Scottish Parliament, 26 October 2006

424 contributions from 77 members. The official report.

Official Report 26 October 2006

Young People and Families

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4999, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on young people and families.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

One of the first debates that Parliament held after the 2003 election was on young people. It followed an election campaign that had been dominated by the subject of antisocial behaviour and was shortly before the introduction of Executive legislation to address that issue, so it was understandable that several Labour members took the opportunity that the debate presented to talk about the antisocial behaviour of a minority of young people. However, that topic did not come to dominate the debate and many members of all parties spoke passionately about the creativity, energy and positive spirit of young people in Scotland, as well as about the pressures that they face.

Television coverage of the debate that night was, however, introduced by a predictable sequence of images, which consisted of slow-motion footage from closed-circuit television cameras that showed only the very worst behaviour that could be attributed to young people. Although we have disagreed consistently with the Executive about the contents of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, we have never accused members of deliberately reinforcing that link—of attempting consciously to tar all young people with the brush of antisocial behaviour. However, on national television that night, the effect was there for all to see—it has remained the case ever since.

The first distorted stereotype of young people is that they are antisocial, disruptive and criminal; in the language that is sometimes used by people who should know better, they are "hoodies" or "neds". The second stereotype is that of the angelic innocent—the vulnerable child who is in need of constant protection from predators of every vile description. Both stereotypes are, of course, based on some truth. The first becomes powerful in relation to the disruptive or offending minority of young people and the second in relation to the shocking, but mercifully few, cases of tragedy through abuse, neglect or violence. It is entirely right that government at all levels aims to address both those extremes as effectively as possible, even if politicians disagree about the right course of action.

What of the lives of the rest—the majority—of our young people, who fall between those two stereotypes? We have brought the debate because of a concern—which is felt not only by us, but by members of other parties and by parents, professionals and young people—that young people's lives are too often impacted on by policies and systems that are designed to deal only with the extremes of life and which react only to the stereotypes that I described, with the result that the spontaneity, freedom and, even, the risk that are normal and necessary parts of growing up can be lost.

Our motion begins by acknowledging some of the many factors that can influence young people's development. In particular, I emphasise the importance of relationships with peers, family members and adults. We regard the justice-led approach to problem behaviour as defeatist—when all else has failed, all we can do is make an order and threaten punishment. However, relationships are not easily amenable to court orders, and we reach too often for that option before all else has failed.

We need only look at the report that was published this week on funding of children's social work services, which shows that the acute need for such services outstrips core funding by some 60 per cent. I do not wish to take away from the Executive's provision of money to encourage more integrated working, but the core services remain woefully underfunded.

Voluntary sector services have achieved impressive results, but still struggle because of short-term funding. I am talking not only about the ill-fated Airborne Initiative that the Executive so irrationally decided to axe, but about other programmes that are provided by organisations such as NCH, Fairbridge and Barnardo's and the 800 voluntary family and support services. That work is reducing reoffending rates, saving taxpayers' money and giving young people reasons to make better choices in their lives, so why do we take those services for granted? We would not expect other bodies that are engaged with such problems, such as the police and the courts, to put up with insecure funding, but we expect it of the voluntary sector, despite its distinguished record of success.

The Institute for Public Policy Research, which is a Labour think-tank, has expressed concern about similar issues. It has coined the term "paedophobia" to describe a society in which adults are increasingly fearful of young people and perceive them to be a menace or a threat, even when they are simply hanging around with friends, which young people have always done and, I hope, will always do.

Fear is also generated by the second stereotype: many adults are afraid to step in to look after other people's children because they are worried that they will be perceived as a threat. The result of both fears is unwillingness to engage with young people, which exacerbates the poverty of the relationships between the generations.

The IPPR is correct to say that neither condemnation nor absolution will do us any good. We must recognise the social, economic and cultural changes that have taken place in society and, instead of bemoaning the present, we must face up to it. That is why we end our motion with an appeal to the Executive

"to develop a comprehensive strategy for supporting families and young people"

that is designed to meet today's needs.

Members of all parties want the best for Scotland's young people, their families and their communities, but it should be clear by now that a further justice-led response to problem behaviour will only give us another dose of authoritarian measures that will distract us from the need for longer-term solutions and, crucially, from the need to foster positive relationships, which will do more good than any court order. I ask members to support the Scottish Green Party's motion.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that children and young people are shaped by their relationships and experiences at home, in their schools and communities, by the physical space they find themselves in and by their economic circumstances; understands the absolute importance of these factors at the centre of healthy development; acknowledges that families and young people need support from time to time and that communities, public services, local authorities and the Scottish Executive share a responsibility to meet this need; regrets, however, that public debate in Scotland has increasingly reduced children and young people to simplistic stereotypes, either as innocents to be protected or as problems to be contained; in particular regrets that the tone of debate on antisocial behaviour has distracted attention and resources from the need to address the wider issues in young people's lives; believes that where problems such as youth disorder have arisen local communities are best placed to decide on the appropriate response; therefore rejects the idea of forcing local authorities to use specific antisocial behaviour measures against their better judgement, and calls on the Executive to develop a comprehensive strategy for supporting families and young people.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I was incredulous as I listened to Robin Harper's description of the Executive's policies for children and young people. The challenge of enabling every young person to have opportunities in life, to fulfil his or her potential and to enrich our society is central to what I am in politics for. I believe that it is also central to the vision of the Scottish Parliament and of Scottish ministers. The Government has put children and young people at the top of its agenda, so this morning's debate is a timely opportunity to identify what we have achieved and where the continuing challenges lie.

Our vision for Scotland's young people is for all of them to be nurtured, safe, healthy, achieving, included, respected and responsible. We want them all to be confident individuals, effective contributors, successful learners and responsible citizens. There is an extent to which such phrases are a mantra that ministers repeat when necessary, but they arise from the national debate on education, and they strike chords with professionals, parents and young people and give direction and purpose to our programmes, policies and practice in support of children and young people.

Since 1999, we have made a difference for young people in numerous ways. In education, more than 12,000 newly qualified teachers have entered our schools since the introduction of the teacher induction scheme in 2002, and we are well on course to achieving our target of having 53,000 teachers in the workforce by next year, which is central to our ambitions for the system. That is to say nothing of the provision of a cadre of classroom assistants to support that teaching.

We have reformed and modernised our schools on an unparalleled scale since the launch of our "ambitious, excellent schools" programme two years ago, and we have begun the transformation of schools through our leadership and chartered teacher programmes and the establishment of 27 flagship schools of ambition, more of which will follow.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

There is concern about the facilities that young people can use. How does the minister feel about the public-private partnership contracts that lock young people out of schools and mean that they cannot take part in youth activities because the rents are too high?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The truth is the opposite of that. PPP is a method of funding that takes into account the long-term usage of schools. It is one of a number of methods of funding capital expenditure that exist in our society. To a substantial extent, PPP has dealt with the neglect that followed the activities of the previous Administration. Throughout Scotland, many new schools have been built that would not have been provided without PPP.

Young people have new opportunities both in school and out of school. They can learn a musical instrument or try different sports, for example through the club golf initiative. Moreover, young people and voluntary organisations have benefited from more than 800 volunteering places that Project Scotland has offered since May 2005.

We have not shirked the challenges and the difficult questions: we have developed a strategy that supports young people who are not in education, employment or training in making a success of their lives and we are taking action to improve the educational outcomes of looked-after young people and give them the chances that they deserve.

Through the local action fund, we have also provided £5 million for new facilities like skate parks, midnight football and youth cafes to keep young people away from crime. There are now 1,500 more support projects for young carers than in 1999.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not want to take anything away from the many achievements that I am sure the minister will—given the chance—spend another four minutes listing. However, I wonder whether he will reply to the point behind our motion and my colleague Robin Harper's opening speech, which is about how the perception and stereotyping of young people can harm their place in society in the years to come.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am not entirely sure that the stereotype to which Mr Harvie refers has not, in fact, been enhanced by seeking to debate—as we are this morning—a motion that is based on a fallacy. I also point out that the Green motion is a policy-free zone that neither makes any suggestions nor provides any answers to the questions that Mr Harvie has raised.

The reality is that the Executive is doing positive things for young people. I wish sometimes that the Greens would acknowledge more than they have the extent to which policies for young people in Scotland have changed. We have introduced a massive programme of action.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

No. I have already taken two interventions.

Scotland is at the leading edge in empowering young people. We do not just talk about them: we talk to them, involve them and—most important—we listen to them. We engage with the Scottish Youth Parliament and support dialogue youth and Young Scot. Last summer, we hosted the inspirational world youth congress in Stirling, and our schools are enlivened by pupil councils and by groundbreaking peer mentoring and buddy schemes.

Next week, our consultation on the national youth work strategy will end. Many young people have contributed to it and have told us what is important to them. I have been impressed by their vision, passion and ideas and am determined that our youth-work strategy will be fully focused on delivering the best possible outcomes and opportunities for those young people.

High-quality informal learning activities let young people enjoy themselves as they develop confidence and skills, so a youth-work approach has succeeded in engaging many young people who might find more formal learning difficult, or who have had problems in the past. Some of the organisations that we support carry out excellent work in giving young people new opportunities and a brighter future.

We have provided more than £120 million to support community learning and development and youth work delivered through local authorities. We also provide funding for voluntary youth organisations' headquarters. As Mr Harper rightly acknowledged in his opening speech, the uniformed organisations and the voluntary youth-work sector in general do a tremendous job. This year, we have also allocated additional funding to improve facilities for young people.

This Scottish Government has made its commitment; it has put in place the structures, the funding and the programmes. We know that we rely on teachers, youth workers and others in the field to give life to our vision, but our commitment to and our ambition for young people are unlimited because they are our future. We welcome Parliament's support for our work and the chance to hear members' individual perspectives in the debate.

I move amendment S2M-4999.2, to leave out from "that children and young people" to end and insert:

"the vital importance of all young people being able to fulfil their potential; pays tribute to the contribution young people across Scotland make to their families and communities; knows the importance of the family in providing support and guidance for young people; welcomes the fact that child poverty has been reduced by over a quarter in Scotland, that the Scottish Executive has introduced universal nursery education for all three to four-year-olds, that the Executive has seen record levels of investment in schools and teachers, that more of our young people are going on to higher and further education, that youth unemployment is at a record low and that more parents are in work and have access to support and childcare; recognises further that some parents require extra support to bring up children, that decent families and young people need to be safe and protected in their homes and communities, that young people supported by and having access to good quality youth work opportunities have an important role to play in improving their communities, and reiterates the determination of this Parliament to stand up to antisocial behaviour, to end child poverty and to provide every child and young person with the best possible start in life."

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I must say that I did not react to Robin Harper's speech with incredulity. Although I did not agree with all that he had to say, his contribution was thoughtful and measured. The minister might have been better served by taking the same tone in his speech.

Robin Harper's comments on the role of the voluntary sector, which the minister touched on to some extent, were very important. Too often in this country, we take the view that Government knows best and has all the answers. However, individuals, families and voluntary groups can make a much greater contribution to the development not just of young people and families but of society as a whole.

In my amendment, I seek to spell out what I feel are the more important themes with regard to young people and families. In fact, they are the same themes that apply to any other group in society. After all, in debates such as this, there is a danger that we focus too much on the differences between groups instead of on what binds us. Issues such as the safety of individuals in our society and employment and educational opportunities are matters of concern not just for younger generations, but for all generations.

The biggest thing that any Government can do for young people is provide them with educational opportunities. In this country—as in, I concede, other countries—the education system is simply not helping a hard core of young people as much as it needs to, so we must look very carefully at how we can improve opportunities for the bottom 20 per cent of pupils.

We need to look at employment opportunities for young people. As we all saw yesterday when we were lobbied by physiotherapists, too many people are spending time in training without getting the employment opportunities that they need to progress and to go on to live the lives that their parents created for them.

Last year, the think-tank Reform published a very interesting report on the so-called iPod generation. Some members are Thatcher's children—in other words, they spent their formative years under a Conservative Government. I see Alex Johnstone raising his hand, but I was not really referring to him.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member mentioned Mrs Thatcher. Did not she say once that unemployment was a price worth paying?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

In their 18 years in power, the Conservatives gave unprecedented opportunities to young people. Indeed, the record of the last Conservative Government was significantly better in that regard than the record of the Executive that Mr Rumbles has consistently supported.

The Reform report highlights differences between the generation that was born after 1975 and the preceding generation with regard to opportunities to buy their own homes and to build up pensions and retire. The generation before mine had such opportunities, thanks in part to the Conservative Government of the time. However, that is not the case for my generation, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's changes to the tax system, which make it more likely that retirement incomes will be significantly reduced; thanks to increases in house prices and stamp duty for average house buyers, which make it more difficult for first-time buyers to buy somewhere, never mind meet the mortgage payments; and thanks to the Executive's changes to public services, which mean that they are not of a standard that young people and others have a right to expect.

Instead of coming up with some strategy for young people and families, the Executive needs to focus much more on the basic issues that affect all generations. Frankly, I feel that the minister is rather complacent. He would do better to listen to some of the effective points that Mr Harper made instead of simply sitting back, folding his arms and reflecting on a job that he seems to think has been done.

I move amendment S2M-4999.1, to leave out from first "regrets" to end and insert:

"believes that the most important duties of the Executive towards young people are to provide them with better opportunities for education and employment, a safe environment with affordable housing in which to live and public services which are efficient and effective, and calls for a greater focus from the Executive on delivering improvements in public services and providing opportunities for young people, families, and everyone else in Scotland."

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

A stark warning that society is demonising its children has been issued only this morning. A leading Scottish political figure has said that Scottish society is at

"a very dangerous tipping point"

because adults are turning young people into hate figures. That figure was not Robin Harper; it was not my colleague Kenny MacAskill; and it was not any of the Conservatives. I hate to tell the Executive that it was Ewan Aitken, the Labour leader of the City of Edinburgh Council. In that regard, Derek Brownlee was right to accuse the minister of complacency.

As members recall, Ewan Aitken was until very recently the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' spokesperson on education and young people. However, this morning, he is quoted as saying that

"the nation's youth was being 'demonised' and that it was vital to address the misconception that most of them were up to no good".

In that respect, I welcome the fact that the Greens have raised the debate, because we do young people a disservice if we do not address their very real concerns. No one underestimates the problems that are caused in our communities by persistent young offenders' antisocial behaviour. However, as I said, we do young people a disservice by not reflecting the wider issues and the longer-term implications of a policy that deals with the symptoms rather than the causes of the malaise in our society.

In my brief time, I want to focus on early intervention. Yesterday, Parliament debated the Education Committee's report on its early years inquiry, which concluded that if we want to tackle society's problems and try to change it for the better, we have to consider early intervention. The same applies to justice issues. A study by the Glasgow children's reporter shows that 40 per cent of persistent young offenders aged 15 had first been referred for care and protection at the age of eight.

There is a sense of urgency and alarm because we have seen 55,000 children and young people referred to the children's reporters this year. The care and protection figures have escalated, and I know that the minister has acknowledged the problems, but referrals for criminal behaviour have actually remained fairly static. If we accept that those who are vulnerable and are under care and protection have a tendency to become persistent young offenders later, and if we do not tackle the mismatch between the escalation of the care and protection figures and the other issues, we are storing up problems for the future, because once a young person is in that cycle it is difficult to get him or her out.

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

I am certainly not going to argue with Fiona Hyslop about the number of referrals, but does she appreciate that the number of referrals for protection has gone up because the facilities and social work capacity exist in communities to ensure that those cases are captured, whereas in the 1970s and early 1980s they would not have been captured or referred, so the support packages would not have been put in place to help those young people?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I appreciate the point that Jeremy Purvis makes, and I said that the increase in numbers is complex. However, one of the concerns that we have heard from children's reporters is that they have to refer cases back because social workers and police are referring cases in the first place because they see doing so as a passport to getting services. That is where the pressures and constraints are.

Because of the Executive's focus on youth offending as an issue for social work, social workers' career prospects are better in criminal justice than they are in child protection social work. Vacancies for child protection workers exist for longer than do those in other areas. Committees of Parliament have suggested that it might be appropriate for all social workers to have mandatory child protection sessions, because of the shortages in child protection. When we consider the demonisation that takes place and the concerns that have been raised by some child protection cases, we can understand the anxieties that social workers have about specialising in child protection.

