Scottish Parliament, 13 December 2007

476 contributions from 85 members. The official report.

Official Report 13 December 2007

Sport (Young People)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1018, in the name of Ross Finnie, on sport and young people.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Health and well-being are firmly on Scotland's national agenda. The potential for an uplift in participation in sport has never been greater. We have the prospect of the London Olympics, which are scheduled for 2012, and the Commonwealth games are coming to Glasgow in 2014.

In such circumstances, one might have thought that Scotland's national agency for sport—sportscotland—would be looking forward to playing a crucial role in developing the country's well-being and sporting prowess. Not so. Instead, sportscotland is in limbo, its future threatened by the Scottish National Party Government's categorical manifesto commitment to "abolish sportscotland".

The abolition process is already under way, but in a most unusual and unsatisfactory manner. The Government has declined to publish a consultation document, which would have provided a critique of sportscotland's performance, set out the Government's case for abolition, posited its preferred position and invited comment. Instead, the Minister for Communities and Sport and his civil servants are discussing with a whole range of sporting bodies we know not what—except for soliciting support to abolish sportscotland.

In his interview with the Sunday Herald on 30 September, the Minister for Communities and Sport admitted:

"Maybe the word 'review' isn't the most appropriate one, because the commitment in our manifesto was pretty clear".

I say to the minister that that is not consultation as we know it, and it is a shoddy way to treat sportscotland and its dedicated staff.

The objectives of sportscotland, as set out in its royal charter, include:

"(a) fostering, supporting and encouraging the development of sport and physical recreation among the public at large in Scotland;

(b) the achievement of excellence in sport and physical recreation; and

(c) the provision of facilities"

to secure those aims.

Let us examine more closely sportscotland's national functions. First, the royal charter is clear that sportscotland's role is to advise Government on policy and operational issues, on the impact of any proposed legislation, on local sports matters and on technical sport development issues. There is nothing in its constitution about functions of setting policy or targets. That is a crucial point. The only reason that the SNP proffers for abolishing sportscotland is to be found in its manifesto, which I quote:

"national policy and targets will become a ministerial responsibility, advised by sports governing bodies and other organisations involved in physical recreation."

I have news for the SNP Government: that is precisely what happens at present; only the advice is co-ordinated through sportscotland. No other reason is given by the Government for the proposed abolition, and that reason does not stand up to elementary scrutiny.

Secondly, a co-ordination role is vital to securing the national delivery of any Government's sports policy and strategy. Co-ordinating, supporting and bringing together the diverse range of individuals and bodies that run sport can only be achieved effectively at a national level. Specialist sports development expertise needs to be held at a national level. There is a clear need to set standards for sport at a national level. Liberal Democrats believe that sportscotland is uniquely placed to deliver that co-ordinating role.

Chris Robison, policy director of the Scottish Sports Association, which represents some 50 governing bodies, had this to say—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Fifty?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

That is 50 out of 70, which is not bad.

He said:

"our governing bodies believe the role of sportscotland is fairly clear; as an organisation it adds value, and some of the functions it provides are absolutely essential to our members."

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I seek clarification. I am not clear from Ross Finnie's motion, nor from what he has said so far, whether his view is that sportscotland, as it stands, is the only model that can deliver for sport in Scotland. Does he accept that changes could improve the process?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I have never suggested, nor do I suggest, that any organisation—anywhere at any time—cannot do things better. The minister should not try to mislead us by telling us that the Government is reviewing the matter and is now looking for changes. The SNP's commitment was clear: it wanted to abolish sportscotland.

Sportscotland has a crucial role in co-ordinating how we invest money in sport. It invests some £30 million of Scottish Government capital and revenue resources and around £18.5 million of national lottery funding, in accordance with the legislative and policy directions that it receives. Sportscotland maximises the impact of the totality of that investment by integrating its two funding streams and by targeting the investment in the strategic plans of partners. That integrated approach is crucial, and it enables sportscotland to invest in national bodies, including the Scottish governing bodies. It also enables investment in the active schools network and the Scottish Institute of Sport, which prepares Scotland's best athletes to perform on the world stage.

That integrated approach cannot be achieved by Government, simply because it is the law that an independent organisation must oversee the distribution of lottery funds. Neither can it be achieved by local authorities. Liberal Democrats support the integration of the funding streams and believe that sportscotland has developed the knowledge and expertise to optimise investment in sport. Creating a new independent body to administer lottery funding, as the SNP Government appears to wish to do, would be manifest nonsense.

I finish by quoting from sportscotland's recently published annual review:

"Sport can have a profound effect on people's lives. Whether it's our future athletes being inspired by world class performances or school children becoming more active through our Active Schools Network, we know it has a massive impact and plays a crucial role in improving the nation's health, education and confidence."

Advising, co-ordinating and investing in sport are the roles that sportscotland fulfils. By and large, it fulfils them well. That is why Liberal Democrats believe that sportscotland should be retained. That is why I ask Parliament to support the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament rejects the case for the abolition of sportscotland; notes the importance of grass-roots sport and the opportunities that currently exist to increase sporting participation and enhance sporting performance, particularly among young people, in Scotland as we look forward to the London Olympics of 2012 and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games of 2014; recognises that sportscotland has established itself as an effective arms-length body for distributing both Treasury and lottery funding as well as successfully performing important co-ordinating and strategic functions in the development of integrated sporting performance pathways, and therefore calls for sportscotland to be retained.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

This debate affords us the opportunity to emphasise the importance that the Government attributes to the contribution that sport can make to the lives of our young people.

In response to the opening remarks of Ross Finnie, I say that health and well-being is at the top of the political agenda, and it has been—strangely enough—since May, because there is now an SNP Government, and no longer the Lib-Lab pact.

This debate is premature. It would be logical and sensible to have a debate on this subject after the review is complete and the outcome is announced, and that is what my amendment offers Parliament. We cannot freeze sportscotland in time, as the motion attempts to do.

The review of sportscotland is being carried out within the context of our commitment to create a simpler, more effective public sector in Scotland by getting rid of duplication and simplifying structures. The review is examining whether sportscotland's current functions will continue to be necessary and, if so, which organisational arrangements will be most effective in delivering them.

We are committed to improving sport in Scotland, and the needs of sport are central to our decision-making process. That is why all the principal organisations that represent sports interests in Scotland were consulted. That included direct consultation with a number of Scottish governing bodies of sport, and a number of SGB group workshops, led by the Scottish Sports Association, which is the representative organisation for the governing bodies. That enabled all governing bodies to input into the process. In addition, other organisations, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Institute of Sport, the area institutes of sport and the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland inputted into the review.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

When the minister met those various bodies, did they say that they wanted to abolish sportscotland?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The bodies had a variety of views on the future of sportscotland, ranging from supporting its retention, as some of them do, at one end of the spectrum, to seeking complete change at the other end of the spectrum. There are a range of views on the future of sportscotland, and we are listening to them.

The consultation process was carried out through a combination of written correspondence and face-to-face discussions with key stakeholders. We have the best interests of Scottish sport at heart and have taken a flexible approach to the review of sportscotland. We have focused our consultation on the organisations that really matter in the delivery of sport in Scotland. The feedback from the stakeholders indicated that there is scope for simplifying the current sporting landscape.

I am conscious that the final decision on the future of sportscotland may have an impact on the future of the staff at sportscotland. It is therefore crucial that we put in place the best options for the delivery of sport in Scotland. I intend to announce the outcome of the review early in the new year.

The Scottish Institute of Sport and the area institutes have a proven track record of developing high-performance athletes, and the active schools programme is delivering change at the entrance to the pathways. It is now important to join those elements effectively. I believe that developing local community clubs and activities is the missing link in the pathways structure.

It is crucial for the delivery of sport in Scotland that we do not create a bureaucratic and layered structure. It is therefore incumbent on us to put in place the systems and structures, and the motivational coaches and individuals to enable people to achieve their aspirations and goals and reach their true potential.

As Minister for Communities and Sport, I have had the pleasure of attending many sporting events and witnessing the wide range of opportunities that are available to our young people. I am confident that Scots are passionate about sport and that many people who are not currently involved in sport have much to offer. The 2014 Commonwealth games will provide a tremendous opportunity to stimulate such people to become involved in sport, whether as a participant, an official, a coach or a volunteer.

We are committed to reducing the number of public bodies in Scotland, but I assure members that the needs of sport are central to the review process and the final decisions on the future arrangements.

I assure members that we as a Government are committed to offering more choices and more chances for young people to take part in sport throughout Scotland. We have a framework in place for sport in "Reaching Higher: Building on the Success of Sport 21", and we have a new and dynamic relationship with local authorities, which will allow us to continue to work in partnership to drive forward our priorities.

We will shortly announce a new management structure to oversee the development of our sports policies to deliver a legacy from the 2014 Commonwealth games. We have had a successful outcome from the spending review, which sees increased Government investment in sport.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the minister comment on the fact that Glasgow City Council, which will host the Commonwealth games, has explicitly supported the role of sportscotland in the preparation for those games?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As I said, we have listened to many of the views that have been expressed. We are listening to all the major stakeholders in sport in Scotland and we will take on board their views. We will announce a decision early in the new year. We are listening to the sporting bodies and the experts in Scotland.

What irritates the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats is that they are no longer part of the process because they lost the election in May. We are consulting the experts in sport, not the Liberal Democrats or the Labour Party. They should get over it. They lost the election. The people decided who should be the Government, and it was not the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats.

We are beginning to put in place the building blocks that will enable sport to enhance the quality of young people's lives, aid their educational and social development, and reinforce Scotland's place as a truly sporting nation.

Now is the time to put in place a structure for sport in Scotland that is lean, efficient and sharply focused on delivery. Our sporting structures and bodies need to be fit for purpose, and that is what we will deliver.

I move amendment S3M-1018.2, to leave out from "rejects" to end and insert:

"notes that sportscotland is under review as part of a wider review of the public sector delivery landscape; welcomes the intention to remove any duplication or unnecessary bureaucracy; believes that there should be a parliamentary debate on this matter following the outcome of the review; recognises the important role that sportscotland has played as an effective arms-length body for distributing both Treasury and lottery funding, as well as successfully performing important co-ordinating and strategic functions in the development of integrated sporting performance pathways; further notes the importance of grassroots sport and the opportunities that currently exist to increase participation and enhance sporting performance, in particular those presented by the London Olympics in 2012 and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in 2014, and in this context believes that it is opportune to consider the effectiveness of current structures to ensure that they best meet the needs of Scottish sport."

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate about sportscotland. I will come straight to the point and say that the Scottish Conservatives simply do not believe that any case has been made in any quarter that convinces us of the need to abolish sportscotland. I hope that the Scottish Government will not do that, despite the SNP manifesto pledge. Members will be aware that we were complimentary about sportscotland in our manifesto. Since then, I have consulted a wide range of sports organisations in Scotland, which are mostly supportive of the role that sportscotland plays.

The Government says that the Liberal Democrat motion is premature, because the Liberal Democrats have not waited for the results of the Government review. I suppose that the Government has a point, but surely, in that case, it was also premature of the SNP to state in its manifesto that it wished to abolish sportscotland before it had seen the books. The SNP said not that it wanted to review sportscotland, but that it wanted to abolish it. The Conservatives look forward to hearing any positive proposals that the SNP might have to improve sportscotland—hence my amendment—and thereby improve the delivery of sporting opportunities and physical education for young and old in Scotland.

The SNP amendment mentions further debate. We certainly agree that there should be further debate, but we cannot support that amendment because of the SNP's declared intention in its manifesto to execute sportscotland without a fair trial. If the SNP is intent on changing only the name, just as it changed the name of the Executive to the Government, and just as the previous Executive changed the name of the Scottish Arts Council to creative Scotland, I suggest that that change would have to offer public benefit, otherwise it would be a waste of time and money. If a pencil is blunt, sharpen it—one does not necessarily need a new one. However, sportscotland is a sharp organisation.

The Scottish Conservatives have made it quite clear that we do not want excessively bureaucratic quangos, but given that there is no widespread support—indeed, there is practically no support whatever—for replacing sportscotland with an unspecified organisation, where is the logic in doing so? The only logic is that the SNP pledged in its manifesto to abolish sportscotland. I hope that the SNP is big enough, with the benefit of hindsight, to alter that pledge today. That is especially important because, given that the 2012 Olympics and the 2014 Commonwealth games are coming up, we have so many other priorities, not least in encouraging more of our young people to participate in all kinds of sport.

The previous Executive failed to deliver on many of the sport 21 targets. Instead of abolishing sportscotland, the new Government would be better placed telling us how it intends to improve delivery on the proposals in "Reaching Higher". There might be ways in which sportscotland can become a leaner, meaner machine. However, abolishing the expertise that has built up, which has coincided with a successful period for Scottish sport, and replacing sportscotland with an as yet undefined organisation, which might mean that sports policy is centralised within the Scottish civil service, is simply not what our grass-roots sports organisations want.

Members will have noticed that the SNP amendment does not mention the abolition of sportscotland. If the SNP had made it plain that rather than abolish sportscotland it wanted to improve it, we might have been able to support its amendment. However, if the SNP is going to remain dangling from its own petard, given its manifesto pledge, I do not see how we can support its amendment.

Perhaps the minister has reflected on the overdogmatic abolition pledge in the manifesto and lightened up his attitude. If he continues to reflect, we might be able to reflect with him. However, if ministers lose the vote tonight, as seems likely, they will have to shoulder the blame, because they have simply not made the case for the abolition of sportscotland and they have not taken with them the Scottish sporting community, which is united in opposing sportscotland's abolition.

I hope that the current review will take heed of the debate and the vote, and ensure that we focus on what really matters: encouraging our youngsters to experience the pleasure of sport and providing the best possible support for our sportsmen and sportswomen.

I move amendment S3M-1018.1, to insert after first "sportscotland":

"without prejudice to any proposals which may improve the performance of that body".

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The future of sportscotland is important in itself, but it is also critical in showing how the Executive conducts its business.

We in the Labour Party take the view that we need stability in sport at this stage. We recognise the important role of sportscotland in a range of areas, including the one that Children 1st highlighted in its briefing on child protection.

Others will talk in more detail about the role of sportscotland, but I want to focus on the process of parliamentary and external engagement. Like any good historian, I intend to refer to primary sources—the words of the minister himself.

On 1 November, in response to a question from Margo MacDonald, the First Minister acknowledged that there was an interesting judgment to be made about where certain functions should lie. There was a case for agencies to take responsibility in some circumstances and for the Government to take over responsibilities in other circumstances. That is why he said that the Government was consulting on the proposal. I asked whether the First Minister would ensure that the consultation was real. He blithely replied:

"The Minister for Communities ... has already made that commitment ... Of course, a full consultation is being carried out, and the minister needs no encouragement from me to make such a commitment."—[Official Report, 1 November 2007; c 2984.]

