Perthshire created by problems with water and drainage infrastructure. (S2O-9249)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We are determined that development constraints that are caused by water and drainage infrastructure will be addressed in the next investment period. In the forthcoming investment programme—the quality and standards III exercise—ministers have set Scottish Water the objective of providing sufficient strategic capacity to meet the needs of all proposed new development. It will be for developers to fund local connection costs, including their relieving any local constraints that arise. However, Scottish Water will make a reasonable contribution to those costs. Today, I have laid before Parliament regulations that will increase those contributions, which will assist all developers who are required to fund the resolution of local infrastructure constraints.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Considering the number of times that this issue has been raised, that is a disappointing answer. It has consistently been raised over the years, most recently by me in a letter last month. Of course, the issue has been overtaken by the recent row and Professor Alexander's departure. Still, however, we wait for reassurances. Developers in my constituency are still waiting. I have to ask why the minister is not yet in a position to put a timescale on the lifting of embargoes. The direct result of the problem will be that construction industry jobs will be lost. That is a serious possibility in my constituency. Can the minister put a timescale on the lifting of the embargoes?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Scottish Water has already been in dialogue with the councils and met a delegation from Perth and Kinross Council last month to discuss the need for investment in water supplies and waste water treatment. I understand that another meeting with the council is planned in a few weeks to discuss concerns about the local plan. The programme for all local authorities will be spread over the eight-year period of the next investment programme. It is for Scottish Water and local authorities to agree local authorities' priorities.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the minister understand the severe impediments to economic growth in rural Scotland—particularly the parts of Perthshire in my constituency—that are due to lack of action? Will the minister give us a definitive commitment that, as a result of the resignation of Professor Alan Alexander and the non-agreement of a Scottish Water business plan for the forthcoming period, there will be no deceleration of the investment programme that Scottish Water has proposed and that there will be a guarantee that the improvements that are required to sustain economic growth in rural Perthshire will be made?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Absolutely. Economic growth is our number 1 priority. It is for Scottish Water to work with local authority partners and others to deliver our objectives. We must bring about improvements in the planning and delivery of that new capacity. To aid that process, I have asked Scottish Water to prepare an annual strategic capacity report that will set out specific investment plans. It is required to publish it by 1 April this year and to update it annually thereafter. Of course, the report will cover Perthshire and will provide useful clarity to all parties.

Ministers have stated that we are absolutely determined that development constraints that are caused by water and infrastructure will be addressed in the next investment period. I give Mr Swinney a categorical assurance that the resignation of Professor Alexander will not stand in the way of that.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister should be aware that social development, as well as economic development, is being held up by development constraints. For example, affordable housing schemes cannot progress. I ask the minister to be definitive in her answer to my question. Has the resignation of Professor Alexander caused any delay in the programme that is being pursued by the Executive?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I assure the member that the resignation of Professor Alexander should not cause any delay. We are concerned to get another chairman in place as quickly as possible. I also assure the member that £14 million is being made available annually to ensure that affordable housing interests continue to be met.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what impact on tourism in Scotland is anticipated from the London Olympics in 2012 and the 2014 Commonwealth games being held in Glasgow. (S2O-9228)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Australia's experience of the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic games in Sydney was that an estimated £296 million-worth of publicity was generated for Queensland—which is the same distance from Sydney as Scotland is from London—as a visitor destination as a result of the games. During the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth games, Manchester saw an additional 1 million visitors, many of whom went on to visit other parts of the country. We expect the 2012 games and a Glasgow games in 2014 to have a similarly positive impact on tourism. Both events will support our commitment to achieving the goal of growing Scotland's tourism industry by 50 per cent by 2015.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

I welcome the support that has been given to this issue by the First Minister, the Executive and the delegation that will leave for Australia today, which includes the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Patricia Ferguson. What steps are being taken to spread the anticipated tourism benefit as widely as possible, including to the kingdom of Fife, part of which I represent?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I would not expect Christine May to ask about anything other than the effects on the kingdom of Fife. That is quite appropriate.

As she rightly mentioned, the First Minister and Patricia Ferguson are currently on their way to Melbourne to support Glasgow's bid—[Laughter.] I am sorry, they will soon be on their way. They will make a presentation on Glasgow's bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games and Patricia Ferguson will attend the Commonwealth sports ministers meeting.