Early intervention can work. I recently visited the Blackford Brae project, which is run by Barnardo's Scotland. That facility deals with young people, many as young as primary-school age, who are in fear of exclusion, and it saves the state money because it helps young people to stay in mainstream education, and tackles their antisocial behaviour when they are very young. If it is not tackled when they are young, it leads to overcrowded prisons and other pressures later.

I wonder about the minister's comments and about his willingness to trot out the successes of the Executive. I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats really want to be part and parcel of an Executive that uses such antisocial behaviour rhetoric, as opposed to action. I see some interesting grimaces on Mike Rumbles's face, but I seriously believe that the minister's comments belied his sense of discomfort. Perhaps we will get a Labour minister with responsibility for justice to sum up, or perhaps the Liberal Democrat minister will be able to tell us in his summing up speech what he really thinks.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I apologise for coming in slightly late, Presiding Officer, and for missing part of Mr Harper's speech.

I welcome the opportunity to debate young people and families, so I congratulate the Green members on their choice of subject. I intend to focus my comments on how we, as policy makers, can support families and benefit our children and young people. However, I cannot go on without looking at the second part of the Green motion. I do not understand why the Greens seek to defend those whose actions make other people's lives a misery. I do not see children or young people as victims or villains. The only people I ever hear speaking in such clichéd terms are members of the Scottish Green Party. I want to ensure that people can live their lives in peace, and I am proud that the Labour Party has championed respect for others and has backed that up with legislation. The Greens—and, it seems, Ms Hyslop—need to realise that people cannot just do what they want, and that considering others will make for a better society.

I return to my original point.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will Mary Mulligan give way?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I will not give way just now.

The Children in Scotland briefing states that parents and families are key to ensuring that childhood is a positive and nurturing experience. Children prosper best where they have a stable family life—we would all agree about that. I am attracted to Children in Scotland's notion that national parenting and family support strategies should be developed. Some families clearly face more challenges than others, but I challenge any parent in this chamber to deny that they could, at some point, have done with a little more support and advice. Few people are supported by extended families these days, as we live away from such families. The problem is that there is a stigma associated with looking for support because it is not the normal thing to do and we do not know where to go, so most people struggle on.

At a recent meeting of the Parliament's cross-party group on children and young people, we heard about the helpful idea that services should be available from birth. Parents are most receptive at that time, but that needs to be the start of support, not the only support. Children and families can face challenges at any age, and we need to establish a range of supports that families can dip into when they need them.

The mapping of the present services should show what needs to be done. I have recently been involved in such an exercise, following the Justice 1 Committee's consideration of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill. I was appointed as reporter to the committee on family support services, particularly in respect of distressing situations of family dispute or breakdown. I will give my report to the committee first, but there are two brief points that I would like to make today.

First, one of the most disturbing things for children and young people is animosity between adults in a household during the acrimonious breakdown of a relationship. Therefore, relationship counselling, mediation and sympathetic legal advice and support are crucial. Such services exist, but they are at risk and there is concern about their future provision. Secondly, once a relationship has broken down, particularly where there is acrimony, one of the most important services is the contact centre. Only in a few cases should a child's right to contact with both mother and father be denied. Contact centres are a practical way of providing contact and re-establishing relationships between adults while focusing on the needs of the children. My report should be available by Christmas, but I hope that we will see those services being supported well into the future.

The motion starts well, but it is spoilt by the ridiculous assertions about antisocial behaviour. We need to consider whether there needs to be some way of ensuring that couples understand the responsibility that they take on when they become parents; Scottish Marriage Care's REACT—relationship education and counselling team—project is an apt way of offering such assistance. Too often, we hear about the right to have a child, but not that there is recognition of the responsibility that goes along with it and which will give the child a stable and loving home. Parents are the primary carers, but Governments need to provide support.

The Tories' amendment flies in the face of their record of huge youth unemployment, with endless schemes such as the youth opportunity programme and the youth training scheme, massive repossessions of houses while interest rates were at 15 per cent, and unemployment and homelessness that led to family break-ups—all from the party that claims to be the party of the family.

The best that politicians can do is recognise and celebrate the role that parents play. By supporting parents, we can ensure that our children and young people have the happy and healthy lives that we want for them.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I will continue the debate by asking members to consider the relevance of our social and physical environment to the behaviour and experience of young people. As Robin Harper said, the Institute for Public Policy Research described the current popular attitude as paedophobia. As a society, we seem to be scared of sharing our space with young people. We are fearful for them if they are our own and fearful of them if they belong to someone else. We squeeze them indoors, out of harm's way, and try to stop them making use of public spaces. If we take a moment to think about it, we will all recognise that the lives of young people today are constrained in ways that we would not have been happy about when we were young people.

Of course, some young people will want to break out and rebel. At this point, I will tell a story from my own village. For a while a few years ago, a lot of young kids—boys in their early teens—were skateboarding in the small car park in the middle of the village, which was clearly inappropriate. They were making impromptu jumps out of oil drums and planks of wood, which was dangerous for other users of the car park, and they were a bit noisy. One elderly resident, who was also a community councillor, crossed the road to speak to them one day. The boys told him that they did not have anywhere else to skateboard. He said, "What would you like?" They explained that they would like a dedicated skateboarding area. He suggested that they come to the community council, and they did. I was on the community council at the time. Those 14 and 15-year-olds gained a huge amount of respect as a result of the way in which they presented their case to the community council. Their proposal was taken forward and they got their skateboard park. The point of the story is that if we cross the road, go to the young people and talk to them, we will often find that underneath the noisy exterior, and notwithstanding behaviour that is inappropriate for a public area, is a 14 or 15-year-old who is worthy of respect.

At the moment, our towns and regions seem to be competing to see which of them gives out the greatest number of antisocial behaviour orders or installs the greatest number of CCTV cameras. Those with the highest tally win applause on the front pages of the press. Instead of that, our communities in our towns and regions should be competing to see which can successfully include, not exclude, the greatest number of people.

Young people need space—physical, social and emotional—in which to discover who they are and what they want. Research from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment shows that starting a community garden and a residents association did more to reduce crime in a London tower block and reduce the fear of crime among its residents than did building security fences, installing CCTV and concreting over a nearby outdoor space. Others may insist that being tough only means creating barriers, making dispersal orders and even giving custodial sentences, but the facts show otherwise. Rather than banishing children we should be encouraging them to step out into the world, engage with others and learn about themselves.

In my region, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers runs a scheme called the Highland youth environment heritage programme, which offers young people who are struggling academically the chance to receive training and to socialise on local conservation projects. So far, more than 1,167 volunteer hours have been clocked up. Young people who complete the programme are encouraged to join local conservation groups so that they mix with a wide range of people in their community or even move on to set up their own conservation projects.

Highland Council has led the way in engaging young people in the planning process. It recognises that for the planning process to be beneficial to and respected by the whole community, its plans for urban and rural areas should respond to the needs of the whole community, including young people. That may seem an obvious statement to make but, when we make policies and plans, the views and experiences of young people are often overlooked. The Executive has attempted through guidance and advice notes to build a systematic approach to engaging with young people, but it has not done enough to ensure that those ideas are put into practice.

Under-18s make up 22 per cent of the Scottish population. We cannot get anywhere by vilifying them and ignoring their views. We need to make spaces that we as adults can share with young people. A strong policy on supporting young people and families is important, but it is up to the Executive to ensure that it does not leave young people in a policy ghetto.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Today's debate is an opportunity to examine the chasm between Executive rhetoric and delivery. It allows us to focus on young people as guardians of our nation's future and not as the cause of our present problems. It suits too many on the Executive benches to characterise young people as dark creatures of the night. Mike Rumbles may gesticulate, but that serves only to confirm the correctness of the reference.

I turn to the motion and the amendments and the intention behind them. The Executive amendment retains but four words from the Green party's substantive motion. It seeks to delete

"acknowledges that families and young people need support from time to time"

and insert

"reiterates the determination of this Parliament to stand up to antisocial behaviour".

It seems that every time we discuss our youth, the Executive seeks to insert negative references to antisocial behaviour. It is as if youth and antisocial behaviour are partners in the same dance. As long as that continues to happen, we are sending unhelpful messages to our youth: we are telling them that they should be disconnected from the mainstream of Scottish society and life.

I respect Robert Brown's championing of youth issues, but he does our youth a disservice and reveals his inner convictions about the merits of youth by the words that he gets sucked into using, perhaps by his Labour partners or, more simply, as the result of drafting by civil servants who are not sufficiently sensitive to what needs to be done.

The way we deal with antisocial behaviour is ambiguous. At the heart of the ambiguity is the sense that we view the whole issue as essentially a criminal justice issue but, by virtue of the way in which charges relating to antisocial behaviour have been incorporated into law, in essence antisocial behaviour is dealt with by the civil and not the criminal law. If people commit crimes, we should use the criminal law to address that. Our use of the civil law fudges the whole issue.

What has been missing from the debate so far is the issue of children as victims. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of actions that come under the charge of antisocial behaviour are perpetrated by adults, not children. I refer to antisocial behaviour that results from drinking, drug taking, deprivation and violence. The BBC has on its website a helpful discussion under the unhelpful heading "Are Scotland's young people demonised?" Dave from Glasgow comments:

"In some areas we are into the 3rd generation without +ve family role models. As a voluntary youth worker in inner city Glasgow I have known and worked with kids whose parents (& grandparents) set an awful example ... If this is the environment for people in their 'impressionable years' then what hope is there."

The answer to parliamentary question S2W-28897, which I received yesterday, reinforces the real difficulties that kids experience. My question was

"how many people have been found guilty of committing an offence specifically involving child victims in each year since 1999",

which is the year the Executive came to power. It may surprise members to hear that the latest figure was 545, which is 50 per cent higher than the figure for 1999, which was 368. There has been a steady increase year on year. We do ourselves no justice—and we do youth no justice—if we do not accept that children as victims should be at the core of the debate. Children should not be demonised as the cause of the antisocial behaviour difficulties in society.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Wind up, please.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Robert Brown said that the debate

"is based on a fallacy."

Of course, many of the things that the Executive does to invest in and support young people have the support of the SNP, but I say to the minister that we have to judge the Executive not by what it does but by what it achieves. On the measure of the answer to my parliamentary question, we are not achieving nearly enough.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Please close.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The present relationship between the Executive and youth can be characterised as one that is based on trust and understanding: the Executive does not understand youth and youth do not trust the Executive.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Congratulations are due to the Greens for launching a roll-back of the media's disproportionate representation and the Executive's stereotyping—as we saw in Mary Mulligan's contribution—of young people as yobs and neds.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

No. I do not have time to take one.

If the Executive and Labour members think that that is not the case, they are in denial. They need only to open their newspaper to see that that is what they are doing. A survey that was undertaken for Kathleen Marshall, the commissioner for children and young people, was much more accurate in taking the views of young people on how they feel they are perceived by society and what they want. The survey, which was returned by 16,000 young people, showed that their top priority is things to do. However, absolutely no political will is attached to that demand.

Robert Brown's speech was straight out of a Disney movie. What he said about the facilities that are being provided for young people is a complete fantasy. His words have nothing in common with the reality on the ground. In its briefing for the debate, Children 1st said:

"We already know what is most effective in helping to stop young people from offending and from 'antisocial behaviour'—young people-designed, well-resourced, accessible youth work provision."

Earlier this year, I spoke at the play schemes annual general meeting. Adults in lots of working-class communities give up their time free of charge to run play schemes with activities for young people during the summer and Christmas holidays. The big advantage of play schemes is that they are run by adults who know the young people in their area: they live in the same street or round the corner and play with their own kids. They are involved with the young people. The entire meeting was spent discussing funding. People cannot get minibuses and because the services are privatised they do not have free transport on First Bus or First ScotRail to go to Ayr for the day. They do not know where to go, they do not have any support and no one is funding them. The play schemes are cheap, because they are run by volunteers in the communities, but they are folding all over the place.

Four months ago, I attended a public meeting at Renton community centre, which was attended by 200 adults and young people who were there to discuss how to save the centre, which is in a deprived community. Just for good measure, Labour-run West Dunbartonshire Council was going to close the library across the road, too—bingo. The young people and adults at the meeting put their hands up and voted to occupy the centre, because if they lost it they would lose all the activities that are provided there, such as youth clubs and tae kwon do and majorettes clubs.

There are no spaces for young people in our communities. It is impossible to find a place to use in the evening that does not cost a fortune. School lets cost £30 per hour. It is impossible for the community volunteers who organise the football clubs and beavers and cubs groups to find a place to use. My son's beavers group was cancelled last week because the room had flooded and the floor was damaged. Guess what? There was nowhere else to go in the community—and my community is not the worst.

The two young 13 and 14-year-old girls who live above my office in Paisley say, "What can we do? We've nowhere to go." They are always hanging about in front of the building, because there is absolutely nothing for them. Eventually, we managed to get a youth club in the school for one night a week.

Helen MacKenzie, who set up families united, was a candidate for Scotswoman of the year at last Monday's event. However, 1,000 drug users cannot get a penny from the council or even space in a church hall for a drop-in centre. Those are the people at whom the Executive aims its antisocial behaviour policies. The way in which Executive members are presenting the issues is an absolute disgrace.

The report from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which will be published in November, says that we need structured youth work but that we cannot force young people to get involved. We could solve the problem by making every school playing field, school hall and gym hall available free of charge. If we did that, volunteers who care about their communities would organise activities for young people. That is the type of policy that the Executive should propose in the debate.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

The first think-tank that I want to mention is made up of the 56,720 constituents of Glasgow Springburn, whom I represent. Such people are missing from a debate in which the Greens make constant reference to think-tanks and organisations that do not reflect society.

The vast number of organisations that I have represented since I became an elected representative in 1993 do not demonise young people. The vast majority of young people in our communities—99.9 per cent of them—are good, hardworking people from hardworking families that should be commended for supporting them.

We have talked about the tiny minority of people in some communities in Scotland who have been allowed to rule those communities. Mary Mulligan referred to such people. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 was passed to deal with the tiny minority of people who cause difficulties, such as the problems that the Dennistoun community in my constituency experienced. Since a dispersal order came into effect in Dennistoun on February 13, I have received e-mails, letters and telephone calls. The vast majority of the community supports the use of the dispersal order and is delighted with the result.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I will come back to the member.

We have heard from the database of excuses, but we should challenge the people who say that there is nothing for young people to do and who do a disservice to the people who support the clubs that Frances Curran mentioned. There is a wide range of activities for young people in Dennistoun. I printed off from the Dennistoun online website a list of the activities that volunteers, churches and many organisations provide in the community. The volunteers need support. We should challenge the parents and young people who say that there is nothing for them.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I will come back to the member.

That is the challenge—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I will come on to the Green party.

We should ensure that parents channel young people into the activities that are available.

It is intriguing that the Green party claims to be the champion of young people. I read carefully the 2003 Green manifesto, which cost £2.50, but I found no reference to children and young people—[Interruption.] I heard someone say, "What about the Labour Party?" The Labour manifesto did not contain as many pages on young people as it should have done, but it had four more pages on the matter than the Green manifesto had. Perhaps the issue will have more coverage in future. Our manifesto talked about how we would support young people.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The member was talking about dispersal orders before he moved on to manifestos. The problem with dispersal orders is not dispersal; it is what happens after dispersal. Where do the young people go? Is Paul Martin confident that the young people who have been dispersed in Dennistoun are using the facilities that he mentioned? If they are not doing that, where are they?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I assure Patrick Harvie that I would not want the young people simply to be dispersed to other parts of my constituency. The focus of the dispersal was on not just challenging unacceptable behaviour but identifying the young people who are at risk in the community. I will not give confidential details, but one 11-year-old used to spend every night of his life outside the G101 Off Sales shop in Alexandra Parade. I do not want young people to spend time outside off-sales shops. As a result of intervention, that individual and others have been channelled into more constructive activity. That happened because there was a dispersal order; there was no other way of channelling that young person into more effective and constructive activities.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am sorry, but Mr Martin must sum up.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

If other parties continue to oppose the use of dispersal orders and other measures in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, they should say so in their manifestos. They should tell the people of Scotland that they oppose dispersal orders—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

They do not work.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I will stand again on the Labour Party manifesto, which is in favour of defending the majority of people from the minority—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You must finish. I call Jeremy Purvis.