I did not wish to be harsh in my expectations of what the consultation might be, so I checked with a credible source—the Scottish Government's website, which said:

"Typically consultations involve a written paper inviting answers to specific questions or more general views about the material presented. Written papers are distributed to organisations and individuals with an interest in the area of consultation, and they are also posted under the current consultations section of this website, enabling a wider audience to access the paper and submit their responses."

Fine. Off I went to see what was posted. I did a search, and the result was:

"Sorry no results found that match your query 'future of sportscotland'."

I then thought that I should try the minister, so I sought information through a series of parliamentary questions. Could the responses to his correspondence be published? No, that would be inappropriate. Could his letters to organisations that he consulted be published? No, that would be inappropriate. Could he perhaps publish an analysis of the responses before a decision was made? No.

One wonders what the minister had to hide. That bizarre reticence was explained in an answer to Patricia Ferguson on 26 November, which said:

"The review ... is not a public consultation"

and that the Government would seek permission to publish responses

"once the outcome of the review has been announced."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 November 2007; S3W-6487.]

Perhaps someone should advise the First Minister that his confidence that his minister needed no encouragement to have a full consultation was a touch misplaced.

Stewart Maxwell might have been right when he said initially that the review was internal—but then again, perhaps not. In evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, planning officials outlined the workings of Scottish planning policy 11, which gives sportscotland a critical role. They confirmed that the planning directorate had not been consulted and that, even if sportscotland went,

"we would expect the function of getting clear advice from some expert authority on particular proposals to remain."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 21 November 2007; c 248.]

Even if sportscotland went, we would need another body to meet important planning needs in our communities. No sense of decluttering would be felt and duplication would not be removed. Perhaps that is why the minister did not have the confidence to consult his planning officials.

For those who are finding it hard to keep up, I will recap. We have a commitment to a full consultation, but the consultation is not public and is clearly not full. We have an internal review that does not obviously involve internal consultation. We do not know what was asked in correspondence or what the replies were. We know that several important sport and community organisations and equality groups such as Children 1st were not consulted, and that the public cannot participate in the consultation. We do not know what would happen to sportscotland's key functions, because the minister says:

"Until the outcome of the review is known I am unable to comment on who would be responsible for specific areas of sportscotland's work."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 14 November 2007; S3W-6017.]

Call me old-fashioned, but I would have thought that dealing with that was the consultation's role.

I regret that I do not have time to say everything that I wanted to, but I will make one more point. The minister is the Humpty Dumpty of the Scottish Parliament—words mean what he wants them to mean. I hope that he will listen to the Parliament's will today, and I look forward to his having the grace to announce a proper timetable to discuss sportscotland's future and the courage to ask genuine questions about the genuine options that are available.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

In the past couple of years, I have spoken in the chamber and elsewhere of my desire to keep sportscotland in west Edinburgh. As the Liberal Democrat constituency member for that area, I will today speak of my desire to keep sportscotland—full stop.

Every one of us should be driven by the desire to do what is in Scottish sport's best interests. The Parliament's job is to develop and support sport, and not only for the relatively few high-performance athletes who will be lucky enough to compete for medals in the Commonwealth games, the world championships or the Olympics. It is also essential that we support sport at the grass roots and that we use sport in its widest sense to improve our country's health and well-being. Sportscotland is central to that vision of sport for all. That vision resulted in a commitment of £102 million of additional support for sport in our May manifesto.

I ask the Government two big questions. First, what is the problem? Secondly, what will the Government put in sportscotland's place? We have not heard answers to either of those questions. The answer that the Government will scale back sportscotland shows not only a lack of vision, but a complete and utter lack of clarity. Without the answers, we cannot tell whether any alternative would bring greater efficiencies, be more effective or be any cheaper to the public purse.

The budget line still stands for sportscotland until 2011, so the money is available. If that money were chopped up among 32 local authorities, 76 national sporting bodies, a bunch of civil servants ensconced in Victoria Quay at the command of ministers, a separate body to distribute lottery funding and a separate body to consider planning decisions, it would be at least debatable whether the SNP could come up with a proposal that was as cost effective as the current arrangements.

I have met sportscotland's management and I know that they are happy to consider ways of streamlining the agency. The agency is not setting its face against change; it wants to look forward to a successful future—a golden future for all who are involved in Scottish sport. I fail to understand the logic of dismantling the national body for sport at such a critical time for Scottish sport, in the lead-up to the Olympics and the Commonwealth games. Those events, not dismantling and disrupting the national sports body, should be our focus.

It has been said before, and I argue, that if we did not have sportscotland, we would have to invent it, for several reasons. Its position is unique. It works with a range of partners, from central and local government to local sports clubs and national bodies. It has a national role of working with others to develop and deliver national policies and standards, for example in coach education. It provides a national voice for sport. It operates independently of the Government and, in its role as adviser, it sometimes tells the Government unpleasant home truths—members may remember reading the report about sports facilities provision a year or two ago; I see Patricia Ferguson nodding.

Because sportscotland exists, we know that national sports priorities are more likely to be delivered and that access to sports throughout Scotland is greater, which is particularly important in safeguarding minor sports. Funding sport is not a statutory requirement for councils. If we want to safeguard the future of sport, we cannot put it in the same local authority funding package as schools and social work services and expect it to come out unscathed.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No, I want to make progress.

The Scottish Government says that it wants to cut out duplication. Sportscotland helps to streamline funding support for athletes and organisations. It distributes not only Government funds but lottery funding, which local and central Government cannot legally distribute. That simplified and integrated system is easier for people to use, and it means that athletes and sporting bodies can concentrate on what they are meant to do, and that sportscotland can make the best use of the money that is at its disposal to build sporting strategy and put significant funding into national and local facilities.

Sportscotland is a crucial partner of local authorities. It assists them with specialist advice and hands-on support. It is a statutory consultee on planning decisions about playing fields while, at least currently—although goodness knows what the Government will do on planning in the future—councils and central Government do not have that role.

The agency also has a unique role in delivering practical backroom assistance to more than 40 of Scotland's 76 national sporting bodies. It fulfils a range of functions, from direct administration support for payroll services and information technology to long-term facilities planning, marketing, workforce development and coaching. All that support means that our individual sporting bodies can concentrate on getting on with their jobs.

I pay tribute to sportscotland staff for their hard work. They have had to live through a great period of uncertainty about a possible relocation, and now they face an even greater threat. That is having an impact on recruitment, morale and staff retention.

This is not the time to dismantle sportscotland. This is the time to get behind Scotland's sportsmen, sportswomen and children to deliver a better and healthier sporting future for our country. I hope that the Parliament will do that today.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I welcome the debate, but I confess that I am somewhat surprised that the Lib Dems have the nerve to hold a debate on sport, given that they are one of the parties that have in effect ignored the need for change in Scottish sport for the past eight years. In that time, they showed that they like to talk the talk of sport but that, when it comes to delivering, they certainly do not walk the walk.

The Lib Dems are trying to portray themselves as the saviours of Scottish sport, but let us look at the legacy of their period in office. The Liberal Democrats are one of the parties that left us a national sporting agency with an increasing level of bureaucracy that is consuming the money that should be going to front-line sport. They are one of the parties that were responsible, along with sportscotland, for the implementation of sport 21, in which many of the key targets were not achieved. On top of that, in some areas there was deterioration from the starting baseline.

The Liberal Democrats are one of the parties that introduced a national and regional sports facilities strategy. So far, not one of those facilities has opened its doors to the public, although movement is now being made under this Government. They are one of the parties that left us with a deficit of £2.1 billion in lack of investment in our existing sports facilities—a legacy of failure.

On the other side of the chamber we have the Labour Party, whose Government at Westminster wants to remove £13 million from sports lottery funding in Scotland—money that is meant to go to grass-roots sports. Labour and Liberal Democrat members have a brass neck in trying to portray themselves this morning as the saviours of sport in Scotland. For the past eight years, successive sports ministers—including you, Ms Ferguson—have hidden behind sportscotland when it has made difficult decisions. You evaded accountability on such issues and ducked out of making difficult decisions.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We have already heard from you.

Patricia Ferguson was meant to establish a review of sportscotland, but she failed to do so. She ducked out of that, because she did not have the bottle or commitment to deliver on it.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As sports minister, you had years to do something, but I am afraid that you failed dreadfully. We do not need to hear any more from you.

The review provides us with a real opportunity to change things for the better, because its underlying principle is to ensure that we improve on the mediocrity that we have inherited from the previous Administration and that we get the right infrastructure in place to deliver for Scottish sport. I am aware that some people in sport are anxious about the possibility of change. Whenever change comes along, it is inevitable that people are concerned about its implications. However, I could not disagree more with those who say that we should just continue with the status quo because the Commonwealth games are coming along. Now is the time to get the system right. We should not wait until 2014 before realising that we should have changed it seven years previously.

We need a new approach that reduces the bureaucracy that we inherited from the previous Administration, that takes sport forward and that ensures that those who are involved in sport have a clear voice on and direct line into the policy direction that is taken. Those who oppose any change to sportscotland are settling for the mediocrity that we had for the past eight to 10 years under their Administration. We need to move forward. We should support the minister's amendment so that we can change sport in Scotland for the better and for the future.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I remind all members that during their speeches they should not speak directly to other members across the chamber. They should always speak through the chair and refer to other members in the third person. I do not know for how long I will have to keep going on about the issue, but I will do so for as long as is necessary.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

On 9 November, Scotland celebrated when Mike Fennell, the president of the Commonwealth Games Federation, announced that Glasgow would host the 2014 Commonwealth games. Scotland was right to celebrate, because we all know that statistics show that host nations do better than others in the medal tally. We also know that host nations enjoy a boost in their international reputation and can enjoy a renewed feeling of self-confidence. However, if we as a nation are to reap the benefits and legacy of 2014, we will have to work hard and co-operatively over the next seven years. Our young people, in particular, stand to benefit from the games and from all the opportunities that will be available to be involved.

To be frank, I entered this morning's debate with a feeling more of sorrow than of anger. Sport gains most from a Commonwealth games, and sport must be our priority as we take the games forward. Today our question must be, how can we do that if the organisation that takes sport forward on behalf of the Government and which offers so many services to sports governing bodies is abolished or emasculated? Who will work with sports governing bodies to encourage them to aim higher? Who will ensure that there is support for our young people, who share our ambitions? At a time when we are united in our support for and encouragement of sport, it is particularly sad that we must have this debate.

I welcome the fact that, as his amendment indicates, the minister has decided at long last that there will be a debate on the review that he has initiated, but that is too little, too late. We are debating the matter today; I would like the minister to indicate whether he will abide by the will of Parliament, as expressed today. Will he listen to what MSPs around the chamber say? Will he take that as our contribution to his internal review—the much-vaunted consultation to which none of us has had the opportunity to input?

The Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture was quite right recently to reiterate her support for creative Scotland. However, there is a question that must be asked about that: what is the difference between the position of creative Scotland and that of sportscotland? Creative Scotland will support the arts in Scotland and those organisations that deliver on the ground. It will also support our cultural co-ordinators programme and the work of Government, and provide lottery funding on behalf of the lottery distributors. What does sportscotland do? It supports sports governing bodies, encourages participation in sport in our communities and distributes lottery funding. Why will we save creative Scotland but abolish sportscotland? Why is the Government's agenda skewed in that way?

Why, when I asked the minister whether he had consulted the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland, did he tell me that Louise Martin, the then chair of the council, was a member of the board of sportscotland? I have news for the minister—she is not. It is unacceptable that the council had to volunteer a response to the minister, instead of being asked to give its views.

I am intrigued by the fact that, in response to a written question from me, the minister indicated that there had been consultation with the university of sport. As far as I am aware, the university of sport exists only in the Labour Party manifesto and has not been delivered since May. I am delighted that the minister thinks that it is important enough to consult, but I wonder how he managed to do that, given that it does not exist.

I will close, as I am conscious of the time. Before doing so, I draw the minister's attention to another Labour manifesto commitment—to designate 2014 as the year of sport, in recognition of our ambition for sport and of the opportunities that Scots and people internationally will have to enjoy sport that is hosted in this country. Will the minister designate 2014 as a year of sport and work as hard as we would have worked to make it a success?

Finally, I say to the minister, as I had to say to the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism a few weeks ago, that he should resist the temptation to make change just because he can.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The irony behind the motion is galling. The Lib Dems, who have an awful record of supporting sport while in power, are criticising the new SNP Government for trying to clean up their legacy.

The Lib Dems have the cheek to note in their motion

"the importance of grass-roots sport and the opportunities that currently exist to increase sporting participation",

but when they were running Inverclyde Council over the past four years, they decided to build a secondary school, using public-private partnership funding, on the site of football pitches. Regrettably, the Inverclyde population is receiving a double whammy—the vast cost implications of PPP and the loss of football pitches to the local community.

Unfortunately, the Lib Dems are not alone in that respect. Four years ago, Renfrewshire Council, which was then Labour run, commissioned a report on the Apex centre in Paisley and was told that the centre needed £400,000-worth of urgent repairs. The council refused to invest in the centre, which is now so dilapidated that repairing it would cost £1 million. It is therefore now recommended that the centre should be closed. That is a prime example of Labour investment in community and sporting facilities. The most important obstacle to participation levels in sport in Scotland is a lack of quality facilities. It is well understood that our climate is not akin to that of Australia, which means that it may be difficult for us to encourage some outdoor activities. That emphasises the need for top-notch facilities.

The new generation of artificial grass offers an ideal remedy to the problems of traditional pitches, which are expensive and time-consuming to maintain. Such pitches have restricted use, and tend to be less playable in the winter, particularly in the west of Scotland. Statistically, natural grass pitches can be used for 150 to 200 hours a year. Third-generation pitches, by comparison, cost roughly the same to construct, are significantly cheaper to maintain, and can be used for 2,000 to 2,500 hours a year. The advances in artificial grass technology—which gives more usage, especially in bad weather—provide the opportunity for a dramatic increase in sport participation, particularly in our nation's top two sports of football and rugby.

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

Presumably the member was proud to stand on the SNP manifesto commitment to abolish sportscotland. Is he still proud of that manifesto commitment?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As the minister said, a review is taking place at the moment.

My colleague Michael Matheson mentioned the 10 new regional sports facilities that were announced by the previous Administration in 2004. Three years later, not one of those facilities has opened its doors and only one has made it past the first stage of development. Under the Labour-Lib Dem Executive, the Tories, and London Labour, the number of public sports pitches fell dramatically—130 pitches have been lost since 1996.

The previous Administration left Scotland in a poor position for sporting facilities. The SNP has been left with that mess, but in our short time in power we have already begun taking steps to sort things out. In the past week, the Minister for Communities and Sport has announced a £1.1 million investment in sports facilities throughout Scotland. That will include funding for projects in Aberdeen, Paisley, Peebles, Torridon, Scone, Loch Tummel, Stirling, Stornoway and Hawick. The Government has also announced its intention to create a sports facilities fund, whereby community sports clubs can bid for money to improve facilities, provided that those facilities can be used by the whole community.