As part of the structure of the London Olympic games arrangements, a nations and regions committee has been set up in order to spread the benefits across the country. A Scottish steering group is involved in that. Julia Bracewell, the chair of sportscotland, is involved in both bodies—she chairs the second body—and the objective of the exercise is to spread the good activity around the country. A series of issues relating to sport, tourism and other activities are expected to be raised by the two events, assuming that Glasgow wins the Commonwealth games bid which—I am confident—it will.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to address the shortfall in the number of dentists in Scotland. (S2O-9244)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We are increasing the number of graduates from Scotland's dental schools from 108, which the figure was five years ago, to 135 this year and 143 by 2008. We have given health boards new powers to recruit salaried dentists and we have helped with the recruitment from Poland of dentists for the Scottish national health service. We have put in place golden hello payments for new and returning dentists who want to practice in the NHS in Scotland. Furthermore, we will from September this year offer bursaries to dental students in return for a commitment to work in the NHS in Scotland after they graduate. Those bursaries will be worth up to £4,000 per student per year.

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

I am sure that all that will be a comfort to the Presiding Officer this week.

The Executive must be aware that a third of all graduate dentists leave Scotland to take up their first posts. Although the Polish dentists are welcome, they will provide treatment for only 80,000 patients. Given that more than 1 million under-16s and over-65s are not registered with an NHS dentist and that, from 1 April 2006, free dental checks will be available to all, how will the shortfall be met?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I hope that Tricia Marwick listened to my answer to her initial question. I was delighted to read in the press this week that the Scottish National Party is supporting our proposition for bursaries for students who will commit to work for the NHS in Scotland.

I hear comments by members from sedentary positions. It is a shame that those members did not listen to Rhona Brankin on 17 March last year, when she said that

"we plan to introduce a bursary scheme for dental students who commit to NHS dentistry on graduation".—[Official Report, 17 March 2005; c 15535.]

Indeed, if Tricia Marwick had read the dental action plan that was published on the same day last year, she would have seen exactly the same point in it.

A range of measures are being introduced—including bursaries—to tie students. Dental students who receive four years' bursary will commit to work in the NHS in Scotland for four years after they complete their training. I hope that Tricia Marwick will welcome that measure.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to ensure that Scottish athletes succeed at international level. (S2O-9187)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The Executive is fully committed to ensuring that our top athletes have the best possible support to allow them to perform at their best on the international stage.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am sure that the minister will want not only to support the ministers who are heading over to the Melbourne games but our athletes, to whom we wish every success at the Melbourne games.

The minister may be aware of the athlete personal award scheme, which UK Sport runs and which it describes as being

"to ensure that athletes can train and perform to the highest levels"

in the run-up to Olympic games.

He may also be aware that, at the last winter Olympics, some 40 per cent of the athletes in the Great Britain team were Scotland-based athletes. However, is he also aware that, under a freedom of information request, UK Sport published a document this week that highlights that only 20 per cent of athlete personal awards had been made to Scottish athletes? Why is that the case, and what action does the Executive intend to take to ensure that Scottish athletes get a fair share of that funding?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The question of support for Scottish athletes is a complex one in which facilities, coaching and training, broadening the base and, of course, individual support need to be taken on board. The Scottish Institute of Sport's six area institutes also support that general activity.

On the general point, I will ask the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport to respond specifically to the detail of the question. I am standing in for Patricia Ferguson this morning and I am not fully acquainted with the detail of the matter. However, I can say that various organisations and bodies that represent the different areas of Scottish sport are involved with sportscotland in distributing money and support to Scottish athletes. I will ensure that Michael Matheson gets a detailed reply.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many full-time equivalent specialist teachers were employed in primary schools in 2000 and 2005. (S2O-9258)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The only available figures are for 2003, when 2,218 specialist teachers were employed and for 2004, when the figure had increased to 2,262.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Surely the minister must accept that that is still a very low figure, given the number of primary schools in Scotland and the contribution that those teachers make? Does he agree that the contribution of full-time equivalent specialist teachers, whose work is much appreciated by the children and staff in all our primary schools, is vital to the delivery of a rounded and holistic education that develops the skills of all children? Does he also agree that those services are too often the first to be cut? Finally, does the Executive have a policy on specialist services to primary schools and, if not, why not?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Several points arise from the questions. On the first point about the figure being low, I agree that it needs to increase, which is why we have committed ourselves to providing an extra 1,000 specialist teachers who will move between secondary and primary schools. They will be employed centrally and will move out to visit schools in rural areas and elsewhere. We are on the move on that and we are increasing the number as part of the major commitment that we made to increase our teacher numbers to 53,000. Our universities are bulging at the seams with new students. That will help to fulfil that commitment.