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

I will address what the Green motion describes as "youth disorder". For the benefit of Stewart Stevenson, who likes accuracy, I should say that the Green motion and the Executive amendment each refer to the matter. However, the Executive amendment refers to considerably more policies that are being delivered than have been mentioned in speeches by members of non-Executive parties.

Shortly after I was elected, I spoke to young people at the young people's forum in Midlothian, which is a pioneering project that brings together local government agencies, the police, youth workers and—most important—young people. The young people told me the results of police surveys on the needs of young people and older people in Penicuik, in my constituency. Some older people told the police that they wanted better street lighting, to reduce the fear of crime that they feel when young people are hanging around in dark streets. The young people also said that they wanted better street lighting, to reduce their fear of bullying from gangs in the town centre. When we speak to constituents, we find that they have shared needs and concerns, even though misconceptions about other generations sometimes underlie valid concerns. We must guard against pigeonholing when we develop Government policy for any generation.

It is therefore vital to put young people at the heart of decision making. Liberal Democrats want to establish a Scottish youth justice board, which would be different from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales in one important regard. The board for England and Wales is responsible for taking forward Government policy on youth crime, but we want young people to advise ministers and report to the Parliament on youth justice policy, which would be the first time that young people were entrenched in the decision-making framework of the Government and the Parliament. That approach would mean that when proposals for legislation were made, Executive strategies were developed and the Parliament debated the issues, young people's voices would be listened to.

The Scottish youth justice board would be a non-departmental public body with the ability to develop its own policies and approaches to young people and justice. It would advise on policy and on the operation of and standards for youth justice. It would also allow young people themselves to audit gaps in service provision. They could be involved on a regional or local basis or be members of the Scottish Youth Parliament. Young people do not need us to give them a voice; they have a voice. What they need is a formal Government and Parliament setting where that voice is listened to.

Tomorrow morning, I will be at the school heads team conference in Galashiels, where all the heads from all the schools in the Borders get together to discuss youth issues. The heads are not the head teachers but the head and deputy head boys and girls and those who run their own student groups within the schools.

We have a generation of confident, inquisitive, entrepreneurial, eloquent and skilled young people. They are not Thatcher's generation, but the future generation of Scotland, of which we should be proud.

Although I do not necessarily disagree with the tone of the Green motion, it does not offer solutions. The UK Government has established youth offender panels in England for young people who have committed relatively minor offences, which are positive and involve community volunteers. Liberal Democrats in Scotland want to pilot Scottish youth justice panels. The panels would not in any way undermine or sit uncomfortably with the children's hearings system—I say to Mr Stevenson that that is a civil rather than criminal law approach to some offending behaviour.

We want to build on the English panels and on ideas from the Red Hook community justice center in New York, where young people are involved in hearing about and suggesting solutions to other young people's offending behaviour. Sanctions include community service, letters of apology, attendance at skill-building workshops, participation in conflict resolution or work on understanding alcohol and substance misuse. Young people who have previously been involved with the youth courts in New York are actively encouraged to take part. We have to bear in mind compliance—more than 91 per cent completed the sanctions that the young people imposed.

Our approach would involve young people. We would listen to them and they would be part of the solution. Solutions from other parties have been sadly lacking this morning.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

As is not uncommon, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Robin Harper said. He was absolutely right to identify what young people need to develop properly and to acknowledge the role of the voluntary and statutory sectors in the provision of services for children and families. However, he offered a partial and slightly misleading analysis of what he saw as the problem and failed absolutely to suggest how services should be developed in the future.

I agree that dispersal orders and antisocial behaviour orders should not be used as a first resort, but nobody has ever said that they should be. In addition, none of the Green speakers indicated how they would deal with the small minority who cause problems for other young people, which Paul Martin identified.

Fiona Hyslop said that we should listen to the concerns and hear about the experiences of young people, with which I agree totally. According to ChildLine Scotland, the biggest problem for youngsters who contact it is bullying: 31 per cent of all the referrals to ChildLine Scotland last year concerned bullying by other young people. We need to acknowledge that. That ties in totally with what Labour members said during the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004—although other members might not have heard it—which was that young people are disproportionately the victims of antisocial behaviour.

I resent any suggestion that I have ever demonised young people. My record both before and after I came to this place shows that that is not the case. I do not think that any of my Labour colleagues have ever demonised young people. That does not mean to say that they have not at times identified the difficulties caused by the small minority. Just because we condemn or criticise the behaviour of some young people does not mean that we are saying that the whole of that group exhibits the same behaviour. People have to differentiate between those two things.

I am slightly confused by the fact that the motion relates to findings from a left-wing think-tank, as Robin Harper indicated in his opening speech.

It is important to acknowledge that some young people are the victims of serious abuse. We cannot sweep that under the carpet or pretend that it is not happening; we have to deal with it. Fiona Hyslop is right that early intervention might be the way to do that.

I see young people not as victims or louts but as a cross-section of society and we have to recognise them as such. It concerns me when we pigeonhole groups in the way that some members have done this morning. Young people are not a homogeneous group, nor are older people or the vast majority of adults. We have to acknowledge that they are individuals in their own right. The motion does us no good by trying to pretend that people can fit only one of two stereotypes.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I find myself standing on the same ground on which I often stand in Green debates: that of having a shared agenda but reaching different conclusions. There is a great deal to commend in Robin Harper's speech. I agree that there is a problem in that the policies put forward by the Scottish Executive seem to have demonised young people. They have dealt with some extreme circumstances in extreme ways. There is no better evidence that the Executive also believes that than the reactionary way in which it has dealt with the accusation. We have heard negative contributions from the Executive parties today, although it has to be said that the two parties have made very different contributions—perhaps there is more of that to come.

It is one of the Conservatives' priorities to put forward policies that will deal with the problem. We have already heard Stewart Stevenson quoting Dave of Glasgow. I would like to quote young Dave Cameron of Witney in Oxfordshire.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Who he?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The leader of the Opposition in Westminster. When David Cameron went public with his views, which were described as "hug a hoodie", they were portrayed as controversial, but he was highlighting the point that lies behind the Greens' motion: the people who are being demonised by legislation such as the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, are not the people we seem to think they are. They are the young men and women of tomorrow. They will be the taxpayers and—my God—even the Conservative voters of the future.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, not at this stage. I have to get through this.

I would like to highlight one or two points that have been made in the debate. Many members have mentioned the important role that the voluntary sector has to play. I was delighted to hear Frances Curran praise the voluntary sector, because members of her party have failed to do that in relation to other issues in the past. It is important that we remember that the voluntary sector has a huge contribution to make and that Government resources, when available, can often stretch a lot further if they are directed through voluntary sector projects than if they are delivered through mainstream, nationally controlled systems. The additional motivation for those who work in the voluntary sector, which Frances Curran mentioned, is an advantage.

I cannot let this debate pass without returning to a discussion that was initiated largely by an intervention from Mike Rumbles, on the demotivation that young people experience as a result of unemployment. Yes, there have been problems with unemployment in the past, some of which were associated with policies of previous Conservatives Governments. However, the statistics appear to indicate that if we get another four years of this Executive we could have more unemployed people in Scotland than we had when the Conservatives demitted office in 1997. That trend is further underlined by the fact that, today, we have an underclass of young people who cannot find employment in the jobs that they are qualified to do and find themselves instead working in relatively menial jobs. The physiotherapists who came to Parliament yesterday are a good example of that. Many of them are well qualified but cannot find work.

The truth is that our amendment has the same objective as the motion, but reflects a Conservative view. The amendment suggests that we have perhaps put too much effort into ASBOs and funding public services when some of the money that has been spent in that way would have been better spent on increasing the economic opportunities for young people who want only a toehold on the ladder that we have been able to climb.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It sometimes seemed that we were participating in a parallel debate. The Green party's benign motion and the equally benign speech by Mr Harper were met with some vehemence and vitriol from the Executive parties. I have to contrast the Tories' moderate amendment and speeches with the quite illiberal comments from both parties on the Executive benches. That is unusual and surprising, but is a sign of the times that we find ourselves in.

I am aghast that there should be any suggestion that anyone in this chamber supports outrageous and bad behaviour. I disagree with many of the things that Mr Harvie and others have said about criminal justice, but I have never suggested that any member of this Parliament champions bad or outrageous behaviour. Frankly, it is wrong for political parties to suggest that that is the case, even if there is an election on the way. They should be addressing the debate, not making such suggestions.

Listening to Mr Brown explain his position, I was reminded of Harold Macmillan's claim in the 1960s—I was not particularly conscious of it at the time but have since read about it—that we had never had it so good. According to Robert Brown, we are now living in an absolutely fantastic world in which Scottish youngsters have never had it so good. I have to say that Harold Macmillan did not manage to sell that message in the 1960s and Mr Brown will not manage to sell it in the 21st century. We know that that is not the reality.

Youngsters are being stereotyped. That is unacceptable and it has to change. Nobody tolerates the bad behaviour that goes on in places such as Dennistoun, Bridgeton and so on. That is unacceptable and cannot be condoned—it must be condemned because it makes people's lives intolerable. However, we must remember that that behaviour is exhibited by a small minority of youngsters. The overwhelming majority of youngsters in this country are a credit to themselves, their communities and their families. We must support them, not run them down.

Further evidence that we do not live in a fantastic utopia is the fact that the statistics on child poverty are shameful for a modern, progressive, oil-rich country in the 21st century. To be patting ourselves on the back when a third of our kids are born into poverty is totally unacceptable.

We have to accept that societal changes have made matters more complicated. We have seen kids lose their innocence, never mind their right to roam. Things are a lot more difficult for youngsters, even though material conditions might have greatly improved for the two thirds of our youngsters who are not born into poverty. There has been a loss of an element of latitude. When I was a child, my elders adopted a "boys will be boys" attitude to behaviour that was, frankly, quite often outrageous and unacceptable. Certain behaviour was viewed as a rite of passage but that is no longer the case. It is immediately met by police intervention, a report to the children's panel or a referral to court.

We live in a car-owning democracy in which many people object to children playing football on the street. Blow me; some people even view it as a crime. Often, police have to intervene because the children are endangering themselves by playing football in the street, but there are individuals who believe that their right to use their prized possession outweighs the right of any child to play. That has to be addressed, although the issue of the provision of facilities is more appropriately dealt with elsewhere. The fact is that, although there might be more material benefits for children, there is also a great deal more hardship.

We need to have respect. I accept that and am on record as saying so. However, I believe that we are much better off thinking about encouraging responsibility. Our society needs people to take personal responsibility. People must accept that they have obligations as well as rights and that unacceptable behaviour will be challenged and punished. Equally, our society and Government must recognise that we have a social responsibility to our communities. Frankly, too many of our children are born to fail. The world of "Cathy Come Home" exists today, as it existed 30 or more years ago. We need to praise our youngsters and encourage good behaviour rather than simply tackling bad behaviour. The attitude of the Executive parties today was shameful.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

This has been a short but interesting debate. It was particularly interesting to hear Kenny MacAskill's speech. If there was ever an example of someone trying to sit on both sides of the argument, that was it.

Earlier, I outlined our vision for young people and the programme with which we have given it substance and have tackled the challenges, many of them difficult and with a pay-off that comes only in the longer term. I was at pains to stress that it would take a lot of time to get to grips successfully with some of the challenges. I reject absolutely the allegation that has been made by one or two speakers that the Executive has become complacent on this issue. A large proportion of the time of ministers in my department and others is spent on dealing with the not in education, employment or training group, looked-after children, fostering strategies, the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill and similar issues that are central to the challenges that we face.

The Greens talk about a strategy. I have nothing against strategies but they must add value. As a number of speakers have said, there is nothing in the Greens' motion that helps with the production of programmes and policies to deal with the issues that they are concerned about. It is full of woolly sentiments—some of them, no doubt, admirable. In contrast, the Executive's policies in the past eight years have been comprehensive and thorough and have increasingly been making a difference for young people.

Scott Barrie talked about young people being a cross-section of society.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Government statistics show that there has been a 10 per cent increase in the number of persistent offenders. Does the minister think that the policy of ASBOs and dispersals has achieved anything?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I will refer to the point that Fiona Hyslop made about the figures for young people coming before the children's panel. It is true that there is a close connection between people who are in need of care and protection at younger ages and those who get involved in trouble and truanting at later ages. That is the central issue, in terms of the challenge, that we need to be careful about.

The central thrust of the Greens' position seems to be that the Scottish Executive's firm stand on tackling antisocial behaviour is simply an attack on the rights of young people. In fact, it has always been our aim to set young people free. It is not only the elderly who are scared to walk the streets at night; too often, the victims of antisocial behaviour are young people. The young suffer at least as much as anyone else, as a number of people have recognised, not least Stewart Stevenson.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I must make progress.

Some young people have nowhere to go because their playground is littered with broken bottles and they are scared to leave their street or their area in case they are attacked by a gang. It is young men and women who are most likely to be caught up in a fight in a city-centre pub. Young people have told us that they want us to stand up for them and to tackle these problems. They want facilities and opportunities—and we are investing significantly in them—but they also want a safer society.

How often have we seen situations in which territorial rivalries prevent young people accessing local facilities or in which young people are attacked walking home? This week, I heard of a young girl who was badly beaten. Her offence was to have moved to another area, which meant that she was viewed as a traitor to the territorial aspirations of the people with whom she had lived previously. That sort of attitude is the reality that we sometimes face on our streets. The vast majority of young people in Scotland are a credit to their families, their schools and their communities but we have to recognise that the behaviour of a small percentage—about one in 200 young people—continues to be a persistent problem. That is why we have had to make significant investment in local services to tackle the causes of some of the problems and to tackle youth offending and antisocial behaviour. That investment includes significant resources to prevent youth crime and to divert young people from trouble in the first place. There is no question about the connection: young people who were neglected or abused as young children are at the greatest risk of having mental health problems, of becoming homeless or of getting into trouble. That has all sorts of implications for how we tackle the causes of offending. However, it does not and cannot mean that violent and purposeless crime can be ignored, that community and personal lives can be devastated or that other young people should not be able to walk the streets in safety.

The appalling life circumstances of some young people make it imperative to have child protection structures in place to weed out the few people in child care positions who are a threat to young people, while remembering that 95 per cent of child abuse occurs at the home; to support and encourage good parenting; and to support good families, as a number of members have said. The questions of parental drug and alcohol addiction and of domestic violence are central to some of those issues.

That does not, as the motion suggests, relate to a simplistic stereotype; it is about real, lifelong suffering by vulnerable young people, the most vulnerable people in our society, to whom we do a significant disservice if we do not recognise that. The Executive's approach to young people is enabling, empowering and life enhancing. It is designed to widen opportunity and to develop confidence and skills. Young people are our futures. We have made substantial strides, and I ask the support of the Parliament in recognising those significant achievements while focusing on the major challenges that remain to be tackled before all our young people can fulfil their great potential.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

This has been an interesting debate, and I am quite pleased with how it has gone, even when it comes to the contributions that I disagreed with. Kenny MacAskill was quite right in parts of his speech, even if he disagrees with my fine contributions to the justice debates that we have held in this chamber. He put his finger on the point about the parallel nature of the debate. We have a set of issues here that are generally debated strictly in justice terms. Now we are debating them in terms that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People can respond to. I think that that is a positive thing. In future, I hope that we debate the issue more often in these terms, rather than in justice terms. There is a tension between the two agendas, and not always a healthy one.

I was disappointed that Robert Brown began by talking about his incredulity at the terms of Robin Harper's opening speech. He ended by accusing us of making a direct and deliberate attack and of suggesting that the Executive seeks to undermine the rights of children and young people. As Robin Harper said, we do not accuse the Executive of directly and deliberately attacking, demonising or seeking to stigmatise young people. Mary Mulligan accused us of defending those who make life intolerable for others. Scott Barrie resents being accused of demonising young people. I understand why people resent any implication that they are being accused of demonising young people. We do not make that accusation. Do the Executive parties, for their part, understand why those of us who disagree with their policies resent the accusation that we are seeking to defend people who carry out antisocial behaviour or that we are creating stereotypes merely by bringing the matter for debate in the chamber to discuss the consequences?