Unlike the previous Administration, the Government understands the importance of providing Scotland's people with quality facilities. It is therefore vital that money is distributed to support those facilities. That is why I am glad that the SNP Government has started to take the necessary steps. I urge members to reject the Lib Dem motion and to back the Government amendment.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I apologise to Ross Finnie for failing to be here for the start of his speech. In mitigation, I would plead that I was speaking to a man about setting up more than 35 sports in Edinburgh—that was what kept me.

This is sportscotland's mission statement:

"Our mission is to encourage everyone in Scotland to discover and develop their own sporting experience, helping to increase participation and improve performances in Scottish sport."

In 2003, my colleague Peter Warren and I went to the annual general meeting of sportscotland. We were not impressed. Contrary to the sentiments in the mission statement, the emphasis in 2003 was on improving the performance of elite athletes. There was little understanding or sympathy for the people sitting up the back, who provide the underpinning for the production of elite medal winners and keep the structure of sport in Scotland in place—the coaches, the club officials, the family members and other volunteers. When Peter and I left the AGM, we were surrounded by the representatives of smaller sporting organisations and clubs for sports such as badminton, boxing and water sports. They were concerned about the thread that had run through the AGM, which was the relevance of the so-called minority sports and local clubs in plans for greater sporting glory in track and field and in the biggest team sports, which of course are rugby and football.

The skewed emphasis on the elite athletes has now gone, and sportscotland is fulfilling its function, as outlined in the mission statement. That is not just what it says; it is what it does. I have a lot of sympathy with Michael Matheson—he and I usually agree on such matters—but he must accept that sportscotland has mended its ways. We talk about sinners who repent—I am sure that, as a good Christian gentleman, he would agree.

Sportscotland has done things at local level. For example, in Stevenson, a lottery grant went to the Evolution skate park. Sportscotland helped to get the club organised and to develop a supervision and activity programme. Active membership grew to 1,500, and 250 women go each week—previously it was five. In Kinross, sportscotland was approached by a community group that wanted a swimming pool. Sportscotland did the research and advised the group about moveable floors, which mean that handicapped swimmers can take part.

Sportscotland is doing the practical business for which it was put in place. It is linking extremely well with the Scottish Institute of Sport, and we are beginning to see the results, including improved performance by elite athletes. I doubt that we could devise a better way to improve our national health indices and to widen and deepen the pool of potential champions than by persuading by example and providing facilities such as those that I have mentioned, by joining up the schools and club sport, and by expanding the number of qualified coaches. Those are the activities that win medals—the medals come only when enough people are taking part. Sportscotland has switched its emphasis to that. Although there is money involved and the Government will want to consult more about how that money is dispensed, I urge the Government to support sportscotland.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Ross Finnie's motion talks about

"the importance of grass-roots sport and the opportunities that currently exist to increase sporting participation and enhance sporting performance, particularly among young people, in Scotland as we look forward to the London Olympics of 2012 and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games of 2014".

When Margaret Smith talked about the unpleasant news that had been given to her by sportscotland, I presume that she meant the £2 billion of underfunding by successive Governments. The SNP has had to pick up that mess.

Setting aside for the moment the enormous cheek of the motion in the light of Ross Finnie's Administration's calamitous record as a custodian of sport in Scotland—the gross neglect of facilities, the huge loss of public sports pitches and the regional sports facilities that never opened and which the SNP are only now getting on the road—it is necessary to point to evidence that was given by Julia Bracewell, the chair of sportscotland, to the Health and Sport Committee. Before she unreservedly accepted the easy link between sporting excellence and participation in grass-roots sport that Mr Finnie implies, Ms Bracewell told the committee:

"Every nation that has hosted an Olympic games has seen its elite athletes perform better at those games. If you ask whether any games have helped to increase participation in sport, the academics will say no". —[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 21 November 2007; c 253.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I hope that the member recognises that sportscotland and the previous Scottish Administration appreciated that very point, which was what was going to be different about the 2014 Commonwealth games. Take away sportscotland, and that is put in jeopardy.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That is the point I am coming to.

We are asking our sporting infrastructure not just for a platform that will ensure that our athletes perform well in 2014. We are asking it to do what no nation has ever done before, namely to build on that sporting success so that people—young or old, obese or lazy—get off their couches and take exercise that will not only enhance their lives but enable them to stay healthier and live longer than would otherwise be the case. That is a tall order, which can be achieved only if we make certain over the next few months that the infrastructure is in perfect health, lean and fit for purpose.

In the budget review group's evidence to the Health and Sport Committee in October, we heard disconcerting news that there was indirect spend on the Scottish Institute of Sport.

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

I am confused, because no SNP member has stated this morning why the party's manifesto promise to abolish sportscotland has turned into a review. Does the member admit that the SNP was wrong?

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I will come to that point later in my speech, but I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Purvis on the fantastic beard that he has grown; I assume that he has been seeing Mary Scanlon for her bog myrtle cream.

The budget review group said in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee:

"We highlighted the difficulty that we had in finding what outcomes were looked for across all the portfolios ... there were far too many priorities".

"We did not get back from the Executive any evidence to suggest that the institute had been the subject of a rigorous review".

"What is the outcome that we are looking for with regard to sport?" "Quite often, we found that the staff who were responsible for major budgets had not been trained properly".—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 3 October 2007; c 121, 120, 121, 122.]

The Howat report mentions

"a worrying trend of reduced participation"

and says that the budget review group is concerned that there is

"no objective basis on which to measure sportscotland's performance."

When the SNP first looked at sportscotland, it seemed to be an organisation that had to be abolished because it was not fit for purpose. Having looked further, it is quite obvious that the appalling political management of the organisation in the past means that a review is necessary at this time.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This has been a good debate, which has given us an excellent opportunity to celebrate sport in Scotland and to look to its future. Sport and young people make a positive contribution to our society and to the sporting successes of our nation. It is crucial for the future of sport in this country that it be effectively governed, funded and co-ordinated.

This morning, we have heard some cogent arguments about why sportscotland should be allowed to continue to play its role. I hope that the minister will accept that he is on the losing side and agree that, although sportscotland might need some improvement, it certainly does not need to be abolished. As Jamie McGrigor stated, Scottish Conservatives totally reject the notion of abolishing sportscotland; the organisation is popular, it delivers much-needed and highly regarded expertise in effective partnerships to assist sports governing bodies in developing sport across Scotland, and it effectively integrates the investment of resources in Scottish sport.

The 2012 Olympics and the 2014 Commonwealth games give Scotland a unique opportunity to build a great sporting legacy. Vitally, that legacy must be felt in every community the length and breadth of Scotland, and that is where sportscotland can play a leading role. It is notable that whenever national sporting events take place, we see our young people respond, often by taking to the streets or the local park to try out sports such as tennis, football, rugby, and, going by last weekend, even boxing.

I acknowledge the role that is played by Scotland's sports governing bodies in encouraging and nurturing young people who are interested in their respective sports. Specifically, I mention the work of the Scottish Rugby Union in developing a coaching network. Scottish rugby runs many coaching courses that are aimed at people at all levels of the game, and it is trying to ensure that every player, from mini to adult, has the opportunity to develop their full potential by receiving training from qualified, up-to-date coaches who are continually seeking to improve their coaching skills and knowledge. Sportscotland has played a pivotal role in developing that framework and, in partnership with the many local authorities that have a dedicated coaching officer, it is providing the sport that our young sporting talents of the future need to develop.

As Margo MacDonald rightly said, the Scottish Institute of Sport has been successful in helping Scotland's elite athletes to achieve success.

To lose a structure such as sportscotland would be quite wrong and clearly not what our grass-roots sporting organisations want. Every MSP knows of significant investments that have been made by sportscotland in their constituency, and it is vital that that body continues to work towards giving everyone access to high-quality sports facilities.

In my region, Aberdeen City Council recently received a sportscotland investment of £450,000 to assist with pavilion and pitch development at Hazelhead. This year alone will see sportscotland's total investment in sports facilities reach £18.2 million.

I emphasise the importance of the proposed new 50m swimming pool in Aberdeen to the development of tomorrow's young swimming stars from north of the central belt. I hope that the minister is fully aware how important it is that he gives early commitment to that exciting project.

The ability of sportscotland to integrate the investment of resources in sport, the effective partnerships that it has built up, and the expertise that it has developed in assisting Scottish sports governing bodies are recognised by all sports organisations in Scotland. They all support sportscotland and, like us, they do not see a case for its abolition.

We support the retention of sportscotland, therefore if our amendment is accepted we will support the Liberal Democrats' motion at decision time. We hope that ministers will pay heed to today's important debate, and listen to the many voices throughout Scotland that are united in opposing sportscotland's abolition.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is regrettable that we are debating an issue on which we have had very little, if any, proper consultation. I listened with interest to my colleague Johann Lamont; in the words of my mother, she gave the minister a really good skelping for his behaviour during the past six months.

Government members have given us a series of interventions and speeches that are loud in rhetoric but which do not address any of the central points of the Liberal Democrats' motion. The motion raises a number of questions, and the Parliament's role is to interrogate the Government and ministers and identify the best way forward.

I believe that there is unanimity in the chamber that sport will be important during the next decade, and it is not enough for members to use this debate to claim that the previous Executive made no contribution to the Scottish sporting agenda. The previous Executive made the brave decision to go for the Commonwealth games. The previous Executive spoke about national and regional sports facilities, and at least tried to identify ways in which we can use activity and sport to tackle problems in communities across Scotland.

I will take no lectures from the Government about our commitment to sport when we were in government, or even as ordinary members representing our constituencies. At the end of the next 10 years, I will have in my area a new national arena and velodrome, a new pool at Tollcross, a national hockey centre at Glasgow Green, and, at the boundary of my constituency, the national football centre. That is not bad going for one member, and those developments will be in the commitments that I give during election campaigns.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

We have heard enough from Mr McKee, who made a wonderful but rather quaint speech.

What do we want to do about sport in Scotland? The minister has a chance. He said that sport is a priority and that we are debating it in the Parliament because the Government has made it a priority. However, the Liberal Democrats lodged the motion for today's debate because the minister would not answer any questions on specific issues. If the Parliament votes today as I anticipate that it will, what will your position be? You have already shifted your position.

This morning, I woke up to wonderful news of a

"Reprieve for national sports body"

on "BBC News 24". However, if members read about it online they will see that there is more to it than the headline suggests.

The point is, minister, that you have shifted your position. You were going to come to the Parliament in December and tell us what you were going to do; now you will do that in January.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Please speak through the chair, Mr McAveety.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is a dog's breakfast and a testimony to failure. The first 100 days of this Administration were not about sorting out the future of sportscotland; instead, there was a discussion about whether Scotland should have a national Olympics team. That was the minister's priority during the first 100 days.

Obviously, I am a great reader and I have been reading "Waiting for Godot", which is a wonderful read. Vladimir says:

"Let us not waste our time in idle discourse! ... Let us do something, while we have the chance!"

I agree. He goes on:

"It is not every day that we are needed ... But at this place, at this moment of time ... whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!"

It is not too late for the minister to change his mind on the abolition of sportscotland. The SNP has dumped every other major manifesto commitment, but if this one was to be dumped the minister would get unanimous support and he would be able to speak for Scotland; he could even wrap himself in a saltire and speak for Scotland. He needs to make the right decision for sport and retain sportscotland so that we can have a decade in which everyone can share the joy.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The debate has given me the opportunity to listen to Parliament's views on the review of sportscotland and the future needs and delivery structure for sport in Scotland, both for our young people and for our elite performers. We remain committed to reducing the number of public bodies in Scotland. Our aim is to create a simpler and more effective public sector in Scotland.

Having listened with interest to the points that have been raised in today's debate, I assure members that the needs of sport continue to remain central to our decision-making process. We have continually engaged with our key sporting stakeholders to ensure that their views are taken into account and fed into the review process on the future of sportscotland.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the minister please concede that it is disingenuous to claim that the review is objective if the question put was, "Why should we abolish sportscotland?"

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As the member should be well aware—I am surprised that he is not—that was not the question that was put. The remit of the review, I am afraid, was published. It was sent to the Health and Sport Committee, whose members all have a copy of it. The remit of the review is clearly on the record. That question was not asked in the review.

I reconfirm to Parliament, as I did in my opening speech, our commitment to announcing the outcome of the review in early January. However, discussions will not stop when the decision is announced. Involving key stakeholders in any change during the implementation process will be critical. We are committed to an on-going process of involvement with key stakeholders.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

As a matter of logic, would it not be sensible to consult people before making a decision rather than afterwards?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I apologise if the member has not been listening today—or for several months—but we have been consulting a whole range of stakeholders. As I said at the beginning of the debate, I know that it hurts that Labour members lost the election and that they are not involved in the process, but the fact of the matter—[ Interruption. ]

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Order.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The fact is that we are consulting sports stakeholders on the future for sport in Scotland. Now is the appropriate time to do that because we have seven years before the 2014 games in which to build for that legacy. We will do that.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the minister confirm that a growing number of those stakeholders are in favour of retaining sportscotland?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As I said in my opening speech, in response to an intervention from Jamie McGrigor, the opinions of stakeholders range from retention to abolition. Some are clearly of the view that they wish sportscotland to be retained, but many others can see the purpose of change, and some have said that sportscotland should be abolished.

It is paramount that a decision on the future of sportscotland delivers for all who participate in sport, from the grass roots to the elite. It must deliver for those who participate for fun as well as those who aspire to international sporting success. It must also deliver for the volunteers, coaches and governing bodies of sport—those who really deliver sport on the ground. The prospect of the London 2012 Olympic games and the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games creates a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a step change in how sport is delivered and in the impact that it has on Scottish life as a whole.

Having listened to a range of speeches from members across the chamber, I must point out that we need to recognise the current problems with delivery for sport. Things are not perfect, despite what the Lib Dems and Labour Party try to say. The motion states that sportscotland must remain, but it makes no mention of room for improvement. There are issues that need to be reviewed. In fact, a review of sportscotland was due a number of years ago, but the previous Administration utterly failed to carry that out. It is quite correct that we are carrying out a review.

In the debate, members have deliberately mixed up two different things. It is important that the delivery of sport by staff and experts is retained, but some members have mixed that up with the administrative structures that provide that necessary expertise and delivery. We absolutely support the experts and the staff in the delivery of sport, but we feel that the current structures are wrong. For example, Margaret Smith gave a speech of utter speculation that was based on nothing but personal opinions and was not based on any facts whatsoever—

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the minister give way?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister is just concluding.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As Michael Matheson said, we received a poor inheritance, given the £2 billion hole in investment in facilities. Responsibility for that lies with members on the former Administration's benches.