I also agree that those teachers are a vital part of our education system. We are very clear that we want to see an increase in the number of visiting teachers because of the impacts that they make on young people. We are seeing a gradual improvement in that in the cluster arrangements and learning-community arrangements that we have put in place between the primary and secondary schools in our cities. Under those arrangements, secondary science and modern-languages teachers will move down to help in primary schools. That is happening in addition to the work that traditional visiting teachers undertake.

Robin Harper also queries whether local authorities are reducing the number of visiting teachers. That is something that I would very much regret because it would mean that authorities were heading in exactly the opposite direction to the one that the Executive wants them to take. Such action is not what we are funding, which is an increase in the number of our teachers.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its role is in the planning process in respect of nuclear submarine facilities in Scotland. (S2O-9182)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

If a proposal requires planning permission, Scottish ministers play their usual role within the planning system. Whether a proposal requires planning permission will depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome nuclear developments in Scotland, but will the minister clarify why her colleague at Westminster has said that there is no planning veto with regard to such developments when, in fact, there might well be?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am blessed with many things, but a requirement that Mr Cairns be answerable to me is not one of them. He is accountable to Westminster for his answers. However, the position on this issue is clear: defence is a reserved matter, and planning is devolved. As I said, if a proposal requires planning permission, the Executive might become involved in the decision-making process.

Points of Order

George Reid (None, Ochil)

It is now 12 noon. We move to questions to the First Minister—

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Is your point of order so urgent that we have to take it now? Can I take it at the back end of First Minister's questions?

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I would prefer that it was taken now, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Right. On you go.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I rise to highlight the most flagrant breach of the Parliament's principles. I refer to discrimination—age discrimination, in particular—which is covered by rule 6.9.1 and 6.9.2 of standing orders. I am 75 years old. However, having reached that age, I find that I am being discriminated against in this place. I should point out that I am raising this not for myself but on behalf of the others who will follow me in 2007. I want the Presiding Officer's good self to look into and rule on the matter.

Basically, under the parliamentary pension scheme—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

What is your point of order, Mr Swinburne?

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I am allowed three minutes in which to expand upon my point—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Only if you are speaking to a point of order.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I am being discriminated against because, of the 129 MSPs, I am the only one who comes into a separate category. If I and one of my colleagues were knocked down by a bus on the way up to this place, my colleague's family would be awarded three times his basic salary. However, I would receive nothing because I am too old. That is discrimination of the worst kind.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I am sorry that you find yourself in that situation, Mr Swinburne. I know that the matter is of personal importance to you, but I think that it would be better if you wrote to me. I will ensure that the parliamentary authorities respond to you.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

On a different point of order, Presiding Officer. I will be very brief. Last week, for the first time ever, the independent MSPs were given a slot at First Minister's question time. Unfortunately, Margo MacDonald lost the opportunity to ask her question because the roof fell in. Why is she not being given the opportunity to ask her question this week, in the same way that last week's votes were simply postponed until this week?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We have already agreed the schedule until the end of June. I am afraid that we will just have to live with it.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2155)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hope to meet the Prime Minister again soon to discuss a range of issues. In particular, I expect to discuss his support for Scotland's bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I hope that this weekend I take to Melbourne the whole chamber's support for that bid. Indeed, I will be delighted to pass on to the athletes who are representing us at the games the support of everyone in the chamber for their efforts over the next fortnight.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I assure the First Minister that he has the Scottish National Party's full support in putting forward in Melbourne the case for Glasgow to host the Commonwealth games.

I remind the First Minister that, at a press briefing on Monday, he said that it took nearly five years for the Government to pay Shirley McKie £750,000 in compensation because

"The compensation requested was originally much higher, and that was why we defended the action."

Does he now accept that what he said on Monday was simply untrue?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not think that that is the correct link to make between a particular question and answer from the press briefing on Monday. It is the case that, in the discussions on the settlement and the court case over the years, the McKie family were looking for a significantly higher amount of money. It is absolutely their right to do so, and I do not dismiss it at all. However, it was also right that, in such negotiations, we looked after the public purse and ensured that the eventual settlement was just not only to Shirley McKie but to the taxpayers of Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Several newspapers have precisely quoted the First Minister as saying that the claim was "originally ... higher" than £750,000. However, I have court documents that prove that what he said on Monday was untrue. They show that, over the four years between day one of Shirley McKie's court action and last September, she was claiming £750,000—which is exactly the amount that was eventually paid to her.