I am sorry to say that, in part, the Executive amendment sounds much like the article by Hilary Armstrong in this month's Parliamentary Brief, with its long list of glowing achievements. I am sure that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, like ministers in all Governments, would like Opposition members to see only achievements and never criticise. The criticisms that we bring today are largely about unintended consequences, and they are directed at our society as a whole, not just at Government.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

We accept that there is an issue of tone in the debate. Nevertheless, there are still significant issues at its centre about antisocial behaviour and the difficulties that young people face as victims, which Stewart Stevenson discussed. Some of us are concerned that the Green party seems not to recognise the reality of that or to give us the benefit of their proposals for doing something about it.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

We have always recognised the reality of that. Robin Harper's speech made many references to the Executive's underfunding of children's social work services and to the contribution that the voluntary sector can make. It would be able to make more of a contribution if it had secure funding.

Derek Brownlee forced us to consider whether we are Thatcher's children or the iPod generation. He framed that distinction largely in economic terms. Without wanting to take away from the importance of the economic aspects of Derek Brownlee's argument, I am sure that he will agree that there is such a thing as society. I regret that the Conservative amendment seems to imply that the Executive's duties do not apply or relate to social or cultural factors. Like the Executive's amendment, the Conservative amendment removes the issues about how young people are perceived. That is to be regretted.

Fiona Hyslop cited Ewan Aitken, who has spoken about the danger of young people being turned into hate figures. I very much agree that none of us wishes to ignore the harm that is done through antisocial behaviour. I think that Fiona Hyslop understands our argument that, if young people continue to be perceived as not being welcome on our streets and not feeling part of society, the problem is likely to become worse, not better.

Frances Curran—albeit at a slightly higher pitch than I personally find comfortable—spoke about the funding problems for community groups, activities and facilities. As an adult in Glasgow with some money to spend and with access to transport to the city centre, I have a choice of a myriad things to do and places to go. If I did not have that choice, I think that I might behave quite badly sometimes.

Stewart Stevenson spoke about children as victims, and I agree with that. I would add that, when discussing issues around bad behaviour and crime, as politicians we all sometimes ignore the nuances and imagine that there is some rigid distinction between victims and offenders. That is not always so; it is not always cut and dried. I have been both, and I think that many other people have been both. Sometimes, we forget that important aspect.

I return to Scott Barrie's comments. He seemed to imply that bringing the problem of negative perceptions and stereotypes of young people for debate—like Labour's think-tank, the IPPR, has done—is somehow to create or reinforce the problem. He went on to focus on family support services, which was much more welcome. Referring to Mary Mulligan's contribution, I would like more of the Executive's contributions in this area to focus on the improvements that could be made if we were able properly to fund such services.

The last speaker I will mention is Paul Martin. I am sure that he will enjoy reading the Scottish Green Party's manifesto for 2003 much more closely and noting that it mentions policies relating to children on seven occasions and policies relating to young people on six occasions. If he wants, we could sit down with a cup of coffee later and I could point those out to him.

Would the Executive view success in terms of working with people—COSLA used those terms in The Herald today—rather than merely counting the number of orders that are passed? Or would it instead measure success in the narrow terms that Manchester City Council has used? It was bragging that, last year, it had one in 20 of its entire population under an ASBO. That is no kind of success that I can recognise, and I urge all members of all parties to agree that we should move forward on this issue with compassion and trust as our driving forces.

Climate Change (Road Traffic)

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5005, in the name of Mark Ballard, on climate change and road transport.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate is focused on a truth that is simple and which cannot be ducked, however politically unpalatable it might be. Agreement is now widespread on the dangers of climate change, and road transport is of course one of the major contributors to Scotland's total greenhouse gas emissions. It is almost entirely in the Parliament's power to decide on the future of the road transport infrastructure in this country. If we are serious about climate change, that must be reflected in the decisions and positions that we take on transport policy.

Road traffic growth is not a new problem—Governments have grappled with it for the past 20 years. In the 1980s, the Tories went hell for leather on the biggest road-building programme since that of the Romans. In the huge public backlash that followed, new Labour in 1997 and then the Scottish Executive pledged to reduce or stabilise traffic levels. Famously, John Prescott even promised that within five years fewer journeys would be made by car.

However, the fuel protests then took place and the Government took fright at being seen as anti-car. One by one, the Tory roads came back. Road schemes that Sarah Boyack froze when she was the Minister for Transport and the Environment, such as the Dalkeith bypass, were suddenly defrosted by Tavish Scott. Despite a predicted 27 per cent increase in road transport, the Executive is now talking about abandoning national targets to stabilise or reduce road traffic.

I am not saying that climate change and road traffic are easy to tackle, but simply planning for more of everything—more trunk roads, road bridges and rail stations—is fantasy politics to which no hard choices are attached. That is a scatter-gun approach of contradictory policies that certainly fuels gross domestic product, which I have no doubt delights the Executive's friends in the Confederation of British Industry, but which does little to gear us up economically to the challenge of being a low-carbon economy in the decades that are ahead of us. Making our economy even more structurally dependent on the most inefficient transport modes when fuel prices will go through the roof again and again in the years to come is economic ineptitude.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mark Ruskell talks about ineptitude. We know that he is against road building, but did he just say that he is against new railway stations, too? Will he explain that?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am absolutely not against new railway stations. I said that we are against a transport policy that goes in all sorts of different directions at once. To tackle road traffic reduction seriously, policies need to be joined up and to be consistent, not contradictory. The problem with the Liberal Democrats in government in the past eight years is that their policies have not achieved that.

I will be positive for a moment. I congratulate the Executive on allocating an additional £91 million to genuine public transport improvements between 2005 and 2008, but Mike Rumbles must realise that a backward step has been taken, because ministers have also launched a massive road-building programme with an additional £143 million for new motorways and trunk roads in the same period.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Do the Greens accept that, as the RAC Foundation for Motoring argues, motorways are substantially safer than dual carriageways and dual carriageways are substantially safer than single carriageways? A strong case can be made for making roads safer on the basis of saving lives—80 young people were killed on our roads last year, for example—which means upgrading roads such as the A9 to dual-carriageway status.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I absolutely agree that we should invest in safety. We should invest in junctions such as that at Ballinluig on the A9 and we should redirect some money to that. However, is Fergus Ewing honestly telling me that the safety record of the A9 south of Perth to Dunblane is good? It is not, although that road is dualled. If he thinks that dualling the whole A9 would produce a dramatic safety increase, he obviously has not driven on that road recently.

We must face up to the reality of some of the investments that the Executive has made under its road programme. The public inquiry reporter said that the M74 extension would increase climate-change emissions without delivering significant economic growth, yet Nicol Stephen not only gave the extension the go-ahead but described it as a sustainable development. It is clearly not that. It is right that Friends of the Earth has now branded Mr Stephen the politician who has made the worst environmental decision since devolution took place.

We do not need the M74 extension, but we need a Glasgow crossrail scheme. We do not need an Aberdeen bypass, but we need an Aberdeen crossrail scheme. We need to free up the dozens of pinchpoints that Network Rail has highlighted and we need realistic investment in Waverley station so that it can host new services that stop at towns that should never have been taken off Scotland's rail map. We do not need a second Forth road bridge; we need one road bridge and options to extend its life should be considered and acted on now. The clamour in the Parliament to support the Forth Estuary Transport Authority in gaining a doubling of the road capacity across the Forth, which would blight Fife and Lothians communities and would lead within 20 years to exactly the same congestion problems as exist now, is irresponsible.

We are on the verge of having a new transport strategy for Scotland. The environmental assessment makes grim reading, as transport comes second only to energy on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. Between 1990 and 2003, those sectors were not only the largest sources of emissions but those with the highest growth. Why should transport take the lion's share? If it continues to grow, what sectors will compensate so that we can meet our targets?

The Greens have repeatedly made the case for serious action on climate change. The Executive parties and all parties in the Parliament have adopted some green rhetoric, but their record on taking action and making the tough choices is poor. If we are serious about tackling climate change and about Scotland becoming not just the best small country in the world but the most efficient small country in the world, we need to tackle traffic growth—full stop. We need to make hard choices and we need to spend our finite resources with vision and common sense.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes growing public and parliamentary recognition of the threat posed by climate change; notes that cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions of 60% to 90% are necessary to stabilise climate change within a generation; notes that transport, excluding aviation, accounts for 19% of Scotland's climate change emissions, over 97% of which comes from road transport, and that road traffic is predicted to grow a further 27% by 2021; recognises that without reducing traffic levels it will be impossible to reduce Scottish greenhouse gas emissions to a level consistent with the need to address climate change; further recognises the need for urgent political action within the next four years to achieve year-on-year reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and calls on the Scottish Executive to set year-on-year overall greenhouse gas reduction targets and interim targets to reduce road traffic levels.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Climate change is a serious challenge that faces Scotland, the United Kingdom and the world of which we are part. Political parties in the Parliament must decide whether they live in the real world or in some green utopian ideal.

Scots travel in this country and beyond. To deny Scots travel—that is the unwritten and unspoken approach that the Greens advocate—would not be to act in the real world. If we are to convince people that they need to consider their lives and the choices that they make from an environmental perspective, we must take the issues seriously and not as a university debating society would treat them.

Yes, transport has an environmental impact. It contributes to carbon emissions in Scotland, England, France and every other country. The Government does not follow a no-roads policy; no Government does, not even several in Europe of which Greens are part.

Travel is not bad, as the Greens argue. Can we make better travel decisions? Yes. Do we need investment in Scotland's roads? Yes. In the current financial year, the Government is spending 70 per cent of the transport budget on public transport. The Greens never give us credit for that.

We will continue to invest in the road network—buses need roads—but we will also invest for road safety. I agree with Fergus Ewing about that. The investment in road improvements to reduce casualties led to a rate of road accidents in 2005 that was the lowest since records began 50 years ago. That includes a 57 per cent reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured. The number of road fatalities is below the European Union average and the current trend is falling. Significant reductions took place in casualty numbers in 2005—the number of casualties was down 4 per cent and the number of serious casualties was down 5 per cent to the lowest figure since 1952. However, there is still much to do.

The A830 Arisaig improvement eliminated a single-track lifeline road and bypassed a fragile local community; 11 per cent of the benefits of that are from road safety. The section of the A78 from Ardrossan to Saltcoats bypassed three Ayrshire towns, which removed congestion and local pollution and produced benefits of which £14 million are from road safety. The section of the A1 from Haddington to Dunbar bypassed East Linton as part of our development of east coast links with England. Of the total benefits from that, 30 per cent are from accident savings. The M77 to Kilmarnock replaced a notorious stretch of single carriageway and is predicted to generate benefits of which 28 per cent will be accident savings.

An horrific fatal accident occurred at the Symington junction some days ago. We have been examining that junction, which I have personally looked at. I discussed the accident this morning with Strathclyde police and, following their advice, we plan to introduce 50mph zones in that area and to consider any other appropriate measures for the junction. I will also review with Transport Scotland the current trunk-road programme, with a view to bringing forward work on Symington and Bogend toll.

We will do work in other areas of Scotland. The Dalkeith bypass, which the Greens oppose, will take heavy traffic out of Dalkeith town centre. The Glendoick and Kinfauns junctions and the final grade separation on the A90 between Perth and Dundee will eliminate accidents that result from drivers having to cross the dual carriageway; 55 per cent of the benefits from that will be in road safety.

The Government takes sustainability seriously. We focus on safety, access and the environment. Some 70 per cent of our transport investment is being spent on public transport.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That massive investment provides quality alternatives to the car. Rail passenger journeys rose to 72.9 million in 2004-05, which is the highest level of rail passenger journeys in 40 years. Mr Ballard might want to comment on that.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I am happy to welcome the increase in the number of rail passenger journeys and to support the Executive putting more money into public transport, but will Tavish Scott say something about the predicted 27 per cent increase in road traffic levels, which will vastly overshoot the target that has been set? The issue is not the money that the Executive is making available but the outcome of increasing road traffic levels.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The recent transport statistics show stable traffic growth, which I hope the Greens welcome. It is clear that our switch in spending has helped.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Traffic levels are already at their highest-ever level.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Greens are again crying, moaning, whingeing and groaning. When we do something positive, they still do that.

The challenge is to investigate new fuel-production technologies—clean fuels and hydrogen, for example, must be investigated. The north-east Scotland transport partnership, for example, is currently investigating the feasibility of a hybrid hydrogen fuel cell bus, which I strongly welcome.

In our national transport strategy, which is to be launched later this year, we will spell out our full approach to a transport network that is fit for the 21st century. However, transport is only part of the wider picture on climate change. This year, the Government launched Scotland's climate change programme, and members are already familiar with the it's our future campaign, which is a sustainable development campaign that is now being broadcast on television and radio. However, a safe, reliable and accessible transport network is pivotal in delivering sustainable development, which is exactly what the Government is delivering.

I move amendment S2M-5005.3, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"supports the Scottish Executive's record investment of 70% of the transport budget in public transport; notes the significant investment in Scotland's bus services, which rely upon a modern road infrastructure, and in the rail network, where the Executive has already opened the Larkhall to Milngavie line, all with the aim of improving the environment; further supports the Executive's investment to reduce road deaths and casualties, improve safety on roads outside schools, and provide attractive, integrated and affordable public transport alternatives, and welcomes the Executive's climate change programme and sustainable development campaign."

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish National Party welcomes this latest of the debates on climate change in recent weeks. There is now political consensus on the matter in the chamber. The Conservatives sponsored their first debate on climate change in the chamber a few weeks ago. We know from daily media coverage that climate change is a clear and present danger to Scotland and the rest of the world. It is good to have such political consensus, which is one good thing that the Scottish Parliament has delivered—there would have been no such consensus pre-1999. I hope that we can now have a sensible debate on the impact of climate change on Scotland and how to tackle it.

Despite the political consensus on the threat that climate change poses, there will be political disagreement in the chamber about how to tackle that threat and reduce Scotland's carbon footprint—indeed, we have already heard such disagreement. We must accept that we do not live in a low-carbon Scotland. Therefore, our challenge is to get society from where it currently is to the point where it is a low-carbon society and to address how society in Scotland can transform its behaviour to reduce our carbon footprint.

We know that the highest emissions in Scotland are from the energy sector and the transport sector, which is the subject of today's debate, and land use. However, it is not helpful for the Greens to walk around the Parliament with sandwich boards that say that the end of the world is nigh and to suggest that the only way forward is to close down Scotland's airports, not build any new roads and shut down the oil industry—that tends to be the Green party's message in the chamber. Such proposals will simply cause economic dislocation in Scotland's communities and will not win support from the people of Scotland for environmental policies or do anything for Scotland's environment. We must have a sensible and rational debate and plot a way forward for Scotland that its people can sign up to.

Of course the SNP accepts that the transport sector is responsible for emissions that cause global warming and deteriorating air quality, particularly in many of Scotland's urban communities. We must address that important issue. The Parliament must do what it can to encourage the people of Scotland and the Scottish business community to change their behaviour. We must encourage people to take up alternatives to cars and ensure that we have a sustainable public transport system for the 21st century.

I live in Elgin. At most times of the week, it is extremely difficult—indeed, it is virtually impossible—to get from Elgin to the Parliament by public transport. It is much more tempting for me to use my car. Doing so is much easier, quicker and more efficient, although I try to use trains whenever I can. We must ensure that alternatives exist for the people of Scotland so that they can use the public transport system.

Our public transport system must be integrated. An issue that I raised recently is that if a person is travelling from Glasgow through Aberdeen to Inverness, Moray or somewhere else in the Highlands, the train from Glasgow arrives in Aberdeen 60 seconds after the Inverness connecting train has left. We are light years away from having an integrated transport system in Scotland, but if we want to tempt people out of their cars, we must create such a system.