The Scottish Government's vision for sport is that every citizen should be physically active and able to enjoy first-class facilities to achieve their potential. We are confident that the outcome of the review will deliver a simpler, less bureaucratic structure that will provide sport with what it needs and what it has asked for. That will ensure that we can deliver our vision for sport in Scotland.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I have a great deal of respect for Stewart Maxwell, whom I believe to be an honourable and honest man, but he helps neither his nor his party's credibility today in trying to defend the indefensible. I have spoken with the minister both publicly and privately about sportscotland. I get the strong impression that he is quite uncomfortable with that part of the SNP's manifesto.

The minister and his colleagues insist on backing their manifesto pledge to scrap sportscotland but, as we have heard from many members—including Ross Finnie, Jamie McGrigor and Johann Lamont—scrapping sportscotland would be a retrograde step at a time when Scotland needs its expertise, knowledge and professionalism like never before.

As Frank McAveety, Nanette Milne and many others have said, sportscotland now performs a multitude of tasks very ably under the direction of Stewart Harris. I do not know how long ago SNP members dreamt up their bonfire of the quangos, but they must have been sleepwalking not to have noticed how much sportscotland has improved over the past few years with Mr Harris at the helm. He has turned sportscotland round from being a poorly performing body to—as Margo MacDonald acknowledged—one that ranks among the best in Scotland today.

Not only the Liberal Democrats but Labour and the Conservatives want sportscotland to be retained. Despite being given numerous chances to do so, neither the minister nor his Government have been able to provide a single persuasive argument as to why sportscotland should be scrapped, far less explain what they would replace it with and what could possibly be more efficient. One lesson that the Government has failed to learn in its short Administration is that it would have much more credibility if it just admitted that it was wrong sooner rather than later. Rather than work with sportscotland as a partner, the SNP has damned the organisation at every turn, despite the fact that sportscotland is already delivering on the SNP Administration's key policy objectives in "Reaching Higher", which is the new national strategy for sports policy.

Not just we politicians but many eminent people outwith the Parliament say that the Government is wrong. For instance, Tim Dent, who is the director of a sport and leisure consultancy, and Chris Robison, who is the policy director of the Scottish Sports Association, which represents the interests of some 50 governing bodies, have both condemned the Government's stance on sportscotland.

As the central agency with the remit that reaches across the key areas of people, organisations and facilities, only sportscotland can ensure that we have a balanced infrastructure by analysing and supporting strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, sportscotland adds value by being able to make strategic investments and by having an overview of identified priorities at local, regional and national levels—including the new indoor running track in my constituency that I will officially open next week.

To summarise, sportscotland is doing a good job at attracting people to, and encouraging excellence in, sport in Scotland. That point is not lost on any of us who want Scotland's sporting stars to achieve medal-winning performances in London and Glasgow. The Government's insistence on implementing one of its key manifesto pledges is simply farcical. The interests of Scottish sport simply cannot be best served in those circumstances.

The Liberal Democrats are quite happy to accept the Conservative amendment. All that we need from the minister and his colleagues is a little humility, compassion and common sense and for them to realise that not only every Opposition party but the whole country is against them on this issue. The sooner they back down, the less damage will be done to their own credibility, to sportscotland and—more important—to our young generation of sportspeople who will be the stars of the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow.

Civil Liberties

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1017, in the name of Margaret Smith, on civil liberties.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

In bringing forward the debate, the Liberal Democrats seek to highlight our concern at the erosion of the civil liberties of our citizens. That concern is shared by many of our people, and for good reason. The loss by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs of computer disks containing the child benefit records, personal details and bank account particulars of 25 million people has appalled the general public and awakened many to the sensitive data that the Government holds on them and its disrespect for the privacy of individuals.

The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, has said:

"Any aggregate system of collecting information must be proofed against criminals, proofed against idiots, proofed against those who do not follow the ordinary rules of procedure."

Given what we now know, Government systems seem to fall short on all three counts.

At a meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith faced criticism from all sides over the United Kingdom Government's plans to extend the length of time that suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 42 days. No evidence has been brought forward to support extending the period, which is already far longer than that in any comparable democracy.

In the week in which the fire brigade heroes of the Glasgow airport attack are honoured and the Scottish Government rightly gives funds to Strathclyde Police to cover the policing costs of that attack, we acknowledge that the threat of terrorism is real and that it demands action.

We propose the removal of the bar on the use of phone-tap evidence in terrorism prosecutions and we accept that post-charge questioning in terror cases, with judicial oversight, should be allowed. However, the attack that the Labour UK Government has launched on our civil liberties cannot be justified. As a means of tackling terrorism, its policies have been criticised by everyone from Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, to Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General.

More than three and a half years ago, senior Government officials were warned that a mistake such as the child benefit fiasco was likely to happen if the Government did not change its systems, which auditors described as "a recipe for disaster". Unfortunately, that incident was not an isolated one: personal information relating to hundreds of Scottish national health service workers went missing in transit; and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Northern Ireland lost the personal details of 6,000 people. However, the UK Government is still ploughing on with its plans for identification cards.

We reject the compulsory ID card scheme. The London School of Economics thinks that the scheme could cost up to £18 billion over 10 years. Liberal Democrats, and many others, think that the money would be better spent on more police officers and intelligence-gathering services. It is even more galling when one realises that people will be expected to pay for the privilege of owning an ID card. That privilege could cost each of us anything up to £300 for a card that polls have shown a majority of people do not want.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member's party met with others last week as part of a tripartite approach to establishing a commission to review the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Does the member's party support the transfer of legislative competence over ID cards to the Scottish Parliament, or does it believe that the British state should retain the prerogative to impose ID cards on the Scottish people?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The member will be aware that the Steel commission set out Liberal Democrat thinking on areas that a future constitutional convention should consider. I do not rule out such a convention giving consideration to the issue that he raises. As I progress through my speech, he will hear that we believe that the Scottish Government has a role to play in all of this, using the powers that it has at present.

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

More police would be good.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Indeed. That would be very good.

The Scottish Government should protect the people of Scotland by withholding from the database any information held by devolved institutions. The previous Lib Dem-Labour Executive stated clearly that ID cards would not be necessary to access devolved services. I hope that the Scottish Government will back that position. It should also allow the assistant information commissioner for Scotland to carry out spot checks on devolved institutions for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. That would ensure adherence to all the provisions in that act.

We should also recognise the dangers of going down the same road that the UK Government is going down with the DNA database. With 3 million people included on it and another name added every minute, the UK database will become the largest of its kind in the world and the only one to hold indefinitely the DNA profiles of innocent people.

In government, Liberal Democrats ensured that a balanced approach was taken to DNA retention that balanced public safety and civil liberties. We believe that an individual's DNA profile should be kept indefinitely if they are convicted, but removed if they are acquitted, except in certain key circumstances. During the passage of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, we proposed that DNA samples of those charged with violent or sexual offences should be retained for no more than three years; that the police should have the right to apply to the court for an extension; and that individuals should have the right of appeal in those cases. That practice is now being followed.

In the previous session, the Parliament voted against back-bench Labour members' attempts to create a database in Scotland that would keep indefinitely the DNA samples of innocent people. I hope that the Scottish National Party Government will continue to resist that blanket retention of DNA samples. Massive expansion in DNA record keeping has not led to a corresponding massive increase in crime detection. Since April 2003, although 1.5 million people have been added to the database, the chance of detecting a crime using DNA evidence has remained roughly constant at about 0.36 per cent.

Some people say that someone who has done nothing wrong should have no problem with their DNA being held. However, there are both principled and practical reasons why that view is wrong. There is always the risk of misidentification and false matches. The practice of extracting DNA profiles from a single cell has led the director of the forensic institute of Edinburgh to warn that innocent people may be wrongly identified as suspects as a consequence of being on the database.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

There are concerns, too, about the integrity of the DNA database. Information from the database in England and Wales is used for alternative purposes, including genetic research. A number of staff at the Forensic Science Service were suspended following allegations that information may have been copied. One in 20 of the population of England and Wales is on the DNA database. Of those 3 million people, more than 1 million have never been convicted of a crime. That statistic led one English judge to suggest that the logical conclusion is to keep everyone's DNA.

What part does such a database play in attempts to work with ethnic communities across the country, when it includes almost 40 per cent of black males in England and Wales compared with 13 per cent of Asian males and 9 per cent of white males? We should not underestimate the message that such figures send to ethnic communities.

The SNP has had a number of different positions on the issue. Although we support the Scottish Government's review of DNA retention, we do not support its plans to hold indefinitely children's details on the Scottish database.

Liberal Democrats demand that a balanced approach is taken to tackling crime and terrorism—one that takes into account public safety and security on the one hand, and civil liberties on the other. We think that Scotland should stand out from the rest of the UK in its measured but determined response to terror and to protecting the freedoms of its people properly.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the fundamental liberties enjoyed by generations of our citizens must not be eroded; welcomes the commitment by the previous Scottish Executive that ID cards would not be needed to access devolved services and its proportionate position on DNA retention; is concerned at the threat to civil liberties from the UK Government's expensive and unworkable proposal to introduce compulsory ID cards; believes that the Scottish Government should not put citizens' privacy at risk by allowing the UK ID database to access personal information held by the Scottish Government, local authorities or other devolved public agencies; therefore calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all data protection procedures are secure and that audit of data under its jurisdiction is independent of government and accountable to the Parliament, and takes the view that there should be no blanket retention of DNA samples and that the Assistant Information Commissioner for Scotland should have specific powers to carry out spot checks on the compliance by Scottish government agencies and bodies with the Data Protection Act 1998.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Liberal Democrat motion has some merit. However, it requires the tidying up that the Conservative amendment offers.

We all have to accept that the world changed dramatically on 11 September 2001 and that, to some extent, it will never be the same again. Clearly, the Government is entitled—indeed, it has a moral responsibility—to take action to do as much as possible to protect society against the attacks of international terrorists, particularly in light of the events in London of July 2005. However, its approach is totally wrong. ID cards will not work: that is the case, pure and simple, as former Home Secretary Charles Clarke admitted when he made the valid point that they would not have prevented the attacks in London on 7 July 2005. He said:

"I doubt it would have made a difference."

ID cards will not prevent illegal immigration. Foreign visitors will not require to hold an ID card. Indeed, it ill behoves a Government that presided over the shambles of an asylum policy that was found to open the door to everyone who wanted to come to the UK now to attempt by means of ID cards to slam the stable door once the horse has entered. The UK Government lacks all credibility in that respect.

ID cards might have value in preventing identity fraud, but the evidence suggests that their value might be limited. I can do no better than to quote Microsoft's UK national technology officer, who has said that the scheme could make the problem worse and could trigger identity fraud on a scale that has never been seen before. ID cards will not protect the victims of human trafficking. To be frank, cards are not the solution. We must consider a properly resourced border police force, which would go a long way to dealing with that problem.

The expense is an issue. Margaret Smith's figures are slightly at variance with mine, but it cannot be argued that the process will not be extremely expensive for the Government and for individuals. It has been estimated that ID cards will cost £20 billion in total, although the UK Government claims that the cost will be £5.4 billion. I suggest that one can have little confidence in the Government's projections, bearing in mind some of its outrageous information technology failures in the past.

Privacy is an important issue. The cards would contain in one place a tremendous amount of information about the individual. If the cards' privacy were to be violated, considerable difficulties could arise. Again, one cannot be entirely confident that that will not happen, bearing in mind the recent security breaches in the Government's processes.

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

The Scottish Government has much sympathy with the idea that ID cards will be costly. However, the Conservative amendment states that the money should instead be spent on other matters, including "more prison places". Will Bill Aitken clarify whether the Tories are arguing that we should build more prisons in Scotland than the Scottish Government is already committed to building? If that is the argument, how many additional prisons should be built using the ID card money?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

We are committed to providing prison facilities to meet the need—that was made clear for all to see in our election manifesto. If an additional prison were required in central Scotland, a Conservative Government would have provided it.

The money that it is proposed to spend on ID cards could be an awful lot better spent, particularly on improving security through proper policing of our borders. That point is made in our amendment and that is the direction that we suggest. The capital investment that is involved in the project is tremendous and will not provide value for money. I accept that the Government must respond to the events of 2001 and 2005, but the ID card scheme is not the appropriate approach, as the costs are prohibitive and the interference with individuals' freedom and privacy makes the scheme morally indefensible. The bottom line is that the scheme simply will not work, for the reasons that I have outlined.

The UK Government must think again about the scheme. It is examining the situation and has anticipated that the difficulties will be a lot more severe than was originally thought. I hope that, whatever happens at decision time, we send a message to Westminster that the Government must review its stance on this difficult issue.

I move amendment S3M-1017.1, to insert at end:

"and believes that the money proposed to be spent on ID cards should be used for more worthwhile projects, such as a dedicated UK border police force, more prison places or on increasing the number of drug rehabilitation places."

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I welcome the Liberal Democrat motion and commend Margaret Smith for much of her speech. Naturally, I begin by recalling the motion that Parliament agreed to in February 2005, when the Parliament first rejected ID cards. In that motion, I argued that the UK Government's Identity Cards Bill, as it was then, was

"flawed on political, technical and financial grounds",

that it offered

"an ineffective response to problems of security and fraud",

and that it posed

"an unacceptable threat to civil liberties".

I was pleased that Parliament agreed to that motion, even if on that occasion my good friends in the Liberal Democrats felt unable to support it—they abstained on the basis of a detail of wording.

I will identify some details of wording in today's motion with which I could quibble, but its general spirit is enough to allow me to forgive those details. That is why I have lodged an amendment that would add two points to the motion and remove nothing. On that basis, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will support it.

I begin with the quibbles. Although I welcome the fact that the previous Administration was less than gung-ho on ID cards, I would not have given a simple endorsement of its position. At the time, Tom McCabe's commitments on ID cards were always just a wee bit hedged. I would not go so far as to say that he wanted to keep the door open to ID cards, but the commitments were generally on only the cards themselves. Compulsory ID cards are symbolic of the slow but relentless erosion of civil liberties that has taken place under the Labour Government at Westminster. However, beyond the cards, many campaigners have long argued—and I agree—that the real threat is from the national identity register, the database that will underpin the system. The motion shows an understanding of that, but the commitments that the previous Administration gave on the use of the database were always rather weaker than those that were asked for.

The position in Scotland on DNA retention is similarly open to criticism. The Lib Dems call it proportionate—it certainly does not go as far as some had wished.

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

I am sure that the member will have read the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report that commends the previous Scottish Administration's measures when compared with those in England and Wales. Indeed, the report said that the measures set a benchmark for other European countries.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I note the Nuffield view; I am describing my own view.

The measures go further than allowing the retention of information or of someone's name on a list of people who have been accused but not convicted. They establish the principle that the state has the right forcibly to obtain and to keep the DNA of innocent people, implying that the individual's biology is the property of the state in at least some circumstances and can be used for the state's purposes without consent. I disagree.