Does the First Minister accept that the Government's decision to fight the case not only needlessly put Shirley McKie through the wringer for five years but resulted in hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money being wasted on legal costs? The question that the First Minister must answer is why. Now that we know that the explanation that he gave on Monday was false, will he please tell the chamber the real reason why it took the Executive so long to settle the case?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First of all, I should say that Ms Sturgeon is not accurate. The original claim was for £750,000 plus interest, which is more than £750,000 for any of us who understand money or numbers. However, more fundamental issues are at stake—[ Interruption. ]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order. We have to hear what the First Minister is saying.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I know that the SNP does not like facts, but facts are important in any discussion. I do not think that that particular fact, although it is a fact, is central to the discussion. What is important is that, when it became clear last year that a settlement was appropriate, the Minister for Justice took the right steps to secure a settlement that was fair to Ms McKie and was also fair to the public purse. That move towards a settlement resulted in a letter from Ms McKie's father to the Minister for Justice thanking her for her approach and welcoming the steps that she was taking. That was a positive indication from the McKie family that they welcomed the approach at the time. The Minister for Justice took the right steps to settle, in the interests of the public purse and of Shirley McKie. The family having accepted that the mistake made by the Scottish Criminal Record Office was without malice, and the Executive having accepted that we have a responsibility to ensure that Ms McKie is compensated for what she has gone through, now is the time to move on.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is not there an obligation on the First Minister to tell the public the truth? I have a copy of the original court document and the claim was clearly for £750,000. I think that the First Minister should reflect that in the public statements that he makes. Is not it the case that Monday was not the first time that the First Minister has misinformed the public about the McKie case? On 9 February, he told Parliament that everyone concerned accepted that an honest mistake had been made, and that is just not true, is it? Is not it the case that, as we saw on the BBC "Frontline Scotland" programme, no one in fact accepts that it was an honest mistake? The SCRO experts still do not accept that it was a mistake, and the McKie family and a long list of fingerprint experts do not accept that it was an honest one. Who exactly was the First Minister talking about when he said on 9 February that everyone accepted that it was an honest mistake?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We all know that the settlement was, from our perspective, a fair and just settlement for Ms McKie and a just settlement for the public purse. In accepting that settlement and in accepting that the original mistake was without malice, the McKie family took an important position, and that is reflected in the statements that have been made. It is important to recognise not only that we now have a settlement, but that never in the course of recent weeks, in any of the statements from the nationalists, who have tried to politicise what is essentially a legal debate, have we had one question about any of the recommendations from the two independent inquiries that took place. Those inquiries produced recommendations about the future of the fingerprint service, all of which were accepted and implemented. At no time in recent weeks has Ms Sturgeon, Mr Neil or any other SNP member who is involved in the debate accepted that fact or even questioned whether it is true.

What is important is the integrity of the work of the fingerprint service and of the justice system. Those who are now responsible for the fingerprint service are acting in the public interest to ensure that the service has improved and will improve further as a result of the changes that were outlined by the Minister for Justice just two weeks ago.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I suggest that it is the integrity of the Scottish Executive and of the justice system that it is on the line.

I accept that there have been reforms to the SCRO, but we cannot know whether those reforms will sort out what went wrong in the Shirley McKie case, because we do not know what went wrong in that case. I refer the First Minister to a comment by Derek Ogg QC—one of the many non-political advocates of a public inquiry—who says that we need to

"shine a light on how we got here and make sure that where we're going is not beset with the same traps."

Is it not time that the First Minister took his head out of the sand and took some decisive action to restore confidence in the Scottish justice system?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

This is a democratically elected Parliament. Last night, it voted and expressed a clear opinion on behalf of the people of Scotland, whom we represent. I hope that Ms Sturgeon will note that fact, despite her continuing efforts to undermine yesterday's vote, which showed clearly what the will of the Parliament is.

I do not accept that Ms Sturgeon shows an interest in the work of the fingerprint service because at no time in the parliamentary debate, in the questions that followed the statements from the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate in recent weeks or at First Minister's question time has she questioned the recommendations that were made by the independent reports into the fingerprint service or the implementation of those recommendations since then. The fundamental point is the action that has been taken. The action that has been taken was based on independent reports from independent investigations. That action has been implemented and, as a result of that, we can now move forward.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2156)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will still, in my absence, discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I hope that drug abuse and, in particular, the use of methadone will be high up the agenda. This is not an issue on which I wish to pick a fight. I have no doubt that the First Minister is as saddened as I am at recent tragic events. My desire has only ever been to shift the debate in a more constructive direction. In that spirit, does the First Minister accept that, to deal with the problems that are associated with methadone, we need to establish the extent of those problems and, therefore, need more information? How many people are on methadone, how long have they been on it and how many of them are looking after children at home?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will come back to Annabel Goldie's central point in a second, because I welcome the fact that she has asked the question and raised an important issue for the Parliament. It should be of great concern to others, as it is to her and me.