A clean transport fuel strategy has an enormous potential for cutting our emissions from transport and creating thousands of new jobs in Scotland. Opportunities exist to grow biocrops to fuel our cars, and biodiesel plants have been set up in Scotland. The Government's schemes to convert our vehicles so that they could use clean fuels collapsed because the European Union stepped in and said that the schemes were illegal. The European Union has said that tackling climate change is important, but has then said that the schemes to use cleaner transport fuels that were in place in Scotland were illegal for competition reasons. The situation is ludicrous and must be tackled at the European level. A clean road-fuel strategy in Scotland could create thousands of jobs. We should remember that it is the fuel in cars that causes emissions, rather than the cars themselves or roads.

I move amendment S2M-5005.2, to leave out from "within a generation" to end and insert:

"recognises that a range of measures are required to reduce transport emissions, including a clean transport fuels strategy and provision of sustainable alternatives to road transport, and further recognises that the energy sector accounts for the greatest proportion of emissions and that Scotland has enormous potential to develop cleaner and renewable energy to reduce our carbon footprint."

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This is an important debate, as

"climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism."

Those are not my words but those of the UK's chief scientific adviser, David King, in 2004.

Mark Ballard was right to remind us in the motion that nearly 20 per cent of Scotland's carbon emissions come from transport, excluding aviation—the bulk of those emissions come from road transport. Assuming that the Greens do not really think that the developed world will give up motor cars and flights, the main way of avoiding the problems that are associated with growing road and air transport appears to be developing more emission-friendly motor cars and aeroplane engines; there is also a need to persuade more people to use public transport. However, there is little temptation for me and many others to abandon our cars in travelling from the part of Fife in which I live to the Parliament and back because the trains are so unreliable—Richard Lochhead and others have spoken about that unreliability. We have been told that improvements are coming, but it seems that I have heard that for a long time. Mark Ruskell referred to the fact that we do not seem to have a strategic integrated transport plan. Trains do not link up with our buses or our airports. Again, improvements are promised, but we must live and do business in today's world with our current transport systems.

We should all get involved in car-share schemes—I commend the Minister for Transport for his reported excellent personal example in that respect. I am not one of those people who object to Ross Finnie jetting off around the world no fewer than 13 times last year to have talks with his environment and fisheries counterparts. The suggestion that he should get on his bike to go to Brussels or walk to Atlanta is not sensible or practical. Businessmen who are trying to compete in an ever-more competitive world tend to shake their heads at some of the transport solutions that the Greens have offered.

Mark Ruskell criticised the Tories for our road-building programme. Of course, the Greens are well known for their aversion to new road-building projects, but buses use roads. The most recent figures show that 449 million passenger journeys on local bus services are made each year in Scotland. The only way to attract more people out of their cars and on to buses is by providing high-quality roads. My remarks apply to both local and long-distance bus services.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to take an intervention but, unfortunately, I have only four minutes.

It is dangerous for the Greens to ignore the urgent need to upgrade Scotland's road network on the basis of safety and the economy. Bad roads cause more emissions as a result of cars having to stop and start again.

Mark Ruskell again dismissed the idea of having a new Forth road bridge. However, he has been quoted as saying:

"If the Forth Bridge is genuinely going to fall into the sea and there's no strengthening work that can be done ... then of course, it will have to be replaced."

That does not the address the issue that the economy of the whole of the east of Scotland largely depends on having assured road and rail links across the major firths. People's livelihoods depend on the movement of goods up and down the country. It would be nice if a greater volume of goods were transported by rail, but the capacity for doing so simply does not exist. In that connection, it was a serious mistake not to plan the Borders rail line so that it could carry freight. The existing rail infrastructure could be massively improved at a relatively low cost. As a result, there could be more high-speed services on key routes, such as the Edinburgh to Glasgow and Edinburgh to Perth routes and perhaps south of Aberdeen.

Why do we not go further and consider the possibility of the eco-friendly maglev—magnetic levitation—system, which already operates in the far east? The train runs on a monorail, which it does not touch, as it is raised by magnetic propulsion. Air provides the only friction that the train must overcome. The system is incredibly fast and cheap. Are we considering that for the new links to Scottish airports? I do not know.

Attacking people who drive four-by-fours captures a few headlines, but is that not more to do with perception than reality? Instead of attacking four-by-fours, surely it is better to invest in biodiesel plants and help Scotland's farmers to grow valuable emission-friendly crops for biodiesel manufacture? Why does the Executive not talk to Westminster about lowering the road tax on the new breed of hybrid cars? Why has it always got to be the stick rather than the carrot?

I give the Greens credit for stimulating this transport debate. We fully support David Cameron's call for a climate change bill with meaningful and realistic future targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In the short term, however, it would be hugely damaging for our hard-pressed Scottish economy to drastically penalise those who use our roads, railways and air routes.

I move amendment S2M-5005.1, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"believes that, along with global poverty and terrorism, climate change is one of the three greatest challenges facing mankind today and therefore supports David Cameron MP's call for a Climate Change Bill to be included in this year's Queen's Speech to establish year-on-year targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60% by 2050 and to establish an independent monitor to report to the UK Parliament on Britain's progress in meeting those annual targets and to audit government policy to assess whether we remain on track to hit future targets; acknowledges, however, that ongoing investment in the Scottish road network remains vital for public safety, cutting congestion and to protect both small businesses and remote rural communities in particular; further acknowledges that more must be done to encourage modal shift from road to rail for both passenger and freight traffic, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to ensure that those road and rail projects of greatest importance be prioritised for investment, specifically a new Forth crossing, the refurbishment of Waverley Station, the completion of the central belt motorway network and the upgrading of many important trunk routes alongside increased efforts to move more freight from road to rail."

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I advise the chamber that I have to leave before closing speeches because I have to meet a visiting school group, so I apologise to the closing speakers.

A debate on the impact of road transport on climate change is important. Scotland should be seeking to improve the sustainability of its transport systems. However, the Greens' credibility on the issue is considerably damaged by their continued non-attendance at the Local Government and Transport Committee. According to my memory, members of the Green party have only twice attended the committee since the 2003 elections. I know that they will complain that they do not have a voting place on the committee, but every single member of the Parliament is entitled to attend any committee that is held in public and when non-members attend my committee, I normally endeavour to give them an opportunity to ask questions. Only this week, Tavish Scott gave evidence to the committee about the Executive's transport policy. He was very closely questioned by politicians from all parties except the Greens.

What has the Scottish Parliament been doing to improve the sustainability of our transport systems and tackle climate change? The minister correctly identified that, in some circumstances, it is necessary to invest in roads to improve their safety, to ensure that they operate efficiently and to take heavy traffic away from residential areas. Scotland is therefore not going to move to having no roads and no roads investment.

Equally, Richard Lochhead was right—that is something that I do not say too often—in identifying that we need to create opportunities for people to travel by public transport and leave their cars at home. That is why I believe that we have been pursuing the correct agenda. The minister correctly identified that we have been investing in new public transport links such as the proposed new links to the airports, the reopening of the Larkhall to Milngavie line and Edinburgh crossrail. In future, the Airdrie to Bathgate line will reopen—I know that my colleague Mary Mulligan would want that to be highlighted.

In addition to investing in rail, we have been investing in buses, mainly through making them free for our older people. That has injected a massive amount of investment into the bus industry, which has seen an increase in the number of new buses being bought and the first growth in the number of people travelling by bus for about 40 years. At the same time, the number of people travelling by rail has increased in recent years.

More broadly, climate change is not just about how Scotland deals with transport issues. We need to recognise that we have to have a global impact if we are serious about changing the climate. In that regard, I draw attention to the efforts of the Labour Government to put climate change right at the top of the international agenda. Labour committed Britain to the Kyoto protocol and put climate change on the G8 agenda. In terms of meeting our obligations on climate change, the United Kingdom Government is on course to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 23 per cent from 1990 levels by 2010, which is double our Kyoto target. We are one of only two countries in the pre-accession EU 15 to be on track to meet our Kyoto target. However, we need to go further than that and try to ensure that those countries that did not sign up to the Kyoto protocol do so.

I will conclude because I know that I have only a short time. The Scottish Executive has a strong record on rebalancing transport policy towards greater sustainability, which is resulting in a renaissance for public transport. At UK level, the Labour Government is an international leader in the tackling of climate change. The global need to tackle climate change demonstrates another reason why Scotland benefits from being part of the union and the UK's international influence on climate change.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

There has been a lot of talk about offering carrots rather than sticks. I think that Scotland would move towards sustainable transport better if we could get the kind of commitment in a Government strategy that recognises that we are miles behind and that many simple things can be done by using the resources that we have to make our transport network that much better.

Let us take the example of railways and the potential for electric railways powered by infinite and easily available renewable resources. We could easily have an electric rail service on the east coast route from Aberdeen; it would work far more efficiently and there would be lower carbon emissions. Is that the kind of target that the minister has been talking about? No; he has been talking about suburban lines and the central belt. Large sections of Scotland north of Perth and west of Aberdeen have never been invested in to any degree. Perhaps we should start to think in terms of electric railways in those large parts of Scotland where there are huge electricity resources. That might seem to be a bit futuristic, but it is quite practical.

The rail infrastructure will continue to have bottlenecks such as those that we have on the Fife circle, so we need to undertake the kind of planning and programmes that the Irish have undertaken in their £30 billion programme for rail and roads that is opening up lines all over the country, not just in the suburban areas. I hope that the debate gets some answers to such questions and I thank the Greens for raising these matters. We really have to use the carrot and not always the stick.

Another interesting development is the way in which tarmac surfaces—on roads, airport runways, transport yards or supermarket car parks—can have a water heating system put below them that creates energy to heat the road or reduce the heat on it and also to heat water for nearby buildings. The costs of running major roads could be reduced by installing such heating systems as they are now doing in the Netherlands. Companies in this country, such as Invisible Heating Systems Ltd in Ullapool, are involved in that kind of work, but it is in its infancy. The Carbon Trust needs to back that kind of approach because it could lead to the creation of modern roads that do not suffer so much from wear and tear and so have reduced maintenance costs. We do not have any of that kind of thinking permeating transport at present.

I realise that we cannot compare ourselves directly with the likes of Sweden. Bristow Muldoon is happy to say that Britain has great influence in the world in dealing with climate change. However, Sweden is trying to become a carbon-free economy by 2020. That is the kind of ambition—thinking big—that we need in Scotland, but it is totally lacking in the responses to this debate so far.

It is important for those of us who live in the far-flung parts of the country to get the kind of investment that balances road and rail needs as a prime necessity in order to make our economy work in future. Clean fuels can make a contribution, but we have to make an effort. On the bottleneck issue, surely we cannot continue to condone people travelling or commuting as one person in a car; we have to find ways to sort that out. It is a short debate, but I hope that I have made a positive contribution to it.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

We have already heard how road transport contributes approximately one-fifth of all our carbon emissions and that that figure is set to rise to almost one-third during the coming decades. Tony Blair says that we need to reduce carbon emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050, but scientists now estimate that the true figure is a 90 per cent reduction by 2030.

Over the past couple of years, there has been an almost seismic shift in the political landscape regarding climate change. All parties are now trying to outdo one another in their greenness. We welcome that. However, we do not have the time to wait for actions to catch up with fine words.

Something that has not changed is politicians' apparent fondness for high-profile, glamorous projects. One of those white elephants is being planned in the region that I represent. It is a monument to unsustainability and a victory of vanity and spin over common sense. The Aberdeen western peripheral route will drive a dual carriageway through an international school, homes, farms and the vital countryside around Aberdeen. Its backers claim that it will reduce congestion, cut journey times, improve air pollution and deliver safety benefits, but we all know that the chosen route will do nothing to cut congestion and air pollution where reductions are needed most—in the centre of Aberdeen. Any journey time reductions are likely to be fleeting at best, because the predict-and-provide model of road construction ensures that the AWPR will become just as congested as the roads on which it is designed to ease pressure.

The road's backers also claim that it will reduce carbon emissions in the centre of Aberdeen, but they will not tell us how much extra carbon dioxide the road will be responsible for elsewhere. Taxpayers have a right to know the full facts and would rightly be appalled to learn that more than £16 million has already been spent on the project, even before the route was finalised. The voters need to know that, in complete contradiction to the Liberal Democrats' greenwash, it was a Liberal Democrat minister who discarded all five routes that had been the subject of public consultation and announced a completely new route that had been neither consulted on nor properly assessed.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

For the record, I indicate that the five routes were not discarded. The route that was chosen is a combination of two of the routes. Perhaps Ms Baird will confirm that that is the factual position.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The final route was not properly consulted on—the evidence is there to show that.

Since then, Mr Scott has been remarkably reticent about the criteria that informed his decision and about the escalating costs, although I understand that about £5.5 million has already been spent so far this year.

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

Will the member give way?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

No, I am nearly out of time.

There are many projects that desperately need funding—none more than Aberdeen crossrail, which is languishing in the sidings, awaiting endless reviews and feasibility studies. The sustainable transport study for Aberdeen that the Scottish Office produced in 1998 found that traffic levels in the city could be reduced by 29 per cent by 2011 through a low-cost combination of measures, including parking controls, extended bus priority measures and improvements to walking and cycling routes. Those may not be the glamorous, big-budget schemes that are so beloved of politicians, but they are the schemes that will deliver genuine improvements to our transport infrastructure. That is where the money should be going—not on a white elephant that will do no more than allow our ever-expanding car population to create more traffic congestion.

Everyone acknowledges that we need to reduce significantly carbon emissions from transport. If the Executive is serious about climate change, it needs to show leadership by not only keeping the targets for traffic stabilisation but strengthening them by having meaningful interim targets. I urge all members to support the motion in Mark Ballard's name.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

The issue that we are debating is important for all of us. In the global context, Scotland is part of the problem and must be part of the solution. As a developed nation, we have a moral responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint, and we can demonstrate to others by our actions and results that that can be done sustainably. I believe that the Scottish Executive is making an invaluable contribution to meeting that challenge.

The profound injustice of climate change is the distribution of its environmental impacts and social consequences. Developed countries have been and still are responsible for most human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, but the poorest countries are likely to be most vulnerable to its effects. Our work in the Parliament is important and affects the big picture.

However, I take issue with the Greens and others in the chamber. Mark Ballard and Ted Brocklebank said this morning that there is no integrated transport plan and that there are no intermodal developments. It is important to bear in mind that not long ago David Cameron's team in the Westminster Parliament did not even turn up to vote for climate change and air passenger levies. Only a few weeks ago in the chamber, the Greens and others voted against one of the most important intermodal and integrated transport proposals for the east of Scotland that we have seen in decades—the new proposed railway hub at Edinburgh airport.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

The member can sit down. He really needs to listen to the views of the people of Scotland on the second Forth road bridge, which will not be simply a new bridge, but a replacement bridge. If he has not seen the presentation by the bridgemaster, I urge him and other Green party members to see it urgently. It is vital for Scotland that we make progress and get a new Forth crossing now, not in two or five years' time. We need to make that decision now.

The Greens are living in fantasy land. I accuse Mark Ballard of being Scotland's equivalent of Nero—fiddling while the Forth road bridge burns out from corrosion. He is guilty, and so are the Greens as a whole. Plainly, they have not recognised the crucial issues that politicians are being called on to address on behalf of Scottish business and society.

From its first days in power, the Executive has constantly promoted travel behaviour change and modal shift to more sustainable forms of transport. When the Executive came to power, the first rail freight access grant in 18 years was awarded. Twenty-nine projects received grants, which will remove more than 26 million lorry miles from Scotland's roads. In the north of Scotland, £600,000 was awarded to enable Safeway and other local companies to use rail freight and to remove more heavy goods vehicles from the roads. A £13 million fund is available to pay for projects that reduce the impact of transporting timber by road.

I could provide members with pages and pages of figures that I have prepared, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. However, I will say that buses need roads and that one of the best things that the Scottish Executive has ever done was to introduce the free Scotland-wide bus travel scheme for elderly and disabled people from 1 April 2006. Scotland is the only part of the UK with such a scheme. The total number of bus journeys that were made under concessionary travel fare schemes increased from about 103 million in 2001 to about 145 million in 2004-05.

The charges that have been levelled against the Executive are simply not true. If time permitted, I could regale members with pages detailing all the important moneys that have been made available, the strategies and policies that have been introduced and the real happenings that have taken place to develop new public transport measures. The need for behavioural change is being impressed on the people of Scotland. We are all changing what we are doing and we will continue to change. That is why I will support the Executive amendment this evening.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

This is a strange debate. Mark Ruskell argues not only that the Greens are opposed to all new roads but that they are now also against all new railway stations. When I gave him the opportunity to set the record straight, he would not take it. The message for next year is clear: vote Green for no upgrading of roads to save lives, and vote Green for no new railways stations, such as the station at Laurencekirk in my constituency. How bizarre.