Beyond those caveats in relation to the motion, I raise two specific points in my amendment. One relates to data protection principles. I draw members' attention to the briefing by NO2ID, which acknowledges that security is important, as mentioned in the motion. That issue is under a lot of discussion in the aftermath of the Government's gross negligence and incompetence in losing the personal data of 25 million people. However, there are seven other important principles to remember. My other point is on citizen accounts, to which we must apply the same principles by which we condemn ID cards. There is a danger that we will end up with a system that looks more like an ID database than a bus pass database.

I agree with the Conservatives' criticism in their amendment of the cost of the ID card scheme—I welcome the defence of civil liberties from any part of the political spectrum. However, it would, to say the least, be ironic if in a debate on civil liberties we ended up concluding that we need to lock up more people in this country. We already lock up more people than most European countries do, and it would be wrong to reinforce that situation. The possibility that a future Conservative Government might scrap the ID card scheme would be a silver lining to the dark rain-cloud of such a Government. I hope that the Parliament will reinforce our objection to the relentless attack on civil liberties from Westminster.

I move amendment S3M-1017.2, to leave out from "are secure" to "accountable to the Parliament" and insert:

"comply with the principles of data protection, namely that personal information must be fairly and lawfully processed, processed for limited purposes, adequate, relevant and not excessive, accurate and up to date, not kept for longer than necessary, processed in line with individuals' rights, secure and not transmitted to other countries without adequate protection, and that audit of data under its jurisdiction is independent of government and accountable to the Parliament; further calls on the Scottish Government to review plans for Scottish Citizens Accounts on the basis of these principles".

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

I welcome the debate, which is timely in the light of recent events that have affected the UK Government and which raises serious issues of which we must all be aware. The debate provides an opportunity for the Scottish Government to state where we stand on the issues. Our civil liberties are extremely important to each and every one of us, so Margaret Smith is right to make the case for safeguarding them, as is Patrick Harvie, who made a typically spirited speech.

Identify theft is a growing problem. People need to regain their confidence that the Government can keep private details safe, which they have lost in recent weeks. Margaret Smith rightly pointed to the difference between the UK Government's policies on identity cards and how those issues have been addressed in this Parliament. All parties in the previous and current parliamentary sessions have shared a commitment to embedding good practice on data protection in such matters. That reflects the wider and deeply held values in Scotland. The Scottish Government shares members' desire to ensure that Scotland is not and never can be a surveillance state.

The Scottish Government takes issues of data protection extremely seriously and has in place standards on the storage and transmission of, and access to, data of a sensitive nature. In the light of the problems that have been encountered by HM Revenue and Customs, John Swinney announced that we would conduct a co-ordinated review of information security policies and data-handling arrangements in Scotland. There is no room for complacency on such issues in the days of e-mail correspondence, when matters that were intended to remain private are inherently more susceptible to being leaked or inadvertently published than any of us would wish. The fact that many politicians have discovered that fundamental truth to their cost has served only to increase public entertainment and amusement.

The review, which is now well under way, is considering existing procedures for the protection of data, their consistency with Government-wide standards and policies, and arrangements for ensuring that policies and procedures are being fully and correctly implemented. That assessment will allow the Government to establish whether there is a need for further measures to improve the security of sensitive information. We take such matters extremely seriously—we are not talking about a paper review. In the early days of our Government, we need to find out whether existing procedures are acceptable and whether they have been effective.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Can the minister confirm that the proposal in the motion that the assistant information commissioner for Scotland

"should have specific powers to carry out spot checks on the compliance by Scottish Government agencies and bodies with the Data Protection Act 1998"

will be considered in the review?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have one minute left, minister.

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

I support that call. The powers of the information commissioner are, of course, a reserved matter; I am delighted that the Lib Dems presumably want them to become a devolved matter. I wait with interest to find out whether that is the position of their future potential coalition and commission partners.

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

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

I am sorry, but I cannot.

The Government shares Margaret Smith's concerns about the UK ID card, which we have consistently opposed, on the grounds that it will be costly, will infringe civil liberties and will not achieve its primary stated objective. The methodology seems foggy and opaque, to put it kindly. I reassure members of all parties and the people of Scotland that the UK ID card will not be required to access devolved services.

On DNA, the Government has made it clear that it does not support the blanket retention of all forensic information that is taken from innocent people. I hope to expand on that in my summing-up comments. I await the rest of the debate with interest.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Labour members will in every way protect the civil liberties of the many. We have made that case on many occasions, for example by passing the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, thereby protecting the civil liberties of local residents, and by passing the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which secured the civil liberties of paramedics. We have rebalanced the civil liberties debate to ensure that everyone has such protection. That is an important part of what we are discussing today.

Margaret Smith's motion on behalf of the Liberal Democrats refers to the erosion of civil liberties and makes specific mention of ID cards. The Parliament cannot ignore the fact that we need a more robust and secure way of checking people's identities and ensuring that they are who they say they are. Margaret Smith failed to provide an alternative to ID cards; the Liberal Democrats have made no such proposals.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The reason why Paul Martin did not hear me discuss any alternative is that his initial premise is flawed. As we heard from Bill Aitken, Charles Clarke is one of the many members of the Labour Party who do not view ID cards as a way of tackling terrorism. If ID cards are simply about finding out who people are, they are an extremely expensive way of doing that.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

We will come on to the issue of cost, which is an important part of the debate. It is also important to point out that the Westminster Government has never considered fighting terrorism to be a policy objective of ID cards. However, they will not do any harm in that respect.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member give way?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I cannot take any more interventions.

Let us deal with a number of the myths about ID cards. One such myth is that people will be required to carry their ID cards, which members of other parties have claimed on a number of occasions, but it is clear from the Identity Cards Act 2006 that citizens will not be required to carry their ID cards. It is not helpful to peddle such misconceptions.

Another myth is that the ID card database will carry a wide range of information on card holders—Bill Aitken said that. However, the 2006 act is clear about what information will be held. My insurance company holds more information on me than will be held on the ID card database. The 2006 act provides no evidence that more information will be held by the Government on the database than my insurance company holds on me.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have one minute left.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

We cannot ignore the fact that 24 out of 27 member states of the European Union already have such a scheme in place. It would be crass of us not to learn from the European experience. Members often refer to what happens in other European countries, but no one has seen fit to do that in this morning's debate.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

I remind Jeremy Purvis that it was a Labour amendment to the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that allowed us to retain DNA samples from people who have been prosecuted for violent or sexual crimes. I hope that evaluation of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 will prove that that measure has been successful.

DNA retention also helps to prove the innocence of people who have been falsely convicted of crimes, as a number of highly publicised cases involving people who had been incarcerated for many years have demonstrated.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing now.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Debates on such matters should take place in Westminster if they are to be constructive. I hope that, in the rest of the debate, our Liberal Democrat colleagues will do what they have not done so far and reveal their proposals for a scheme that is more effective than ID cards.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the open debate. Speakers will have an extremely strict four minutes.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Let me begin by praising Margaret Smith for lodging the motion that has facilitated today's debate, which is on a subject that I consider to be of the utmost importance to our society.

The significance of civil liberties and broader concepts of human rights are all too often maligned and downplayed, but I can think of little that is of more importance to the human experience than the rights and freedoms that we all too often take for granted. We should not take those rights and freedoms for granted, because many of them were hard fought for and won by our forebears many years ago.

For that reason, I am proud to be the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on human rights and civil liberties. I am not sure whether that means that I must declare an interest, but I do so nonetheless. It is important that the cross-party group ensures that issues surrounding human rights and civil liberties are kept on the Parliament's agenda, because too many of our basic civil liberties are at risk.

I welcome the opportunity for the Parliament to discuss ID cards, the retention of DNA by the authorities and related matters. In that regard, I am in broad agreement with the Liberal Democrat motion. It would be useful for us to consider many of the human rights and civil liberties issues that are not mentioned in the motion, although I note that Margaret Smith referred to some of them in her speech. For example, the attempts by the Government in London to impose lengthy terms of detention on suspects without charge by the police are one of the great challenges to basic civil liberties in our time. I am concerned that the current 28-day period is already too long, so I was delighted when the Government was rebuffed in its outrageous attempt to lengthen that to 90 days.

However, attempts are again being made to extend the period of detention without charge. Such a measure will have limited effectiveness and I am concerned that it smacks of the policy of internment that was applied elsewhere in these islands in the past. That policy was counterproductive and failed to achieve its aims. We should learn the lessons of the past and be wary of curtailing one of the most fundamental civil liberties that our citizens enjoy—the right not to be put under lock and key without being charged with an offence. However, that is not what we are discussing today.

I am equally alarmed by the advent of the state-led database society that we are rapidly blundering towards. The idea that every citizen in the land might be legally required to carry some form of identity card in what is not a time of national extremity or emergency horrifies me.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, thank you.

That is what the Government proposes, and that will be the effect of the Identity Cards Act 2006. Much like internment, however, I believe that the measure will be ineffectual. We are regularly told that ID cards are required to stem the great threat that we face from terrorism. I understand that society faces the problem of terrorism, but the notion that we can counter that threat by ensuring that every citizen carries a little card or a bit of paper with their name on it is patently absurd. Hardened terrorists will not be put off by an ID card scheme. They will circumvent it with ease, as they did in Spain when they let off the bombs in Madrid. Spain has an ID card system, but it offered no serious barrier to acts of terror.

Nor will an ID card scheme have a useful purpose in tackling identity fraud. However, it will further curtail individuals' liberty to go about their daily business without fear of interference from the state. There is a danger that a culture of fear and intimidation will establish itself at a time when distrust of the police and authorities is already building in certain communities. A national ID database will itself be a security risk, not least if the UK Government accidentally loses the computer disks on which it is held.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing now, Mr Hepburn.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The idea of a database of the DNA of those who have committed no crime is also anathema to me. The suggestion that the state should be allowed to hold information on the genetic make-up of people who have committed no crime and done no wrong is outrageous.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You need to finish, Mr Hepburn.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the Liberal Democrats' motion and look forward to supporting it this evening.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I remind members again that, if they run over their time, they prevent someone else from getting in. That is members' responsibility and not mine.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In this short debate, it is not possible to cover every erosion of everyone's rights by the UK Labour Government. The Labour Party seems unable to comprehend the concept or importance of individual civil liberties or individual human rights. I say to Paul Martin that we cannot protect civil liberties for the many because civil liberties are not divisible. The erosion of one person's rights affects us all.

We cannot protect our rights and freedoms against the threats from the extremists who seek to undermine them by removing those rights and freedoms. That is why we must oppose any extension of detention without charge. The current period of 28 days is already longer than that of any other democratic country. Even the Director of Public Prosecutions, the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, and the Government's Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Security and Counter-terrorism, Lord West, have questioned whether there is any evidence to justify an extension.

The Liberal Democrats oppose the blanket retention of DNA samples from those, including many children, who have never been charged with anything.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Will the member take an intervention?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry, but I have limited time.

It is thanks to the Liberal Democrats in the previous Scottish Government that further erosions of our civil liberties, such as the blanket retention of DNA, were prevented.

This morning, I concentrate on the massive threat to our privacy and freedom of movement that is posed by the UK Government's ID cards scheme. ID cards will not deliver in relation to any of the reasons why the Government claims that they are needed. I say to Paul Martin that the Home Office's website claims that ID cards will help to counter terrorism. They will not prevent identity theft, fraud, or organised crime, and there is not a shred of evidence that they will prevent terrorism. The 9/11 bombers and the Madrid bombers were all travelling on legitimate identities, as the London bombers would have been.

We know from experience that it is predominantly young black and Asian males who will be subjected to ID checks. As Margaret Smith said, that is the case with DNA retention in England, where 40 per cent of black males and 13 per cent of Asian males are on the register compared with just 9 per cent of white males. ID cards will lead to discrimination and prejudice, which ultimately lead to disaffection and alienation.

ID cards are bad enough, but the national identity register is breathtaking in its scope and foolhardiness. Who would trust the UK Government to implement such a massive information technology project on time and on budget, and to create a system that can do its job? As Patrick Harvie's amendment reminds us, there are eight principles of data protection. The national identity register fails to meet those principles. Information must be processed for a limited purpose; it must be relevant and not excessive; and it must not be kept for longer than necessary. However, some information would be kept for a lifetime.

Information must also be secure. Let us look at the Government's record on security. Data disks fly round the country and go just about anywhere except where they are meant to be. Bank details of half the population have been lost. Details of vehicle registrations of people in Northern Ireland have been lost. We should consider the security issues.

Will ID cards prevent identity theft? Pull the other one. The Government's obsession with huge databases threatens the identities of millions of people. The best way to keep data secure is not to hold data in the first place. If we do not need information, we should not hold it. The Government intends to create another huge database that will contain identity information well beyond what could reasonably be needed. It will be linked to other Government agency databases, which will give hundreds of thousands of public sector workers access to sensitive identity information. That will put at risk the privacy of sensitive personal information on health, sexual history and financial and other records.

Unprecedented amounts of data are being collected and retained, which shatters our right to privacy. The unanswered question is why the Labour Government feels the need to have access to so much information about its citizens. What does it plan to do with it?

Identity cards will also threaten our freedom of travel. The e-Borders project will give the Government huge powers to track and restrict our travel. It is already destroying the common travel area between the United Kingdom and Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The threat of terrorism is being used to justify increased restrictions on our freedom without any evidence that it is necessary or proportionate.

For far too long, the UK has been sleepwalking into becoming a surveillance society. I hope that, today, the Scottish Parliament will send a message to Whitehall that the Government's job is to protect and promote our civil liberties and individual rights, not to undermine them.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I ask members to look at all the cards that I am holding up. How many of our constituents carry such cards in their pockets? They include loyalty cards, membership cards, bank cards and insurance cards. We all carry such cards, and all kinds of agencies hold information. It is a nonsense to suggest that ID cards will do anything other than protect us. Most members of the European Union have voluntary or compulsory identity cards. Apart from the United Kingdom, the only member states with no form of identity card scheme are Ireland, Denmark, Latvia and Lithuania. It is important to take on board the wider perspective.

I am bemused by the Tories' position this morning. In 1994, they brought forward their own proposals for ID cards. Over the decades, it seems to be a case of, "Will they, won't they, will they, won't they, will they join the dance?" When Annabel Goldie took part in a debate on identity cards just a couple of years ago, she said:

"The Conservatives, in principle, support ID cards. I cannot make that any clearer."—[Official Report, 24 February 2005; c 14736.]

This morning, the opponents of ID cards set out many objections to the way in which our Labour Government will protect the people of this country. I refer those opponents to the many submissions that provided expert opinion to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which undertook a massive consideration of the issue. In particular, I highlight the memorandum from the Information Commissioner, who said:

"There is no inherent reason why all proposals for an identity card would be unacceptable on data protection and human rights grounds. However, such a proposal could only ever be acceptable if it included the necessary safeguards at every stage of development to ensure data protection compliance."