The current figures for methadone prescription in Scotland are about 19,200. In my view—and, I believe, in Annabel Goldie's—we do not have enough information about the individuals who are prescribed methadone and the plans that they are on to end up, eventually, with a drugs-free lifestyle, but we are expanding the Scottish drug misuse database precisely to collect that information and to ensure that practice is more consistent throughout Scotland. That information should be available soon and will give us a chance to apply guidelines more consistently and have a more consistent objective in each individual case.

Over recent weeks, Annabel Goldie has made positive contributions on other areas such as the provision of rehabilitation services and the national data that we hold on them. I hope that, in all of that, she is not suggesting that there is no place for methadone prescriptions in the system. Her leader clearly believes that there is, and I agree with him that we need a flexible approach. However, I believe that Annabel Goldie is genuine in her approach and I hope that, in addition to participating in this exchange, she is willing to meet the Minister for Justice and her deputy soon to try to bring some of the parties together on the issue and to provide a way forward that we can all agree and see through to successful implementation.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for his response. We have made singular progress today, which I appreciate, and I make it clear that my party has never said that there is no place for methadone.

Establishing the extent of the problem is only the first step, because it must be crystal clear that everything that we do is geared towards helping people to end their addiction to drugs, which must mean telling them where they can go for help.

That brings me to the First Minister's response on rehabilitation facilities. In England and Wales, there is a central directory of rehabilitation facilities. Will the First Minister give me a commitment to provide such a directory for Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I certainly want to do that. I now have figures for the number of establishments that offer such services as well as for the number of individual beds that can be made available. Those beds are in the system in Scotland. Sometimes—correctly—they are used for drug rehabilitation, and they are also used for alcohol rehabilitation and other purposes. As I have said in the chamber on many previous occasions, I believe that there are not enough rehabilitation services in Scotland. There are not enough residential places, and there are certainly not enough services directed at people adopting a drug-free lifestyle at the end of their rehabilitation.

We have allocated additional resources and we are expanding the number of places. I hope that we can go forward. I believe that the cross-party approach that I have just suggested might help us to ensure a consistency of approach over several years. In the meantime, I would be happy to secure a level of detail on the matter for Annabel Goldie as part of this continuing discussion. I am sure that, in the weeks ahead, we will be able to outline the plans that are available in some areas of Scotland to expand the number of places.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am grateful to the First Minister and, once again, I wish to say that I think that progress is being made. The key point about this issue was made by Professor Neil McKeganey. He said that people with money can afford choice and that having that choice means that they tend not to use methadone to end their addiction. Although I am partially reassured by what the First Minister has said to me in response to my previous question, I point out that, in the absence of clarification on facilities, the capacity within those facilities and unused capacity in Scotland, we have a two-tier system. Is it not about time that we committed ourselves to ending that two-tier system, under which the well-off go to residential rehab while the masses make do with methadone? Is it not time that we began to give everyone the choice of getting effective help to get off drugs?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am certain that there will be times in the course of this debate when it will be right for us to make debating points on behalf of our different parties and for policy choices to be made in front of the electorate and debated in the Parliament. I am also certain that there are times when, if at all possible—and as was perhaps pioneered by the former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth—we should rise above party politics on the issue and try to move forward together.

The number of admissions in Scotland was 3,902 at the latest count, I am told. There are problems with the system, and I entirely agree with Annabel Goldie: it is unacceptable that, while some people can buy their way to a rehabilitation place, other people, despite indicating an interest, do not have the necessary resources available. That is the case for the vast majority of problem drug users in Scotland. In many cases, they have to remain on a waiting list.

Some members will perhaps have heard this story before. Not that long ago, I met a family in the north-east of Scotland who had agreed with their daughter that she would go into rehabilitation. The daughter, having made that brave decision, was told that a rehabilitation place would take a year to become available. I regard that as absolutely unacceptable. The outcome was that the parents had to help her to get drugs so that she could keep her lifestyle stable while she was waiting. That is an entirely unacceptable situation in any part of Scotland, and it is one that I am determined to do something about. I hope that, in building on the changes that we have made over recent years, and if we come together, we can provide more permanent solutions on which all parties can agree.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2164)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly to discuss a range of issues, which are all of importance to Scotland.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

With energy issues so high up the media and political agendas, does the First Minister believe that small-scale micro-renewable energy for our homes and businesses can play a part in providing our future energy needs? Is his Executive committed to supporting the micro-renewables industry?