In its motion today, the Green party says that less than 19 per cent of Scotland's climate change emissions come from transport.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have only just started my speech.

The Greens say that it would be impossible to reduce emissions to meet the challenge of climate change if we do not tackle road traffic levels—how bizarre. I would have thought that Green party members would recognise that we need to tackle all sources of emissions, instead of focusing just on the issue of road transport. What about the remaining 81 per cent of climate change emissions that have nothing to do with transport issues?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If transport emissions continue to grow, which sectors of the Scottish economy does the member think should pick up those increases?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Most of the 81 per cent of emissions to which I referred are domestic. That is the issue on which we should focus. The Greens cannot tell us why they are not focusing on the main causes of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Green party opposes every major new trunk road building programme in Scotland, including the much-needed western peripheral route around Aberdeen. I know that that new road development will badly affect residents who live close to the route, but every Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire-based MSP and MP recognises the need for the road, whereas Dundee-based Shiona Baird does not. That says everything. It will relieve traffic in the city and, more important, it will save lives by ending the rat runs on the rural roads in my constituency.

While all the city and shire MSPs support the bypass, despite having different opinions on the best route for it, only the flat-earthers in the Green party oppose it. If it were left to the Greens, I suppose that we would all end up with a horse and cart.

How often do we hear the Greens advocating their nationalist cause of independence for Scotland? That is curious, as they seem to have so much in common with the SNP, especially on road transport projects.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

And the Edinburgh airport rail link.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Fergus Ewing is shouting from a sedentary position. I can just about imagine a Cabinet meeting scene involving Fergus Ewing as transport minister discussing his plans for more and bigger roads throughout Scotland—never mind more and cheaper air routes from every airport in the country—with his Green counterpart, whoever that would be. I wonder how they would get on.

How often do we hear the Green party advocating its socialist cause of renationalising the railways and, while we are at it, nationalising all our public utilities? I am reminded of the pledge to nationalise all means of production and control, as advocated by other left-wing and nationalist parties in Scotland. I wonder what planet the Greens are on—do they ever bother to cost out their fantasy policies?

I welcome the Scottish Executive's positive record on its transport programme as outlined by the minister in today's debate. It is clear that there has been an historic shift in investment towards public transport and that the Government has delivered more trains with more capacity, abolished the Skye bridge tolls, established cheaper lifeline flights to the islands, introduced free national bus travel for older people and is delivering much-needed improvements to our national road and rail network.

We need to tackle all Scotland's climate change emissions and not just focus on the less than 19 per cent of emissions caused by transport. The Greens should be the green conscience of this Parliament. Instead, as their motion and today's debate testify, they are seen as an ineffective and extreme party that is not ready to take part in the governance of this country.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In an ideal world the Greens' transport policies might make sense. If Scotland were not a nation of 5 million people but a city of 5 million on a continental plain, we could decide to have such policies and probably make them work. The problem with the Greens' policies is that Scotland does not conform to them.

Scotland is a diverse country with a diverse geography. Its main cities are spread out over hundreds of miles and people's need to move between and around them is made more difficult by geography.

Scotland's economy depends more on transport, and on road transport in particular, than do many other comparable economies, including that of Sweden with which positive comparison has been drawn today. Scotland needs more roads and more road improvements. Ignoring climate change and carbon emissions for a moment, there is great demand and great necessity to improve road links, for example to Inverness from Elgin, where road transport is still difficult, as we have heard during the debate. We need to improve road connections to Stranraer, to benefit not only the south-west but Northern Ireland, which depends on those connections for access to ferry services.

We need the Aberdeen western peripheral route. The clear economic gap between the north and south extremes of Aberdeenshire is caused simply by the difficulties of getting lorries and cars past the obstruction that is Aberdeen. The case is clear: we can improve Scotland's economy by improving transport, and roads will always be a key part of transport links.

As members from many parties have said, a clear and present danger is associated with carbon emissions and global warming. We all admit that climate change is here, but we have a difficult fence to sit on. Scotland cannot afford to take more radical measures—at least, not at this stage—yet we need to take action. For that reason, we need to look at a range of ideas and technologies, some of which are a long way off.

We heard good suggestions from Rob Gibson today about how road construction and maintenance could be made cheaper through the use of new technologies. We heard Ted Brocklebank speak at some length about the availability of technologies such as magnetic levitation and how that might make rail travel more efficient, but that is a very long way off.

What we can do is look at moving away from using fossil carbon as our source of energy on the roads. The first thing that we need to do is consider biofuels, because that technology is the easiest for us to grasp and include in our systems now. Roads are not the polluters and neither are cars; the polluter is the fuel that we put into our cars. Moving to biofuels is not easy to achieve. If we are to use a much higher level of biofuels, decisions must be made outside this Parliament about the level of taxation to which such fuel is subjected. In many other European countries, arrangements have already been reached under which, by virtue of lower levels of taxation, biofuels compete with, or are even more competitive than, the fossil fuels that they replace. The opportunity to introduce cyclical carbon-based fuels to power our cities' bus systems and make them carbon neutral is not beyond us.

I praise the Scottish Executive for the actions that it has taken so far to support the fledgling biofuel industry in Scotland. The first bullet that we all have to bite is considering how we can divert yet more resource to that important fledgling industry. It would benefit us as consumers, our country's environment and even our farmers. Let us have some radical decisions on how we can divert those resources.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I am told that it is easy to be negative, so let me eschew that approach, as always. On Monday this week I had the pleasure of cutting the ribbon at a ceremony to celebrate the launch of six new Stagecoach bus services; I also had a pleasant chat with Scottish Natural Heritage staff at their new headquarters in Inverness. This evening, I will travel to my constituency by rail—I congratulate First ScotRail on receiving the accolade of UK public transport operator of the year. Many commercial companies in Edinburgh and other cities provide excellent public transport and it behoves us to recognise the good work that they and their staff do.

The Greens urge us in today's debate to adopt targets in order to tackle climate change. My good friend Mark Ballard and I agree about a great many things, as members heard in yesterday's freight debate, such as the folly of spending £1 billion on a rail link to Edinburgh airport when that money could be used to update the whole Scottish rail network, including, as Alex Salmond announced at our conference, the SNP's pledge to cut rail journey times from Inverness to the central belt by 45 minutes.

We have much common ground, but in responding to the debate, my serious point is that although the Greens say that we should adopt targets, they have not—to my knowledge, over nearly four years of the current parliamentary session—explained to us how those targets can be met. Although the Greens set objectives, they do not spell out how they should be fulfilled. I think that that is fair criticism. In that way, they do not take an entirely responsible approach to politics. If they wish to be in Government, as we do, they have to say what they will do and how they will do it.

If I was a Green party MSP, I would say, if I was being honest, that fuel tax is not high enough. I accept that it takes a leap of imagination to imagine me as a Green MSP—I struggle myself. However, the tax on diesel in the UK has been the highest in the 25 European Union states for the past three years, so we are contributing to the environment. Indeed, the more fuel a car consumes, the more tax is paid. It is reasonable to point out that Scotland, Europe's leading oil producer, is paying through the nozzle at the pump for the privilege of driving on the goat-tracks that we call our roads.

The Greens do not say that fuel tax should be doubled or trebled, that people should be banned from going on holiday to Majorca or that there should be a car tax of £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000. If they were being honest, they would say that those are the kinds of measures that they believe in their hearts would have to be imposed. I will postulate why they do not say that: it is because they have perhaps become a slightly grey party. They know that, if they tell the truth about what they believe needs to be done, the votes will disappear like snow off a dyke. That has been the fundamental failure of our good friends in the Green party over the four years of this session of Parliament.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

This has been a good and at times enlightening debate. Parliament can agree that the challenges posed by climate change are immediate and demanding, and I respect the range of views that have been presented. The debate comes down to, on the one hand, those who take decisions and are rightly held accountable for them, and, on the other hand, the no-roads—and therefore no-buses and, as Mike Rumbles would have it, no-horses-and-carts—policy of the Green nationalists.

The Executive is tackling emissions from all sectors, including the transport sector. We have set an ambitious target to exceed Scotland's fair share of UK carbon savings by 1 million tonnes of carbon by 2010. Of course, different sectors will have different scope for making carbon savings and for applying devolved policies. Our aim is to meet the Scottish target in the most sustainable way, by maintaining flexibility in the contribution of the different sectors.

Helen Eadie was right to point to the Tory record. The Tories have some way to go before we will take them seriously on these issues. After all, it was only last year that John Redwood—who, I am told, is a leading thinker in the modern Conservatives—said that it was not clear that human activity was changing the climate. David—or Dave—Cameron wrote the 2005 Tory general election manifesto, which mentioned climate change only once. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have said:

"This manifesto gives the impression that the environment will not be safe in Conservative hands."

The Tory MEP Caroline Jackson has called David Cameron's environmental policy review

"all talk and no action"

and she has said that

"in the general election I suspect we will roll back from some of this."

With the greatest of respect to Ted Brocklebank, who has made a spirited effort to move his party forward on these issues, I suspect that his party still has some work to do.

I greatly admire Fergus Ewing's brass neck. For a moment, I thought that we were not going to have the benefit of his contribution to this environmental debate, because it is not territory on which he is particularly comfortable. After all, he has spent some time trashing public transport projects all over Scotland. He has U-turned—although "handbrake-turned" might be a better expression for Mr Ewing—SNP policy on Edinburgh trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link. As we constantly remind the Greens and the SNP—who are in coalition on this issue—the airport rail link is not just for Edinburgh but, as Helen Eadie rightly said, for the whole of Scotland.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Does the minister agree with TIE, which has said that BAA's reasonable request for an indemnity against the losses that might arise if its runway has to close means that the project is no longer deliverable?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We will deliver the project. No matter how much Mr Ewing's party whinges, and no matter how much he exaggerates—as he does, day in and day out—the issues that have to be dealt with in any capital transport project, we will deliver that project. It is time for Tarmac Fergus to come clean on what other public transport projects the SNP would cancel.

Mr Ewing has a problem. He says where he would save money, but Mr Salmond, his leader and boss, has already committed the SNP to a bullet train—an uncosted bullet train, members will not be surprised to hear—between Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is Mr Salmond's on-the-record commitment, but there are no costings for it. At the general election, we look forward to that kind of spending commitment being made very clear indeed. It is time for the SNP to come clean. It cannot promote rail on one hand and oppose it on the other.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Did the minister interpret Fergus Ewing's remarks as suggesting that the bullet train will be going to Inverness as well?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I take that as a helpful contribution to the debate. I am sure that the SNP will consider the point carefully as it develops its policies.

Rob Gibson made a serious point about rail procurement. We will unveil an unprecedented investment in new rolling stock, and we are adopting the latest technologies—that, to some extent, deals with Ted Brocklebank's fair point about newer and cleaner fuels in respect of carbon emissions.

The only point on which Mr Gibson came unstuck was the Irish example. The Irish are promoting a fast rail link to Dublin airport, so Mr Gibson might want to go over there and change his mind—and SNP policy again—on the airport link to our capital city.

I finish by considering the Green nationalists. My party is occasionally accused of being a bit sanctimonious, but the Greens do sanctimonious far better than we ever could. Let me give just one example. I am pleased that Chris Ballance has returned to the chamber, because I have here the Carrick Gazette, a paper that I read regularly. On 29 June 2006, Chris Ballance said of Maybole that

"a by-pass would transform the quality of life of residents."

When Mr Ballard sums up for the Greens, he will have to explain why, on one side of the south of Scotland, it is all right to support a bypass, but on the other side, at Dalkeith, that is not all right.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. Mr Ballance said what he said and I am very grateful that he is on the record on that point.

What we need from the Greens is a little clarity—which I am sure Mr Ballard is just about to provide—and a little less hypocrisy on road policy.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

We have just been asked by the Minister for Transport for a little less hypocrisy. The hypocrisy in this debate has been fairly clear to see.

Mark Ruskell and Shiona Baird laid out the challenge that we face from climate change. According to Tony Blair, we need a 60 per cent reduction by 2050; according to the latest scientific research, we need a 90 per cent reduction by 2030. We have heard fine words from all sides: Bristow Muldoon talked about his commitment to the Kyoto process; Ted Brocklebank went so far as to give us a quote to the effect that the most important threat that we face is climate change; and Richard Lochhead has set ambitious targets for the SNP of 2.5 per cent reductions in CO2, rising to 3 per cent.

There has been good rhetoric, but the reality is that—no matter how much we welcome extra spending on public transport—we face a 27 per cent increase in road traffic levels by 2021, according to the latest Audit Scotland report. The projections completely overshoot the Executive's targets. If we are serious about tackling climate change, and if we are serious about making 60 or 90 per cent reductions, it is no good ignoring the fact that road traffic levels are shooting up.

There are lots of fixes that people can come up with. Richard Lochhead and Alex Johnstone mentioned biofuels. According to figures that I have seen, it would take about two acres of oilseed rape to grow enough biofuel for the average family car. There are about 30 million family cars in the UK, so we would need to devote 60 million acres of the UK to oilseed rape to produce enough biofuel just for those cars—and more for buses and heavy goods vehicles. The SNP objects to wind farms being placed on Scotland's hills; I wonder what its response would be if every hill in Scotland had to be covered with a thick yellow carpet of oilseed rape in an effort to do something serious about replacing petrol.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

No, I am sorry; I do not have enough time. I will come to the Liberal Democrats in a moment, and hope to give the member an opportunity then.

We heard from Ted Brocklebank that bad roads give rise to higher emissions. That may be true, but I say to him that we are talking about a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of between 60 and 90 per cent. Fixing the potholes will not give us that reduction.

Mike Rumbles talked about the other sources of carbon dioxide in Scotland, such as lights. He might not have noticed, but the Scottish Parliament does not have power over whether people switch lights on or off in their own homes, although we have power over transport infrastructure. The Parliament decides what transport infrastructure we will have in the future. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to deal with that issue.

Shiona Baird covered very well the fact that it is always quite easy to justify new roads by quoting safety and congestion figures. However, I return to the fact that we need a 60 to 90 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

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

On the specifics of roads and being very straight, the Green party seems to support the bypass in Ayrshire but opposes the bypass in Midlothian. Can Mark Ballard explain why? While he is at it, can he explain whether the Green party will support a Selkirk bypass in my constituency?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

A comparison was drawn between my opposition to the proposed Dalkeith bypass and my colleague's support for the proposal in his area. We must remember that, when the Dalkeith bypass project was frozen by Sarah Boyack, she promised a multimodal study to find the best way of reducing congestion in Dalkeith. We have not had that multimodal study; instead, that road programme has been defrosted. The key issue is that we should seek the most effective way of dealing with genuine congestion problems in places such as Dalkeith. We need to make some hard decisions.

Despite what Mike Rumbles seems to think, in general we support new rail developments. However, along with my good friend, Fergus Ewing, I have opposed the Edinburgh airport rail link because it is the wrong rail proposal. In general, we oppose the massive plans for motorway expansion that are proposed by other parties, although there may be exceptions for safety reasons. Mark Ruskell mentioned the Ballinluig junction as a good example of a place where limited work may be necessary for safety reasons. Nevertheless, it is all too simple to take the easy option of building more roads.

I support the Executive entirely in its decision to give local authorities the right to introduce congestion charging. A Labour-led local authority tried to do so but faced a barrage of opposition—easy and irresponsible opposition—from the Liberals, the SNP, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Tory party and even surrounding Labour councils. Introducing congestion charging is the kind of hard choice that we have to make if we are to achieve a 60 to 90 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Of course, it is welcome that the Executive is spending more on public transport, although I could argue with Tavish Scott about the way in which roads are treated differently from rail in the budget and about the inclusion of road haulage modernisation funds and air route development funds in the public transport figure. In the end, however, the debate comes down to the 27 per cent increase in road traffic levels and the requirement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 to 90 per cent.