Another striking memorandum that was submitted to the select committee during the legislative process at Westminster is the one from the Association of Chief Police Officers. I point out to the Tories, given their views on crime and trying to get a grip on it, that ACPO stated:

"ACPO believes that the introduction of a national ID card scheme could deliver considerable benefits. Many areas of policing would benefit, not least the ability of the police to better protect and serve the public. As with many of our partners we have never seen ID cards as a panacea—but we do believe they could be a key part of broader strategic solutions to a range of community safety issues."

In its submission, ACPO went into more detail on terrorism, organised and volume crime, identity fraud and police working practices. For Fergus Ewing's benefit, I will highlight one comment:

"Vehicle crime and illegal driving is endemic in the UK. Making the carrying of the driving licence compulsory would save £220 million per year and the equivalent of"—

wait for it—

"1,630 police officers. Speedier driver identification through the production of an ID card would assist with the fight against vehicle crime and better protect the public."

On stop and search and on-street identification ACPO was

"pleased to see that where non-arrestable offences are involved Section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act procedures will still apply."

It was also pleased about the implications for street bail, public disorder and bureaucracy.

ACPO went on at great length to say what the benefits of an ID card would be on those.

Let us consider illegal working and immigration abuse, which have been tremendous issues for people in the United Kingdom. Since January 2002, when an asylum application is made, the applicant is screened and his or her personal details are recorded. That is of real benefit. The Law Society, the Commission for Racial Equality, the British Medical Association and other agencies support ID cards.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Listening to the previous speaker, I thought that the Labour Party should change the title of its policy from civil liberties to taking liberties.

I welcome the Liberal Democrats' conversion to the independence cause. It is clear from the motion that they have come a long way since February 2005, when they abstained on a Green motion opposing ID cards. Bizarrely, shortly before he and the other Lib Dems abstained, Jeremy Purvis accused the Conservatives of being indecisive. He said:

"The Conservatives are sitting on the fence. They originally supported the proposals and are now abstaining."—[Official Report, 24 February 2005; c 14719.]

Then the Lib Dems abstained—oh, the delicious irony!

In 2005, the Lib Dems' position before they abstained was to welcome the commitment that ID cards would not be needed for accessing devolved services, but today they are going much further: Margaret Smith wants to ensure that our fundamental liberties are not eroded. She will be delighted to know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice opposed a blanket DNA database back in 2005, when the Lib Dems were busy abstaining. It is lovely to see them finally starting to follow where the SNP has been leading for years.

More than that, Margaret Smith's motion asks the SNP Government to pick a fight with Westminster over access to personal information that is held by the Scottish public sector. Not so long ago, the Opposition coalition said that we should never pick fights with London and now the Lib Dems are encouraging us to do so. They really should make up their minds one way or another.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the minister give way?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am sorry, but I am not a minister yet.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I would not be inclined to wait.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have a short time.

The Lib Dems can rest assured that we will pick the fights that we need to pick in order to stand up for Scotland. They can be certain that every SNP member will stand up for Scotland whenever that is needed and can sleep soundly at night safe in the knowledge that the SNP Government is working hard for Scotland and standing up for Scotland every day.

The SNP has been fighting Scotland's cause for a long time. We know what the terrain is like. We know what has to be done and we are prepared to do it. That is why we know that the way to stop Westminster and Whitehall accessing Scots' personal information is to repatriate the power to protect it, which is why I am delighted to note that Margaret Smith advocates the return of all powers to Scotland. That is a remarkable contribution to the national conversation, and I hope that the Lib Dems will give even more consideration to the undeniable case for Scottish independence.

The SNP and—to be fair—the Greens have been opposing the insanity of the ID card scheme since its inception. There can be few more telling arguments against giving the London establishment access to our personal information than the recent madness that was caused when the data of every family that is entitled to child benefit—that is, all of them—were downloaded on to a couple of CDs and sent through the post. An old Scots term jumps to mind—eejits.

It is abundantly clear that we cannot trust London with our personal data any more than we can trust it with looking after Scotland's interests. The current overhyped panic about terrorism is being used as a smokescreen for the introduction of a number of repressive measures that we would never countenance in other circumstances. The ID card nonsense is just one of them.

It is still possible to protect those liberties and save us from the creep of the state, but we must act concertedly. It is time to turn this Parliament into the kind of Parliament that can and will protect our liberties. It is, of course, time for independence.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I would normally welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate in the Parliament, but this one is not the best use of the Parliament's time. There is no doubt about the technical competence of the motion, because it refers to devolved matters, but there is also no doubt in my mind that it has been drafted and contrived to attack the Labour Party.

David Steel once famously told the Liberal Party conference delegates to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government. My message to the Lib Dems is that they should go back to their constituencies and ask their constituents what they want to be debated in the Scottish Parliament. If my postbag is anything to go by, people want to talk about how we can get a fair deal on the housing budget, why the SNP has broken its promises on policing and how we can get further funding into higher education.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

I note that the member does not credit his constituents with any interest in civil liberties. On the blanket retention of DNA samples, would his constituents be more or less inclined to participate in future mass DNA testing if they knew that their DNA samples would be kept for all time despite their innocence?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

With all due respect, that intervention has bitten a good chunk out of my speech. The priorities for my constituents are health, housing and education. That is reflected in my postbag.

Only four Lib Dem members are present. That reflects the priority that the debate has for the Liberal Democrats.

There is a case for ID cards. There is no doubt that crime is a big issue in the Parliament and in communities throughout Scotland. The introduction of ID cards would improve detection rates, reduce crime and make our communities safer.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will James Kelly give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am sorry, but I am short on time.

ID cards would also help to combat the use of illegal workers to undercut the minimum wage. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is one of the landmark pieces of legislation passed in the past 10 years, but it has been undermined by unscrupulous employers who take on illegal workers and pay them under the rate of the minimum wage. The introduction of ID cards would compel employers to recruit workers legally and pay them the rate for the job.

There is no doubt that the recent spate of terror attacks adds to the case for ID cards. I was in London at the time of one of the terror attacks. It is all very well for members to smile, but it was really worrying to see the fear in people's faces as I moved around train stations, airports and workplaces. I acknowledge that introducing ID cards would not necessarily stop terror attacks, but it would definitely help the police when such chaos breaks out.

The debate could have been used for something more relevant to the Parliament, but it has given us an opportunity to consider some of the arguments for ID cards.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The UK Government insists that we must have ID cards to fight terrorism and that without ID cards our way of life is threatened. Yes—faced with the prospect of having to forge a UK ID card, a terrorist will immediately abandon his planned atrocity and look elsewhere. One might imagine that, as the terrorist forges an ID card, it will suddenly and without warning fall from his nerveless fingers as he realises the enormity of the terrible crime that he is about to commit: the forging of a UK ID card. It will not occur to terrorists to use their own identities—apart, perhaps, from the 80 per cent who do use their own identities. It is equally irrelevant that most terrorist attacks have occurred in countries that already have ID cards because the UK card will be unique among ID cards: it will be unforgeable.

Unlike the situation in Spain or in the United States of America, no individual who carries a UK ID card will be capable of a violent act. Furthermore, its existence will never be abused by the authorities. The word "never" is important—we must trust not just this Government, but all future Governments. Trust is needed, for the proposed ID cards are like no other card.

In Germany, data centralisation is forbidden for historical reasons, and when cards are replaced the records are not linked. Germany fully appreciates the danger of a government having too much power or knowledge. Similarly, Belgium specifically prevents data sharing—an approach that is the opposite to that of the Home Office. If we look for parallels to the UK scheme, we should not look to Europe, but to the countries of the Middle East. Indeed, the UK Government's admiration for nations such as Saudi Arabia was highlighted by its recent red-carpet treatment of King Abdullah—a red carpet that was laid down as a gang-raped victim was sentenced to public flogging in Saudi Arabia.

To what degree can we trust such a dangerous and powerful tool as ID cards? If we want to know, we should look at the British Government's record on human rights and civil liberties in other countries. It could be argued that immediately after it gained power, the UK Government showed its contempt for human rights by selling Hawk ground-attack aircraft to assist in the genocidal assaults in East Timor. It could be argued that the Government showed further contempt when it took part in sanctions that left over half a million children under the age of five dead, and which were described by senior United Nations officials as genocide. It could be argued that the UK Government shows contempt for human rights and civil liberties in continuing the policy of a previous Labour Government—the ethnic cleansing of Diego Garcia.

There are, of course, instances closer to home as well. The evidence for rendition, and that the victims of rendition are tortured, is overwhelming. Those victims have passed through our airports on our soil—we have participated in the illegal seizure, detention and torture of defenceless victims. On those grounds alone, we have sufficient cause to reject the UK Government's ID cards. No Government that participates in, or turns a blind eye to, such fundamental breaches of civil liberties is fit to govern—it is not fit to be trusted with the powerful resource of an ID card. When it comes to ID cards, the UK Government is not fit for purpose.

Before supporting the introduction of ID cards, we might do well to recall the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It is easy to disagree with James Kelly's speech. This has been a worthwhile and important debate. Margaret Smith, in speaking on ID cards, quite rightly focused more strongly on data than on the piece of plastic. That is one of the key arguments that is so often missed by those who take a different view. In relation to DNA retention, she disposed effectively of the idea that people who had done nothing wrong should have nothing to fear from having their DNA held. Bill Aitken told us that the world changed with 9/11 and the London bombings—I and my party reject much of the "war on terror" rhetoric, just as we reject the "tough on crime" rhetoric, as both are self-defeating. Although Bill Aitken and I might not agree on the whole agenda, I hope that we can agree with the quotation from Bill Wilson on liberty and security.

Bill Aitken also reminded us that Microsoft, of all companies, has warned us about the data security issues with the ID card system; that is from the company that brought us Windows Vista and Outlook Express—I will say no more. Fergus Ewing told us that Scotland is not—and never should be—a surveillance state. That was a welcome comment from the minister. He also gave commitments to examine issues of data protection in relation to the Government's internal review. I hope that the scope of that review will not be limited to data protection alone, but will also address wider issues of privacy.

Paul Martin told us that we need a more secure way of identifying people. Who needs it? Individuals often need to identify themselves, but the UK identity card system is focused only on the self-identified needs of the Government, not of individuals' right and need to control the data that are held about them. I am glad that he condemned the idea of requiring citizens to carry ID cards, but he also said that those who suggest that that will happen are being unhelpful. I remind him of the comments of the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who said in the House of Commons in December 2004:

"it is legitimate and right, in this day and age, to ask people to carry identity cards". —[Official Report, House of Commons, 1 December 2004; Vol 428, c 625.]

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Will the member give way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not have time for an intervention.

I accept that carrying of cards is not in the bill, but it is in people's minds, and that is the problem.

Paul Martin said, finally, that we should learn from other European countries that have ID cards. I remind him that the most serious criticism of his party's ID system is about the database, not the piece of plastic. No other country has attempted a system of the nature of the national identity register. The public sector is, generally, a bit rubbish at procuring big and complex information technology systems. The ID card system is perhaps the biggest and most complex Government IT system ever attempted. It is a disaster waiting to happen, with an astonishing price tag attached.

I would have too much to say about Helen Eadie's contribution to fit it in to one minute, so I will just skip over some of the points. The one saving grace of the Labour Party members' various contributions today is that they did not use the refrain that was so often repeated by Labour members in the previous debate on ID cards, who told us time and again, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." I am glad that Labour has dropped that line, because it is destined to go down in history alongside other such unconvincing excuses as, "I was only obeying orders," or that other classic, "Sorry officer—I thought the money was being routed through an onshore company." The ID card excuses are equally unconvincing, and I am glad that we are hearing fewer of them today. I hope that the chamber agrees to the Liberal Democrat motion, and I commend the Green amendment to it.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

In today's debate, we have heard about the UK Labour Government's attack on civil liberties, with national ID cards and the plans to extend DNA retention. Those schemes are not just a fruitless attempt by the UK Government to propagate its political agenda—they are a direct infringement of the civil liberties of the British people. As we have heard from a number of members today, national identity cards are a waste of money and an invasion of privacy, and will not prevent terrorist attacks, identity fraud or human trafficking. Indeed, as we heard from Bill Aitken and others, a former Labour Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, admitted that ID cards would not have prevented the 2005 London bombings. As Jamie Hepburn pointed out, we need look only to Spain for further evidence of that—the Spanish Government requires national identity cards, but that did nothing to prevent the terrible bombings in Madrid in 2004.

The UK Labour Government and Mr Martin have yet to produce any evidence to support the introduction of ID cards. However, there is much evidence against their introduction, and we have heard those arguments from a number of members today. Not only will the national identity card scheme prove to be useless at tackling the problems that it is supposed to address, it will also be a reckless waste of money on the part of the Labour Government—I will dwell on that point. The scheme will require a £93 fee for a combined ID card and passport package. If your card is lost or stolen, or if you change your name when you get married, a £30 fee will be imposed for the new ID card that will have to be issued.

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

Will the member give way?

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am sorry—I am short of time.

Perhaps most shocking of all is the £1,000 fine if a relative dies and one forgets to return their national ID card to the registry. The entire scheme, as Margaret Smith pointed out, will cost up to £20 billion in total, which is confirmed by the London School of Economics. That is four times the estimate that has been put forward by the Labour Government.

If that is not enough to put us off such a daft idea, let us look at the agency that has been tasked with running the ID card scheme: IPS, the identity and passport service. In the past nine years, there have been four separate security breaches at that agency. All it takes is one such occurrence, and all our national identity data could be released into the wrong hands. Such a breach of the national registry of security would have massive consequences for the British people. The Conservatives believe that, instead of spending inordinate amounts of money on a scheme for which there is no evidence that it will be a success, the ID card scheme should be scrapped and the funding reallocated to bring about four different things: the creation of more prisons, more prison drug rehabilitation facilities, more police officers and better border controls. Using those funds to build more prison facilities will greatly reduce the overcrowding in our current prisons and improve the drug rehabilitation services. The funds could be used to create new UK border police officers to prevent and detect illegal immigration, which ID cards are supposed to do. They could be used to put more police officers on the streets, which would create a stronger police force. As we have said many times before in Parliament, increasing local police forces in Scotland would act as a powerful deterrent and would help to reduce the fear of crime.

ID cards are a bad idea. They will do nothing to improve our citizens' safety. They are not the answer to the threat of terrorism or to tackling benefit fraud, illegal immigration, human trafficking or identity theft. They are a waste of money. I am pleased to confirm what Patrick Harvie said. When David Cameron leads the Conservatives back into government at Westminster, we will abolish ID cards.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Liberal Democrat motion states:

"That the Parliament believes that the fundamental liberties enjoyed by generations of our citizens must not be eroded".

It is difficult to disagree with that statement, but the question is whether those liberties have been eroded. Some people prefer to use the term "fundamental human rights", but whatever term is preferred, it cannot be denied that the landscape has changed in recent years. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 has progressed human rights, the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission has been created, religious discrimination and age discrimination have been adopted into the definition of "equality", and Labour has taken a strong stance on important civil liberties issues such as workers' and parents' rights, the creation of civil partnerships and gender recognition. The Liberal Democrats have joined us in dealing with those issues.