We all need to face what Al Gore has called "An Inconvenient Truth"—that business as usual is not an option. We cannot continue to do everything that the Tories describe in their amendment. Ted Brocklebank seems to want everything from the completion of the central belt motorway network to the upgrading of trunk routes, the shifting of more freight to rail and more investment in public transport. The reality is that we have hard choices before us—tough decisions that we have to make about what we are going to invest in.

In answer to Fergus Ewing, I say that we need to support congestion charging, not oppose it as his SNP colleagues did. We also need to support massive investment in rail infrastructure, the pinch-points in which have been mentioned. We cannot do that at the same time as making the investment in roads that other parties are talking about. We have a choice about what investments we are going to make in the future.

The time has come when we can no longer wriggle out of the requirement to make a 60 to 90 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. We can no longer pretend that business as usual is possible. We cannot continue to build more new motorways. I ask members, please, to support the motion in my name. Let us make progress towards the targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions and use the Scottish Parliament's powers to take the steps that are necessary to tackle the problems of road transport. There is no other option: there is no way off that twin hook.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many eligible residents in the Western Isles have registered for the air discount scheme and how many have used the scheme since its introduction. (S2O-10877)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Since the introduction of the air discount scheme on 18 May 2006 and up to 30 September, 25,698 residents in the Western Isles—93 per cent of the eligible total—had registered for the scheme and 3,458 residents had used it.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I thank the minister for that encouraging update. I am sure that the minister will have seen and heard some of the more churlish remarks that the Scottish National Party has made about a scheme that it cannot bring itself to welcome or endorse. I ask the minister for an update on some of the understandable technical issues that were a feature of the scheme at the outset. Further, I ask the minister and the Executive to give serious consideration to a ferry discount scheme for which eligibility would be based on the residency criterion that has been used so successfully for the air discount scheme.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am happy to address the specific points that Mr Morrison raises. I am aware that we have been able to sort out the operational issues with bookings for the Eastern Airways service to Aberdeen. I hope that that is of assistance to Alasdair Morrison's constituents. I am also happy to consider his point regarding the application of the residency rules to ferries. We are encouraged by the success of the air discount scheme, which appears to have been a successful mechanism in encouraging travel opportunities for local people, and we will reflect on Alasdair Morrison's comments. I share his concerns about SNP members who opposed the scheme and continue to send me letters saying that they are against it. I find that disappointing, given the scheme's success.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The good news is that we welcome the good sense of the people of the Western Isles in taking up the offer, but we regret the poor grace of the member and the minister on the issue. Will the Executive undertake a study to compare the net economic impact of the scheme with that of a public service obligation, which could benefit the residents to at least the same extent as the current scheme does and attract more investment, more visitors and more jobs to the Western Isles? If the Executive will not do that, can the minister tell us why?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

If that was a U-turn, I guess that we must welcome it. The fact is that I have received letter after letter from Mr Mather and his colleagues saying that it would be better to have a public service obligation. That is the SNP's position. While we are helping people in the islands—the numbers illustrate that—the SNP has opposed the scheme time and time again. We reviewed the entire proposal and the different mechanisms that were available to us properly, and the Government came to a decision. The SNP should have the good grace to welcome it.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree that such initiatives should be given much wider publicity and should be extended to incoming flights, to encourage much-needed growth in tourism in such remote areas?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is nice to see Dave Petrie with us today. We welcome him back to the chamber. I respect his remarks on the need to advertise constantly to ensure that people are aware of the benefits of the scheme and the ease with which they can use it. In response to his point about people who do not live in the islands and do not, therefore, qualify for the scheme under the residency rules that govern it, I say to him that we are operating the scheme in a similar way to many others that operate throughout Europe. Those are the rules under which we must construct and operate the scheme, and that is the current position.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We are developing proposals for a national voluntary accreditation scheme for residential property managers. The aim will be to encourage owners of houses with common parts to appoint property managers by giving them confidence that scheme members will meet high standards.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Probably like many other members, I have received a significant number of complaints about the standard of service that my constituents receive from property managers. Will the minister meet me to discuss the matter further and to discuss the possibility of regulating property management factors? Will she also consider how best we might manage common areas that local residents have the responsibility of managing in the face of severe challenges?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I would be delighted to meet Paul Martin, given his expertise in rooting into what happens in local communities and formulating the policy challenges for the Executive. I am sure that what he has to say will be informative and will help us to shape policy on a matter that is important for local communities.

The accreditation scheme is voluntary on the advice of the housing improvement task force. We felt that people would be able to engage with it and that it would give them confidence.

The maintenance of open spaces is important. We have addressed the matter through the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004, but Paul Martin may wish to note that we are currently consulting on draft Scottish planning policy 11 on sport, recreation and open space. In particular, we are considering how planning conditions can be attached to new developments to address the maintenance of open space. He might want to respond to that consultation by 3 November, but I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the issues further.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is the minister aware of concerns, which are similar to Paul Martin's, about the management of common land in my constituency? I ask her to take those into consideration. Is she also aware of the concerns of residents and home owners in retirement complexes who, despite the passage of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, are still having difficulty with the management of their properties?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am aware of the issues that Kenneth Macintosh raises. I recognise that they are not specific to Paul Martin's constituency and that we have probably all experienced them in our communities. Some of them are to do with people not treating their responsibilities as obligations, which needs to be addressed at an earlier stage through planning consents.

There have been discussions with Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Justice, on the points that Kenneth Macintosh makes on the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, but I am more than happy to pursue them further if we can help to resolve the concerns, particularly those of people in retirement complexes, who might find the additional stress of dealing with maintenance issues unacceptable.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

All proposed route development fund air routes are appraised against a range of operational and economic benefit criteria. The environmental component of the appraisal of new services includes two indicators of environmental impact: aircraft noise and carbon dioxide emissions.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

The minister's reply is somewhat at variance with the statement from the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport on Radio Scotland last night that, although the balance was delicate, the economic issues should be given priority. We now have a Government pledge to introduce a climate change bill, so if the Minister for Transport is committed to increasing aviation emissions through the route development fund, what sector does he propose should cut its carbon emissions so that the balance of emissions does not continue to rise?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As we have just debated, tackling carbon dioxide emissions requires a balance across the different transport sectors and across Government policy. I hope that Mr Ballance is familiar with the fact that, in considering the carbon dioxide emissions for air transport, we examine aircraft emissions and emissions from surface transport. Of course, he does not help his argument by opposing the Edinburgh airport rail link—as does the Scottish National Party—which would help considerably in that regard.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The line is wrong.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is particularly disappointing that the Greens and SNP members, who are all screaming and shouting from a sedentary position, oppose the arrival of overseas visitors to Scotland—2.4 million in the past year, which is a 50 per cent increase since 2001 and the highest figure that has ever been recorded. The Executive welcomes that, but I see that the SNP and the Greens oppose it.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for improving the railway line between Inverness and Aberdeen. (S2O-10813)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Later this autumn, we will publish our rail policy document "Scotland's Railways" as part of the national transport strategy. It will examine a number of options for improving the route between Inverness and Aberdeen.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The minister might be aware that there were recently reports in the local press in the Inverness area that the much-needed expansion of the commuter train service between Elgin and Inverness has been put in doubt because the line does not have the capacity to carry any more trains because it is only a single-track line. Does he agree that a single-track railway between two of our major cities is not fit for purpose in the 21 st century and that it should be at the top of his list for improvement? Whatever he announces later this autumn, will he undertake to put in place improvements to that route to get traffic off the A96 and on to the railway line, where it should be?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I assure Eleanor Scott that that is part of the "Scotland's Railways" approach to planning for the railway sector and network throughout Scotland. It is our intention to encourage and develop commuter lines to Inverness. There is strong pressure for that and there are strong arguments for it in relation to encouraging people to use public transport, as opposed to the car. The link that she mentions is important in that context.

The other day I noticed a comment in The Press and Journal that it is important to share in this context. It illustrates that

"the Highland capital is almost unrecognisable from a decade ago—during which time city status was achieved and new housing, offices and industrial units sprang up with alarming regularity ... Its transport links are improving".

We are making some progress, as The Press and Journal recognises, and we will continue to do so.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Is the minister aware of the timetabling problems that passengers who are travelling north face with connections, such as one Glasgow train arriving in Aberdeen 60 seconds after the Inverness connection has left? Passengers who want to make that journey face a two-hour delay waiting for the next Inverness train. Does he also recognise that FirstScotrail blames the timetabling problems on the fact that the route between Aberdeen and Inverness is a single-track line and does he agree that that means that it should be a priority for upgrading?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That is a perfectly serious point and we will examine the issue. I meet FirstScotrail regularly to discuss those and other issues, as does Transport Scotland. I undertake to look into the matter, but I hope that Mr Lochhead supports the general theme of the Government's expenditure on railways, which involves tackling and providing for enhancements in the network. That can make a considerable difference in encouraging people to use public transport as opposed to the car.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

A wide range of factors bears on educational attainment, and improved school facilities help to create a learning and teaching environment in which young people get the best opportunities to realise their full potential.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Minister.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Thank you for the promotion, Presiding Officer.

Is the minister aware of the work of Thornliebank primary school's pupil council, members of which are visiting the Scottish Parliament today and, I hope, listening to the minister's response? They recently successfully lobbied my local authority, East Renfrewshire Council, for a multi-user games area to be built in the school playground. Does the minister agree that such sporting facilities not only encourage all our children to lead healthier and more active lives but will help to tackle the problem of rising obesity in Scotland and, I hope, help to produce the athletes of the future, perhaps in time for the Commonwealth games coming to Scotland?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I join Kenneth Macintosh in welcoming the children of Thornliebank primary school to the Parliament. He may be aware that, a few weeks ago, Peter Peacock, the Minister for Education and Young People, announced an additional £30 million for the schools fund for 2006-07—that is the capital grant—which increases the fund total to £131.35 million throughout the country, of which I think about £600,000 is available in East Renfrewshire. It has been suggested that the money could fund all sorts of capital projects, such as energy efficiency measures, canteens, enhanced sports facilities and playgrounds.

The Executive is very much aware of the importance of supporting all sorts of activities in schools, and the need for such investment is being taken forward. We are conscious of the bid to host the Commonwealth games and of the wider issues of obesity and exercise and diet in schools.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that the number of pupils who are studying highers in the three sciences has fallen by 8,000 since 1997? Will he consider giving much more priority to investing in school science facilities to address the decline?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

There has been quite a bit of investment in school science in the recent past, as well as the support that the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department has given to the science centres. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is aware, the matter has rightly been the subject of debate in the Parliament from time to time. The Scottish Executive is committed to supporting science as a major driver of Scotland's economy.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans there are to improve the gender proofing of policies across departmental portfolios. (S2O-10862)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The duty to promote equality of opportunity between women and men, as introduced by the Equality Act 2006, is expected to come into force in Scotland in April 2007.

As a public authority, the Executive, along with its agencies, is subject to that duty. Key parts of the new duty are ensuring that all new key policies and activities are assessed for their impact on gender equality and making arrangements to review key existing policies. We believe that effective equality impact assessment is key to equality mainstreaming and to the delivery of the gender duty and the other public sector equality duties. The Executive has been developing an equality impact assessment tool and guidance, which will be made available to all Executive officials to enable them to assess the impact of their policies across a number of equality strands, including gender.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

I acknowledge the progress that is being made, even though the duty has not yet come in. Will the minister outline how departments are to be further encouraged to take a more uniform approach to equalities reporting, because at the moment different approaches are still being adopted?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is key that we ensure that there is discussion throughout the Executive rather than just within departments. I know that members of the Equal Opportunities Committee will challenge the Minister for Communities, Malcolm Chisholm, when he discusses the budget with them in due course and talks about the practicalities of how that can be delivered.

Underlying our desire to get the budgets right is our desire to get the policy right. Today we mark the second anniversary of the establishment of the domestic abuse court and the assist service, which has liberated people to use their talents to support women who are dealing with domestic abuse through the justice system, so that they get justice and are not victimised further. We should recognise the need to put in place the budgets to match our policy commitment. We will talk about assessment tools and all the rest of it and will ensure that Executive officials talk to each other, but our commitment and energy to deliver equality for women will drive the budget—it will not be the other way round.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to increase the number of neighbourhood wardens in light of their performance in tackling antisocial behaviour in our communities. (S2O-10865)

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

Community wardens play a key role in our strategy to tackle antisocial behaviour. They help to make our communities safer by providing a visible presence in our communities, reassuring residents and working with the police and other agencies to take back our streets from the minority of people who engage in antisocial behaviour. Funding from the Executive has allowed every council in Scotland to operate a warden scheme and there are now well over 550 wardens patrolling our streets. As with all policy areas across the Executive, decisions on future funding to tackle antisocial behaviour, including provision for community wardens, must await the outcome of the spending review.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am sure that the minister will agree that although we all accept that wardens are not a replacement for police officers, their visible presence on the streets can make a significant contribution to crime prevention. The award to a group of wardens from Renfrewshire at last night's standing up to antisocial behaviour awards ceremony is testament to the good work that they can do in tackling crime proactively.

Will the minister assure me that she will do everything that she can to ensure that when the spending review has been completed, funding for a significant number of community wardens in our communities will continue, because that will help to make our streets safer?

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

I am glad that Janis Hughes mentioned the standing up to antisocial behaviour awards that took place last night and the success of the Renfrewshire Council wardens in achieving one of the awards in the above and beyond category. The awards recognised the extraordinary efforts of ordinary citizens, both young and old, in communities throughout Scotland to reclaim our streets from the minority of people who cause problems.

Whenever I go to places where wardens are in operation, people want their presence to continue. That, together with the fact that areas that do not have wardens would like their provision to be extended, means that the Executive was right to introduce them, despite the opposition that came from certain quarters. I will do everything in my power to ensure that we reap the benefits from those schemes.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Does the minister agree that junior warden schemes such as the one in Abbeyview, which also received recognition at last night's awards, have a key role to play in our communities and should be encouraged throughout Scotland?

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

I certainly agree with Scott Barrie. I have visited the area that the Abbeyview junior wardens serve and had the opportunity to meet them again last night. The scheme is highly successful, particularly as it allows young people to focus on issues such as citizenship and how they can contribute to their communities. That is vital in getting across the message that our children and young people are almost inevitably the victims of antisocial behaviour.

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Members will wish to join me in welcoming Eileen Bell, who is the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [ Applause. ]

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I, too, welcome the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and wish her and her colleagues in all the parties in the Assembly well in attempting, over the winter and in difficult circumstances, to implement the agreement reached two weeks ago at St Andrews. [ Applause. ]

I also welcome to the VIP gallery the world-champion Scottish curling team. We are very proud of them and their result. [Applause.]

In response to Ms Sturgeon, I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, but I will be happy to discuss curling with him when I do.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I echo all of the First Minister's opening remarks.

Yesterday, the First Minister asked how the Scottish National Party would deal with nuclear waste. I ask him to listen very carefully to this: Scotland should deal with our own—and no one else's—nuclear waste; it should be stored above ground and close to source; and under no circumstances should we have new nuclear power stations to generate even more waste. Is that position not far more responsible than the First Minister's daft notion of turning England into his nuclear waste dump?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At long last, we get some honesty from the SNP. I am very pleased to endorse the statements that were made yesterday by our own Minister for Environment and Rural Development and, in London, by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I want to be very clear with the chamber and the people of Scotland that we endorse the principle of voluntary agreement in relation to the disposal of nuclear waste. As it is likely that there will be no volunteers in Scotland to deal with such waste but that there might indeed be volunteers in local authorities in England, if the SNP is saying that we should impose it on the people of Scotland instead, it is wrong and is, in fact, being very irresponsible.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

My position is clear; the problem is with the First Minister's position. He seems to be suggesting that Scotland can abdicate responsibility for our share of the waste that his Government and previous Tory Governments have generated. I do not think so.

Let me put it this way:

"Scotland ... creates much of the nuclear waste in Britain"

so we

"have a responsibility to deal with"

it;

"those who suggest that we do not are highly irresponsible."—[Official Report, 16 June 2005; c 18072.]

Those are the words of the First Minister in the chamber just last year.

Dealing with our own waste is not the issue. Is it not the case that, under Labour plans, the real risk is that all the United Kingdom's nuclear waste could end up here in Scotland? After all, we know that half of all the suitable sites for deep disposal are in Scotland. If that turns out to be the proposal—the First Minister knows that that is a possibility—would he consider that to be a dividend of the union or does he, like me, think that giving this Parliament the power to stop that happening would be a very big independence bonus?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Parliament has powers over nuclear waste, and we are exercising them with great care and responsibility. We have agreed with the UK Government that, under the arrangements recommended by the independent scientists and experts and implemented by both Governments, nuclear waste will not be disposed of in areas where it is not wanted.

However, it is absolutely clear that, after 20 years of saying that it was against the imposition of nuclear waste here, the SNP has now made a U-turn and, unlike everyone else in the chamber, proposes as its party position to impose such waste on communities in Scotland. That is a shockingly irresponsible position, for which I am sure the SNP will pay the price.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Yesterday, the UK minister did not, and would not, rule out Scotland as the site for all the UK's nuclear waste. That is the reality. The difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste is just one of the reasons why an SNP Government will not sanction new nuclear power stations. The First Minister has said repeatedly that he will make no decision on new nuclear power stations until the issue of waste has been resolved, but now that he has accepted the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's so-called solution and now that he thinks the issue is resolved, I assume that he can finally give us an answer to this question: is he for or against new nuclear power stations?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We know that the SNP's policy on new nuclear power stations is irresponsible, just as its policy on nuclear waste is irresponsible. Many issues have still to be resolved on nuclear waste, but at least some of the issues are now clear. The Executive parties support deep disposal; the SNP supports leaving waste on the surface. The Executive parties support a voluntary arrangement inside the UK for a community to volunteer to accept the nuclear waste; the SNP wants to impose it on Scotland. The SNP's policy is irresponsible and threatens the future of Scottish communities; the Executive parties are tackling the issue responsibly and now have a solution for the future.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The SNP's position is backed by the Liberals, the Greens, Friends of the Earth Scotland and Greenpeace to name just a few. It is a responsible position. Is it not the case that the First Minister's position is now, frankly, just embarrassing? He will not say whether he is for or against new nuclear power stations, and because he does not have any good arguments against independence he resorts to desperate scaremongering and, in this case, crude anti-English posturing. Could that be why more and more people in Scotland think that it is time for a new First Minister—one who is up to the job?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is some irony in the fact that the leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, whose sums do not add up, will speak tonight to auditors in Scotland. If Ms Sturgeon wants to talk about independence, we can talk about that all day long. If she wants to talk about what we would lose as a country by losing the union dividend, I am happy to do so. Billions of pounds of public expenditure would be lost to Scotland. The trade and economic integration that exist between Scottish businesses and businesses south of the border would be lost as a result of losing the union dividend. Family ties would also be affected by losing the union dividend. SNP members, no matter how much they shout, cannot deny that the union dividend would be lost to Scotland. SNP members had better start debating that issue. If they do not want to debate it, we certainly do.

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-2492)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues that are important to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I would have thought that, at its next meeting, the Scottish Cabinet might want to discuss hospital cuts, the lack of parenting orders, or perhaps Margaret Curran's trip to New Zealand to see how minority government works. Be that as it may, I turn to the First Minister's lecture in Haddington earlier this week. Does he accept that this Parliament is young, that some mistakes have been made and that there is room for improvement, but that the idea of scrapping devolution after only seven and a half years to go down the road that is advocated by Mr Salmond is fraught with uncertainty and dangerous for the future of Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The biggest danger of separatism would clearly be to lose that union dividend. Across the United Kingdom, we benefit from the pooling of resources and from the additional public expenditure that is provided to Scotland. We would lose the integration of family and business ties that makes us stronger together, and we would be weaker apart. We would lose our stable economy—one of the great benefits of the union dividend—the common inflation target, common interest rates, common currency and the integrated single market. In all those areas and many others, there is a benefit to Scotland from being part of the United Kingdom. However, there is also a benefit to Scotland from the Scottish Parliament making decisions on the matters that are devolved to it. By using both of those benefits, we have the best of both worlds.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Does the First Minister accept that the Parliament would have benefited from an official Opposition that actually offered opposition, such as my party—[ Interruption. ]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order. We have to hear the question.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Surely an official Opposition should do that instead of continually sniping about affairs that are not in the gift of the Parliament.

Is the First Minister aware that, in seven and a half years, the nationalists have opposed only six of his Government's bills? Does he agree that, if we had had an official Opposition that offered sensible, moderate, constructive comment on devolved issues, devolution would have been strengthened?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am trying to work out who Miss Goldie might be referring to. I agree absolutely with Annabel Goldie. The policies of the SNP would be an economic and social disaster for Scotland. The worst thing that could happen in the Scottish Parliament would be for the SNP to have any power or influence.

It is incumbent on the other Opposition parties in the Parliament to be consistent. They should not only talk tough on crime, but should vote for the proposals that we are bringing forward to ensure that action is taken on antisocial behaviour and crime. They should not only talk about the importance of the economy, but should support the many ways in which the Executive is growing the Scottish economy and its population. I refer to growth in, for example, tourism numbers, inward investment and research and development. The other Opposition parties should support the Government when it does the right thing. They should give us the backing that we need to make Scotland prosperous and successful.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is clear that the first seven and a half years of devolution have not met the expectations of the public. That is largely because the Executive has failed to deliver what the public want. The solution is neither to abolish the Scottish Parliament nor to isolate ourselves by leaving the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland's problems of skills shortages, shocking drugs abuse, hospital cuts and high taxes are caused not by the institution of the Parliament but by his Executive? Does he also agree that it is time for a new form of devolved Government, one that will make the Scottish Parliament work much better to deliver on the real priorities of ordinary people in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said before, I agree with Annabel Goldie that the SNP policy of creating a separate Scotland would be a disaster for Scotland, economically and socially. At the same time, I remind her that, as a result of the policies of this devolved Government, we have not only improved attainment in our schools and skills in our country but have gained recognition for doing so outwith Scotland. Not only do we have the lowest waiting times on record, but we have achieved a reduction in drug deaths.

Scotland has seen not only growth in every year since devolution began but, as we heard only yesterday, the highest-ever tourism figures. Last week, we heard that Scotland has the highest growth in research and development and inward investment jobs in the whole of the United Kingdom. In addition to all that, we have an increasing population: we have reversed the brain drain and are seeing a net increase in inward migration. In all those areas, the policies of this devolved Government are making a difference to Scotland today. We are doing all that within the powers of devolution and we are doing it well. That is why both Opposition parties will not win in the election next May.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I will take one constituency supplementary.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In 2002, the Scottish Executive agreed that the Ballinluig junction on the A9 in my constituency should be upgraded to a grade-separated junction.

It also said that the upgrade should be done by 2005; despite that, work has not even commenced on site. Yesterday, there was another fatality at the junction. Will the First Minister join me in expressing our condolences to the family of the gentleman who lost his life? What action will he take to tackle the lengthy delays that his Executive has caused by failing to tackle the problem on time?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

First, I am sure that all members join me in sending condolences to the family of the gentleman who died. The family's situation should be our primary concern today.

Secondly, the improvements to the junction are currently out for tender. They are therefore on stream and will be delivered. Although there have been delays in the past, as John Swinney rightly said, some of those delays might well have been for good reasons. The imperative today is to ensure that the tender process is concluded and that work begins and is completed as quickly as possible.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The First Minister will have read Professor Arthur Midwinter's report on the gross underfunding of children's social work services. Professor Midwinter concludes:

"What is clear is that the status quo is a recipe for instability and uncertainty over the funding, provision and effectiveness of children's social work services, which are vital to the well being of children in need of care and protection."

Does the First Minister agree?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not agree with Professor Midwinter's report, for a number of reasons. For example, the report did not include the provision of: £65 million in the changing children's services fund; £60 million in sure start funding; £33 million in grant-aided expenditure for the children's services development fund; £12 million for fostering; £6 million for looked-after children's education; and the provision of £5 million in GAE for young people leaving care. If the report included all those figures, not only would the gap that it identified be filled but the amount of resource would be even higher than the amount that Professor Midwinter identified as being required. I am sure that Professor Midwinter will consider those figures and ensure that an accurate report is prepared, so that committees of the Parliament can consider the facts.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Those figures do not refer to core funding. The First Minister's reply does not disguise the fact that there is a gap of nearly 60 per cent in core funding. The number of children in need of care and protection has increased, so costs of community and residential care have increased. Professor Midwinter says in paragraph 23 of his report:

"There is little point in ministers flagging up the 'ways' to improve service if they fail to provide the 'means'."

Does the First Minister agree? Does he also agree that the failure to "provide the 'means'" is imposing intolerable stresses on the children's hearings and social work systems? He wants another set of figures to be produced, but 75 per cent of Scotland's councils disagree with him.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will spell it out again, in summary. Professor Midwinter claimed that there is a £160 million gap, but the amounts of money that I listed total £181 million. Therefore, even if we accept the figure that Professor Midwinter says is required, we are already providing at least £20 million more across Scotland. I hope that that assures members that we are committed to funding children's services properly.

Funding does not exist in isolation. We also need measures that ensure that we assist children who are vulnerable or in trouble. I am disappointed that this week the Green party has again opposed the measures that are required to deal with antisocial behaviour in communities throughout Scotland. The Green party is out of touch with public opinion and with reality. I am sure that on such a serious issue the Parliament supports the Executive and not the Green party.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what guarantees can be given that public safety will not be compromised by the proposed home leave for inmates of open prisons at Christmas. (S2F-2500)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

All prisoners in open prisons must have been assessed as presenting a low risk to the public before being transferred there. Almost all will have some entitlement to home leave throughout the year as part of their rehabilitation programme. However, no one will be allowed home leave without a rigorous safety assessment.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for his reassurance. Does he agree that all political parties should be consistent in supporting that policy, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to misleading press reports?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I agree absolutely. There are members who claim to support systems for rehabilitation but who are quick to criticise them as soon as there is an opportunity to get themselves in the headlines. I would hope that all members would desist from such practices.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sure that the First Minister agrees that one of the most important elements of rehabilitation that the prison service can deliver relates to drug abuse, which takes the majority of prisoners into prison.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Is this a question about home leave, Mr Stevenson?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In that context, in relation to open prisons, does the First Minister support my view that prisoners who are being released for home leave should be tested for drug abuse before they leave and after they return, to ensure continuity of rehabilitation from drug abuse?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If we were to implement the Scottish National Party's policy on prisons, that would be difficult to achieve. The SNP published its policy proposals, entitled "Our policies for a safer Scotland", in which it says clearly that it would introduce new sentencing options, including weekend prisons. For Mr MacAskill, who is Mr Stevenson's boss, to say last week that society has deemed that those people should be punished but that they are not being punished over the festive period because a limited number of prisoners are being allowed home, when, in fact, the SNP wants many more prisoners to be allowed home every single week of the year, is sheer hypocrisy. The Scottish National Party's policies would have more credibility if it was consistent and did not jump from having one policy statement in its policy document to grabbing headlines on another occasion.

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

Does the First Minister agree that the home leave system is an important part of rehabilitation services, but that there are flaws with regard to services that begin in prison—open prisons in particular—but do not carry on in the community? Will he develop the proposal to establish in the community setting the equivalent of link centres in prisons, which are designed to co-ordinate and ensure that rehabilitation services are properly administered, given that there is currently a gap in such services in the community?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I understand that that matter is being considered by justice services and I am sure that the Minister for Justice would be happy to provide details as discussions progress and reach conclusions.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will ensure that an assessment is made of the social and economic impact of the collapse of the hamper firm, Farepak, particularly on those in our communities who will be worst hit, and what measures can be taken by the Executive to mitigate their loss. (S2F-2494)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Obviously, I express my sympathy for all those who have suffered loss and disappointment as a result of Farepak going into administration. I understand that United Kingdom ministers have launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding that, and have met the British Retail Consortium and Farepak's administrators to see what can be done for those who have lost money. I have therefore asked the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, to contact the Department of Trade and Industry to get an assessment of the extent of the problem in Scotland and, having done that, to report to Parliament in due course.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I think that the First Minister will agree that the misery that thousands will experience in the run-up to Christmas is an absolute disgrace. I welcome, as I am sure that everyone else does, the DTI investigation, because if there has been wrongdoing it must be uncovered. I look forward to the results of the conversations that the First Minister will have in respect of the impact.

Does the First Minister agree that there is an absolute necessity to get in front of the problem before it becomes manifest in rent arrears, missed council tax payments and increasing debt, not to mention losses in the high street? Can we in this Parliament at least impress on organisations such as councils, housing associations and banks the need to start working with individuals from the outset in order to help them deal with the problem that has developed, so that it can be better handled by everybody?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

All the suggestions that Roseanna Cunningham made towards the end of her question were very sensible indeed. We will of course consider them all and see what can be done to encourage local authorities and companies to provide every assistance and intervene as quickly as possible to ensure that those who are affected do not find that their circumstances deteriorate. This is a shocking and disturbing situation, which will mean that many people in Scotland will find themselves in great difficulty in the run-up to Christmas through no fault of their own. We can all condemn those responsible, but it is important that we take practical measures to assist those who have been affected. We will certainly do all we can to help. If members identify issues that arise in their constituencies, I am sure that ministers will be able to take them up.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Does the First Minister agree that clients of companies such as Farepak are, in effect, taking part in a money-saving scheme throughout the year? Does he agree that there is a strong case to be made for such companies to come under the same regulatory regime as banks and building societies?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have not studied that point in great detail and would not want to give a specific answer today that would perhaps not work out in terms of legal detail. However, the member's point sounds like a fair one. I am sure that ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry will reflect on it as they investigate the circumstances of the case.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

All the agencies that are involved in emergency planning, including the Met Office, have been working hard to learn lessons from previous incidents, including the storms in the Western Isles in 2005. A wide range of measures is now in place to deal with winter weather emergencies, including plans for wider circulation of severe weather warnings; contracts for trunk road maintenance that will minimise disruption and delay; and a vigilant approach by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to monitoring potential flooding areas.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

In the light of the serious incidents of torrential flooding and landslides this week in the Black Isle and Aberdeenshire, as well as immediate threats of flooding elsewhere in Scotland, can the First Minister assure the chamber that he will not be lulled into a false sense of security by a relatively mild autumn? Will he strengthen his forward planning to safeguard life and give maximum assistance to the emergency services?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Of course. As we have said on other occasions, one of the great benefits of devolution is the ability that it creates to bring people together in Scotland and ensure a better co-ordination of public services and those services that are not delivered immediately by the public sector.

Following the storms in the Western Isles nearly two years ago, we decided to bring together the various services that deal with weather emergencies in Scotland to ensure better co-ordination, better planning and better forward planning in the years to come. That is a continuing effort that will, I hope, create benefits whenever the weather emergencies occur this winter. No one in Scotland should be complacent about this issue because we have had a relatively mild summer and autumn.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Given that the Liberal-Labour Government is determined to press on with the transfer of housing stock from local authorities to housing associations, and following the law of unintended consequences, what consideration has the Government given to extending the Belwin scheme to those housing associations?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Belwin scheme exists for local authorities, who are the emergency planning co-ordinators in their areas and have a responsibility for all parts of the geographical area, regardless of whether housing is owned or rented from the council or a housing association. Local authorities would not draw a line on the road and say, "On this side of the road, the flood exists and, on the other side of the road, the flood does not exist." It is important to reiterate that the local authorities have a comprehensive responsibility and that, therefore, the system will be maintained.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the First Minister consider enhancing the financial resources that the Executive makes available to local authorities when they submit flood prevention schemes?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not have the figures before me, but I know that there has been a sizable increase in the national budget for flooding schemes in recent years. If there are delays in the implementation of new flooding schemes, they are normally the result of local disagreements on the nature of those schemes. However, there is certainly no lack of funds available at national level to ensure that schemes can go ahead. I hope that, in those areas that have been affected in the recent past, those who are responsible will bring forward schemes quickly in order for us to be able to programme them and provide the necessary finance.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that one of the major aspects of severe winter weather is a huge rise in the demand for electricity? Given the tragic events at Hunterston this week, when we saw aging nuclear stock having to be taken out of service, what facilities will the First Minister provide to ensure that there will be no shortage of electricity supply this winter?