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

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am sorry. I would, but I have very little time.

It is arguable that the Liberal Democrat motion does not recognise that there have been improvements in some civil liberties areas.

The previous Executive stated that ID cards would not be needed to access devolved services. I support that sentiment. Helen Eadie was right that one of the starting points in such debates is that the amount of information that is held on us not only by the Government but by others, including private sector companies, is becoming frightening for many individuals.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned that ID cards are a "threat to civil liberties", but the national identity scheme will allow people to prove their identity more easily. It will be harder for their identity to be stolen or misused, because it will be protected by biometrics, and the scheme can prevent criminals from using false or multiple identities.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will not.

Are Iain Smith and others saying that the public are wrong? All the surveys have shown that, whatever we think, the public support an identity scheme. Are members of the other parties saying that their constituents are wrong? The scheme cannot be universally compulsory until a further act of Parliament is passed, so there is still debate to be had.

There is a global move to strengthen the security of identity documents using fingerprints and facial biometric technology. Countries around the world are already moving to strengthen the security of passports by adding fingerprints to them. The scheme builds on things that we are already investing in, such as immigration documents and passports, which will include a fingerprint chip. Indeed, the cost of biometric passports will be a substantial part of the costs of introducing ID cards. ID cards are an important issue to debate, and I would say much more about them, but time is short.

Jamie Hepburn may be chair of the cross-party group on human rights and civil liberties, but he should at least use correct information when he debates. Section 16 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 is clear. There will be no requirement to carry an ID card. That is the right position, which Labour members will argue for. It is clear that there is a challenge for the Government, particularly in the light of the issues relating to HM Revenue and Customs that Margaret Smith highlighted, but let us not forget that the Scottish Government had to come to the chamber and make an apology for missing records for which it was responsible. That is an issue for all Governments. The UK Government will have to address the issue of trust, and I am sure that it will do so as its position on ID cards progresses. However, the UK Government will make a decision, as the matter is mostly reserved.

Citizens have a fundamental right to feel safe, and members cannot simply stand on the sidelines and criticise. They should give us their solutions.

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

The debate has been helpful and entertaining. At least all members share common aims. We want to ensure that data are secure and we have a common view on the importance of protecting civil liberties. We in Scotland can do things differently at the heart of services that are designed and delivered to protect people's privacy.

I particularly enjoyed the spirited speeches that have been made. Bill Wilson did a good demolition job on some fundamental ideas behind the notion that ID cards will combat terrorism. People always want to feel safe, but the idea that ID cards will deliver that safety is not proven.

I may be the first minister in this Government to mention the fictitious Jim Hacker in "Yes, Minister". If stories were to be written about him now, he might be undone by someone using his surname as an occupation. Data protection is inherently more difficult and challenging than it was before the age of electronic communication.

Professor Fraser's report on the DNA review is expected in 2008. It will be published and it will help to inform future policy development.

The Scottish Government's strategic board has set up a team, which is led by the justice and communities director general, to support and co-ordinate a data security review. If Patrick Harvie is concerned about whether that review will go far enough and he has specific suggestions to make, he should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth—we would like to take his ideas into account. All bodies under Scottish central Government, including the national health service, have been asked to confirm their compliance with existing information security policies, to complete a detailed data-handling questionnaire and to offer any practical recommendations for improvements or better risk management. In addition, all Scottish Government staff have been reminded of the need to adhere to data protection rules. The review team is currently collating responses to the questionnaires and is due to report soon to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth.

Members are keen to see greater independent data protection audits and greater accountability. We share their objectives, but we need to take a proportionate approach. Consultants do not come cheap—and how. We will consider carefully how to involve an independent element in reviewing data security, particularly in areas of greater risk.

I want to say a bit more about DNA because I did not have the opportunity to expand much on the issue in my opening remarks. We are not persuaded that it would be correct for the police to retain fingerprints and DNA samples from everyone who is detained but not convicted or even prosecuted. Margaret Smith made a fairly strong case for that view. I hope that no one would argue that the DNA of every UK citizen should be retained on record, although the logic of those who argue that the police should retain fingerprints and DNA samples is that that should be the case. I think that Labour has retreated from that position, although I am not certain. However, we look forward to the report.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I think that Mr Tom McNulty, who is a Labour Home Office minister, supported Lord Justice Sedley's calls to put the entire population on a DNA database. Therefore, the Labour Party has not rejected that idea.

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

I had not intended to comment on the emerging differences between the former Scottish Executive partners. However, as the matter has been raised, it seems that there will be interesting times ahead in view of their diametrically opposed views on biometrics when the constitutional commission is set up to consider whether powers over ID data protection and powers that relate to DNA that are not entirely devolved should be devolved. We believe that all such powers should be devolved, but the Labour Party apparently does not. I am not sure what the Liberals' and the Conservatives' positions are, although I think Helen Eadie reminded members that the Tories' position has changed. They used to be in favour of ID cards, or were in favour of them in principle—I am not quite sure what their position was. I think that she mentioned that the Conservatives are now no longer prepared to dance—they are no longer prepared to do the tango together as they used to. All I can say is:

"There may be trouble ahead",

so,

"Let's face the music and dance".

In this debate, we are happy just to hold the jackets of the dancing partners—Labour, Liberal and Conservative—as they enter the new sunlit uplands of the commission and decide whether any, all or some of these matters should or should not be devolved.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am glad to sum up for the Liberal Democrats in this debate on civil liberties—an issue that is built in with the bricks for Liberals, but on which the course of events has brought many other people to agree with us. I was pleased with three quarters of the minister's response to the debate. It is unfortunate that he and Christina McKelvie tried to make a constitutional issue of it.

The Labour Party's position appears to show signs of schizophrenia. On one hand, James Kelly sees no merit in having a debate on the matter, believing that the £18 million that is to be spent on an ID card scheme could not be better spent in any other way. On the other hand, Pauline McNeill—who also made a valid point about the data that is held in private hands—welcomed the debate as an important one. I agree with Pauline McNeill rather than with James Kelly.

The line-up in the debate is different from the line-up for the previous one. That is not surprising, given that we face proposals to extend the time for which a person who is suspected of terrorism can be held. As Iain Smith rightly pointed out, some people want to hold everyone's DNA in a database—babes in arms or adults, charged and convicted or not—and the Labour Government wants to introduce a hugely expensive, unworkable and unnecessary scheme for compulsory ID cards. Given that Professor Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, has been hugely critical of the UK Government's position on ID cards, we should perhaps think again about some aspects of the scheme.

The word "unnecessary", which I have used in connection with ID cards, is the key to what is wrong with the UK Government's thinking. No substantial case has been made for any of the changes to be imposed on us by the Government that has brought us the Child Support Agency farce and various other Government IT calamities; that has defied the international rule of law to take us into a disastrous war in Iraq; and that has now lost the personal details of 25 million people in the child benefit disks scandal. Big Brother is not so much watching you as trashing your life. Perhaps most worrying of all, there has been a change in culture and in attitude towards basic liberties, encouraged by the UK Government, which has cheapened our national life and coarsened our instinctive responses to injustice and arbitrariness of power.

I wonder whether I am the only person who is concerned about the fact that Lockheed Martin, the American arms company, is likely to carry out the census in this country. I think that there are issues in that to be considered against the background of this debate.

The high-water point and, in many ways, the litmus test of civil rights is the ID cards proposal. The point was made by Helen Eadie, who is obviously a card groupie, that many of us carry bank cards, library cards and so on for our own purposes. That is perfectly true; however, those are voluntary, individual and not broadly linked together. It is a whole different ball game when the state holds and requires records on a unified basis on all our doings—our health records, our tax records, where we go on holiday, our DNA records and our fingerprints.

When the Liberal Democrats were in government in Scotland, we made it clear that we did not want the ID cards scheme and that, if the UK Government insisted on introducing it, we did not want it to be linked to, or to be able to access, databases that would be held under the jurisdiction of the devolved Government or of devolved public agencies in Scotland. That remains the view that we ask Parliament to support today.

We have the advantage of much-changed public opinion. In 2003, when the Government first proposed the ID cards scheme, it was favoured by 78 per cent of people and opposed by only 15 per cent. Now, opinion is evenly divided—at least, it was prior to the lost disks problem. A 30 per cent swing in opinion sounds like one of the more spectacular Liberal Democrat by-election victories. It is certainly spectacular and significant.

I have some sympathy with the sentiments that Patrick Harvie expressed, and we have no particular objection to his amendment. He has a long record on such matters. We are all painfully aware that there are new threats to our society and our way of life, but we do not want to wake up one morning and discover that, in our urge to appear tough—to do something to fight criminals or terrorists—we have lost the ingredients that were special in our way of life: the freedom to go about our business unharassed by the authorities; the sanctity of our homes and private lives and the right to keep them private; and the rule of law that protects the innocent just as it punishes the guilty. We do not want, instead of those things, to have compulsory ID cards, a Government that wants to know everything about us, imprisonment without charge for the longest period in the western world, a growing tension with ethnic minority groups and young people, and an even more risk-averse culture.

Civil liberties are important to all parts of society. If my civil liberties are interfered with, it interferes with your civil liberties. That is why Parliament agreed to establish the Scottish Commission for Human Rights. The motion is highly apposite and I ask the Parliament to support it.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to promote and encourage the building of eco-schools. (S3O-1666)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We have made it clear that building to higher standards of environmental performance is important across the board. We continue to work with local authorities to create sustainable schools, and we provide funding for renewable technologies and energy efficiency measures.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

The other week, I visited Wallacestone primary school, in my constituency. The children wanted to know why the Scottish Government is not considering some kind of rewards system to encourage the building of eco-schools and, more important, the work that is being done by teachers and pupils in promoting eco-schools and eco-systems. Will the minister consider that excellent suggestion from the children of Wallacestone primary school?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Like Cathy Peattie, I find visiting schools one of the best parts of my job. The eco-schools programme has been extremely successful in Scotland, more than 500 schools now having achieved green flag status. The enthusiasm with which the children in those schools embark on the eco-schools programme is an absolute delight. The programme is very much part of the curriculum for excellence in promoting sustainable development education.

The First Minister recently opened Windygoul primary school, which is a single-storey ecofriendly building that is designed to minimise energy use by using sustainable products—external breathing walls and so on. I will take on board what the member has said in relation to the building of schools. Local authorities and the schools themselves should be in line for rewards.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I endorse what the minister says about eco-schools. I visited one in my constituency the other day, and I was very impressed. She will be aware of the positive steps that are being taken by the Woodland Trust to nurture an understanding of our woodland environment in our schools, as well as developments in the National Assembly for Wales to promote tree planting in schools. Will the minister consider the possibility of such a scheme being developed in Scotland, in line with the projects that are currently being run to provide free hedge and copse to schools, so that every child in Scotland will have the opportunity to plant a tree early in their educational career?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Further to the debate on woodlands that we had earlier in the week, that is something that I would be prepared to take forward with the Minister for Environment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The First Minister promised to match, brick for brick, Labour's school-building programme, which included the building of eco-schools. Will the minister encourage her colleagues to call in the planning application for Dumbarton academy?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The SNP will match, brick for brick, the previous Executive's commitment to building schools. The point that the member makes about the school in her constituency is a matter for the local authority. We are constantly in touch with the local authority on that matter.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that pensioners do not wait for six months over the winter without central heating or hot water. (S3O-1656)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The funding announcement of 21 November, in addition to the funding that was announced in August, will accelerate installations over the winter period so that those without heating and hot water do not have to wait for so long. That initiative will ensure that the impact of winter conditions is minimised as far as possible and it will ease the pressure on the programme next year.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Does the minister agree that the success of the central heating programme in tackling fuel poverty has created new problems, as not only do some households not have central heating, but there is an increasing number of households whose heating has broken down? Does he recognise that, unlike households with no central heating, which might have immersion or portable heaters, there is a new problem with households that have no alternative to their broken-down heating systems, where people are boiling water in pans or kettles? Does he agree that that is unsustainable over the winter months? Is that situation the result of a capacity problem at Scottish Gas, or is it because of the criteria that are applied by the Scottish Executive? When the minister is reviewing the criteria, will he ensure that we do not lead pensioners, by default, into deferring decisions about their heating when they should be making those decisions now—so that they do not have to wait with the false expectation that they will get a free programme from the Government?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I absolutely agree with the member that we have inherited a very difficult situation from the previous Executive. We have inherited long waiting lists and a programme that, unfortunately, is not delivering on the expectations that many pensioners across the country have.

The member said that the central heating programme is tackling fuel poverty in Scotland. I must point to information that was published on 11 December: it shows that, in 2005-06, 23 per cent of households were fuel poor. That is up from 18.5 per cent in 2004-05. There was a rise in fuel poverty, year on year, under the previous Executive.

I must also point out that, on 21 November, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing announced an additional £7 million, which will be targeted at those who have no heating and no hot water—that is a criterion for accessing the funding. It will bring forward installations for that particularly vulnerable group of people, but it will not delay others' installations.

We are tackling the problem as best we can. It is a very difficult situation: as the member is aware, the central heating programme was never intended as an emergency replacement system. However, we will do all that we can to ensure that the people who are in the most need get their systems as quickly as possible.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Like many members, I have recently visited the homes of individuals who have had central heating installed. Does the minister share the concern that I felt on a recent visit? Although installation was almost complete, Scottish Gas had written—on 13 November—to advise that installation would not proceed until February 2008. Does that not suggest a degree of confusion in Scottish Gas and render some of its figures unreliable?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am very concerned by the instance that the member has come across, where an individual household was given erroneous information by Scottish Gas about the delivery time for its central heating system. I hope that that is not widespread, but I am more than happy to take the matter up with Scottish Gas. It is clearly important that those who are waiting for their central heating systems get accurate information. If erroneous information suggesting that people will have to wait much longer than is actually the case is being provided, that is clearly unacceptable.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to introduce a co-ordinated early years framework for deaf children following diagnosis. (S3O-1590)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We have already announced that we are developing a long-term early years strategy for publication in 2008. It will ensure that we deliver services to all children, including deaf children, in a co-ordinated, holistic way. For deaf children, the strategy will build on and complement the existing newborn hearing screening programme and the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which already aims to co-ordinate support for children who are diagnosed as having hearing impairments.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Although there is no detailed record, an estimated 45 black and minority ethnic deaf families live in my constituency. Furthermore, research indicates that Asian children are 3.5 times more likely to be deaf than non-Asian children. In addition to other obstacles, BME children and families face other cultural and language barriers. If English is not their first language, that can often restrict parents from accessing vital information from health and education professionals. Does the minister agree that language should not be a barrier to receiving appropriate treatment for Scottish BME deaf children? Will he sit down with me and with people who work in the BME deaf community to discuss the issue further?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the member for his question. I certainly agree that we should be removing barriers to appropriate treatment for all children. The member might be aware that the Scottish Government has appointed a project officer to work with the National Deaf Children's Society and, specifically, to liaise with families of Asian children to identify what support they need. The outcome of the project will be known at the end of March 2008. I would be happy to meet the member to discuss his concerns.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

In any proposed framework or strategy, what measures will the Scottish Government put in place to support the parents of children who are identified as deaf or hearing impaired to play their role in adding to their children's development?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As the member will be aware, one of the major themes of our early years strategy, which we hope to bring to Parliament next year, is building the capacity of parents and families to deal with the problems within the family. The member should also be aware that we have undertaken a review of the universal newborn hearing screening programme, which has resulted in a report that we are currently considering. We will bring that matter to the Parliament in due course.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Has the Government given any consideration to the use of new technology that might overcome the particular problems experienced by deaf people in remote and rural areas? There is often a lack of any meaningful access to British Sign Language interpreters.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I can certainly check what progress is being made in that area, which is part of the review that I have mentioned. Progress will be monitored by the audiology services advisory group. Alasdair Allan's question would be relevant to that group. I shall endeavour to feed information back to him.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will report back on the consultation on the replacement of planning guideline NPPG 11 on sport, physical recreation and open space. (S3O-1653)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

"Scottish Planning Policy 11: Open Space and Physical Activity" was issued by the Scottish Government on 15 November this year. It replaces national planning policy guideline 11. An analysis of consultation responses and a consultation report were published on the same date and are available on the Scottish Government website.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I declare my membership of Fields in Trust. Will the minister comment on the concerns that have been raised by a number of organisations about the failure to carry through the consultation process that addressed how we deal with national minimum standards for open space and recreation? Would he care to review the process of consultation, given that there is substantial concern about the lack of impact it had on the decision that was made?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

During the consultation, a number of views were put forward. There was support for minimum standards, but significant concerns were raised about the inflexibility of imposing standards right across the country. Julie Procter, the chief officer of Greenspace Scotland, said of SPP 11:

"We are very happy with it because it gives greater strength to open space planning by requiring local authorities to have an open space audit and to build strategies into the development plans."

Our document, as proposed, entirely supports our principle of local decision making while ensuring that green space will be available right across Scotland.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers the Government economic strategy to be a strategy or a financial plan. (S3O-1612)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

"The Government Economic Strategy" sets out the framework for the delivery of the Government's overarching purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The cabinet secretary's answer is entirely consistent with that given by his colleague, Fiona Hyslop, on 21 November: that conducting an environmental assessment of the strategy would be too "difficult and time consuming". The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth should be familiar with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005, which exempts from environmental assessment only financial plans or programmes. It is clear that that exemption does not apply to "The Government Economic Strategy". Will he point me to the provision in the act that says that strategic environmental assessments of strategy documents are not required if they would be too time consuming or difficult to conduct?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government has taken the view that the economic strategy provides a framework for several subsequent decisions that the Government may or may not take, all of which will be subject to strategic environmental assessment as appropriate. The Government has judged that focusing environmental assessment on detailed and specific initiatives, policies and programmes would be more meaningful and manageable. That would give a more meaningful account of the individual environmental impact, rather than the more generic impact, which is therefore more difficult to quantify, of "The Government Economic Strategy".

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary may be aware of the Save the Children report "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul", which finds that families who are in poverty have limited access to affordable credit. Of those who are in poverty, 42 per cent report that they are seriously behind with paying bills or meeting credit commitments. "The Government Economic Strategy" seeks to raise the proportion of income that the poorest in our society earn. Will it also seek to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable in our society can access affordable credit?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Government is developing a series of initiatives as part of our determination to improve the life chances of many individuals in Scotland who are blighted by poverty. In a range of interventions that the Government is developing, we are determined to improve the life chances of people who are in poverty and to transform their financial circumstances. That lies at the core of the Government's purpose.

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

"The Government Economic Strategy" mentions the Borders specifically. That is welcome, but what additional support will be provided to the local enterprise company and Scottish Borders Council?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Purvis may be aware that I will set out the local government finance settlement this afternoon, which will provide some answers to his question that it would be premature to give now.

The Government is providing appropriate and adequate financial support to the enterprise network. I am sure that Mr Purvis will welcome the fact that in many of the communities that he represents—in small towns and villages—many small businesses will welcome the Government's ambitious programme to reduce the cost for business through our small business bonus scheme. I look forward to his support for such a measure in consideration of the Government's budget.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to safeguard the health of workers in the sex industry. (S3O-1603)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

In June this year, the Scottish Government published guidance for local authorities and their community planning partners on developing local strategies to address street prostitution. The guidance emphasised the importance of meeting the health care needs of those who are involved in prostitution. The Scottish Government also provided one-off funding of £1 million to assist four city local authorities in developing their response to street prostitution.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It is known that male and female sex workers are at a greater than average risk of violence and sexually transmitted disease. Recent attempts to curb prostitution and the nuisance that it causes might have increased that risk. Will the Government consider reconvening the expert group on prostitution or establishing a new body to recommend ways of reducing that risk?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

No reliable evidence suggests that legislation that targets people who create the demand for prostitution increases the risk to those who are involved in prostitution or that prostitution tolerance zones mitigate that risk.

The Scottish Government's guidance on prostitution emphasises the importance of ensuring that those involved in prostitution feel able to report crimes that are committed against them and that they are treated with respect and sensitivity when they do so. The guidance recommends the use of a police liaison officer to build relations with those involved in street prostitution and to pass on information about known dangerous offenders. The Scottish Government has no current plans to reconvene the expert group on prostitution.

First Minister's Question Time

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-353)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, including on how to build a parliamentary alliance to defeat the unholy alliance between Labour and Tory that is trying to prevent the reintroduction of free education in Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Last week I raised the issue of support for families with disabled children. Essentially, the First Minister confirmed that, although families in England and Wales will benefit from a £340 million dedicated fund, the £34 million share for Scottish families will not be protected for that purpose. This week we all learned how readily the First Minister will meet those whom he believes to be important. Before Christmas, will he meet the representatives of Scotland's 50,000 families with disabled children and explain to them why they cannot have the same support, for which they have campaigned so long and hard, as families in England and Wales?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will be delighted to meet such families. I will be able to point out to them that our concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities includes a commitment to progress to an extra 10,000 respite weeks per year. Wendy Alexander should start to read the documents a bit more carefully.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I have read the concordat very carefully, and the truth is that it makes no specific mention of support for disabled children. There is a very non-specific line on respite places, but it does not say that those are dedicated to children. The only outcome in which the 50,000 families to which I referred are interested is a guarantee that they will receive a package of support equal to that of their cousins in England and Wales. Those families do not have £1 billion to invest in Scotland, but the care that they provide would cost us billions of pounds to provide from the public purse. Unpaid carers save Scotland more than £7 billion. Do they not deserve the same hearing as Mr Trump's representatives? Why has no minister apparently met the families so far to discuss how the £34 million should be spent?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Deputy First Minister met young carers in Ayrshire this Monday—Wendy Alexander should try to catch up and keep up with developments.

Wendy Alexander made a brief mention of the concordat. For the benefit of the chamber, I will read out the relevant section of the document, which refers on page 5 to

"Carers' support—progress towards delivering 10,000 extra respite weeks per annum at home and in care homes."

What could be clearer than that? When I meet disabled children's families, I will be delighted to point to the passage in the concordat that Wendy Alexander seems unable to understand.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Meeting young carers is not the same as meeting the families who campaigned for £34 million to be made available. I ask again: why has no minister apparently met those families to discuss how the money will be spent in Scotland? Let me make it easy for the First Minister. At next week's meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee, Labour colleagues will move an amendment that will protect the £34 million and guarantee that that support goes to families with disabled children. Will the First Minister belatedly act and direct Scottish National Party members on the committee to support the amendment?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We know what Labour members get up to at committees: they combine with the Conservative party to stop free education in Scotland—[ Interruption. ] Wendy Alexander walked right into that one.

I said that I would meet the families and I will be delighted to do so. Wendy Alexander seemed unaware that the Deputy First Minister had met young carers in Ayrshire on Monday. All carers organisations are important to this Government and to local government in Scotland. That is why carers are identified in the concordat, and it is why the concordat gives local government in Scotland its best financial settlement for a generation, so that it can pursue care and help families, and so that we can go forward together in agreement.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I welcome the fact that the First Minister has finally agreed to meet those families, whom he has not met so far. That presents a chance to repair the damage with organisations such as Inclusion Scotland, because the families have campaigned for the money for years. Next week, there will be a chance to begin to repair the damage.

Day in, day out those families care for their children. I ask the First Minister again: will he support the call by the 50,000 Scottish families who look after disabled children for a dedicated fund, and will he work directly with them to ensure that Scotland's disabled children are not left out in the cold?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Wendy Alexander said quite rightly that the families have been campaigning for years. What was she doing during the past eight years, when the families were campaigning?

I said in answer to her first question about meeting the families—three questions ago—that I would be delighted to meet them. When I meet them, I will point to the concordat with local government and the 10,000 extra weeks of respite care, and I will talk about how that partnership with local government will improve the lot not just of those families but of many other groups throughout Scotland. There is a new dimension and a new deal between central and local government in Scotland, which is supported across the range of Scottish society, but which Wendy Alexander chooses neither to read nor to understand.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-354)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister at the next meeting of the British-Irish Council, in Dublin early next year.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

On Thursday 29 November, Aberdeenshire Council rejected the Trump application—a final decision in terms of the council's procedures. On Monday 3 December, the First Minister met the Trump team in Aberdeen. That same day, the Trump team made it clear to journalists that no appeal would be lodged and that there were only 30 days in which to save the development. On the following day, the Scottish Government called in the planning application—a decision that raised eyebrows in planning circles, because no appeal had been lodged.

Why, contrary to point (iii) of paragraph 6.11 of the Scottish ministerial code, did the First Minister meet only the developer during that critical period of four days? Why, in so doing, did he take action that, according to the code,

"might be seen as prejudicial to that process"?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

On the member's second point, I had already met Sustainable Aberdeenshire, as well as Michael Forbes, the objecting farmer and Mrs Forbes, his mother—all excellent and friendly people.

As the constituency member for Gordon, I am excluded from any involvement in the determination of the proposed development. Indeed, it is exactly because I am so debarred that I am free to pursue the normal duties of a member of the Scottish Parliament in relation to a substantial constituency interest. The major exception to that role as a constituency MSP is that because I am First Minister I have been advised to make no public comment on the development, in case it is interpreted as being in favour of or against the development. I have followed that to the letter since becoming First Minister.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I remind members that the only party that the First Minister met after the rejection of the application was the developer.

I have noted the First Minister's emphasis on his attendance at the meeting as a constituency MSP. Presumably that is why the First Minister arrived at the constituency meeting in a Government car, accompanied by a Government special adviser.

The First Minister has failed to comply with the ministerial code. He has made inappropriate use of Scottish Government facilities, and he did not display the visible neutrality that is required of any Government minister when they are dealing with a planning matter. Astonishingly, as the First Minister, he was not even-handed, he was cack-handed. Either that is ignorance or arrogance, and ignorance is not a condition with which I associate the First Minister. [Laughter.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Was the meeting of 3 December ever denied and, if so, why? What individual issued the press statement that was eventually given to a local paper about that meeting, which the First Minister insists he attended as a constituency MSP? When, on 4 December, the Government's chief planner telephoned the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council to advise that the application was being called in, was any other party present or participating in that telephone call?

How the First Minister has conducted himself in this matter is of material importance to the process, and those specific questions need specific answers.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The answers to the parliamentary questions that have been asked will also answer those specific questions.

Annabel Goldie's final point was about whether a third party was present during a telephone call between the chief planner and Aberdeenshire Council. I can tell her that I was not present and I was not part of the meeting or the telephone call, if that is what she wished to imply.

The permanent secretary has made it perfectly clear that the use of the Government car was entirely appropriate because I was in Aberdeen on Government business in any case. It is crystal clear that I attended the meeting as a constituency member of Parliament. The clue to that is in the fact that, apart from the two representatives of the Trump Organization, who asked for the meeting—and I am duty bound to respond to that—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I suggest that, as it applies to them, all members of this Parliament should look at section 3.15 of the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament, which says that members should be accessible to their constituency's interests.

Present at that meeting were two representatives of the Trump Organization, myself, and Hannah Bardell, my constituency secretary. No other person was present. It is crystal clear that I pursued that meeting as a constituency member of Parliament, as I would expect every member of the Scottish Parliament to represent their constituency interests.

Now that she has heard that explanation, I hope that Annabel Goldie will accept it and leave it there.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-355)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Were any representatives of the Trump Organization in the chief planner's room when he telephoned Aberdeenshire Council about the Trump proposals last Tuesday, the very day on which the application was called in?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I was not there. It is not my responsibility.

As Nicol Stephen well knows, I am debarred from any decision-making in the planning process, so why on earth would I know the answer to that question? I was not in the room with the chief planner at the time.

Nicol Stephen should remember how a constituency member can pursue interests in the planning process. I have here a quote from the BBC Scotland news website of 21 February 2006, which says:

"Campaigners have said they are amazed over claims the deputy first minister did not have prior knowledge of the proposed Aberdeen bypass route."

Does Nicol Stephen not think that, as the former Deputy First Minister, he was bound by the same code of conduct that I followed to the letter as First Minister?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Aberdeenshire Council will confirm that it had to ask for the Trump representatives to leave the chief planner's room during a phone call last Tuesday. This is a serious situation for the First Minister and his Government. Every step of the way, there has been contradiction, concealment and cleverness from his Government on the issue. It smells of sleaze. Will he now establish an independent inquiry to investigate what happened in those 48 hours last Monday and Tuesday, to find out why the developers were present with the chief planner on the very day that their application was called in and to examine what pressure the chief planner was put under by ministers to take the potentially prejudicial actions that now jeopardise the project? Does he understand that few people will now believe that his Government is a fair and proper body to decide the application in an open and transparent way?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

My behaviour as First Minister in the matter has followed the rule book exactly. The only confusion and dislocation has come from the Liberal-led Aberdeenshire Council's procedures, which caused certain difficulty. The one thing that people both for and against the development are agreed on is that they find it somewhat surprising that, for such a major development, we could arrive at a position in which it looked like 46 members of Aberdeenshire Council would never get a substantive vote—for or against—on the development.

Nicol Stephen's role in the matter—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Nicol Stephen's role in the matter cannot be explained as being helpful to the process no matter whether one's point of view is for or against the development. Is he really interested in good processes in planning in Scotland, or is he interested in forgetting his conflict of interests last year in the decision on the Aberdeen bypass?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I have received a number of requests for supplementary questions. I will take one from Margo MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Is the First Minister aware of the dire situation as regards affordable housing in Edinburgh? Last week, 1,024 applications were lodged for one former council house. Next week, it is entirely possible that the city will be unable to meet its obligations under the homeless persons legislation for priority needs cases. Can he assure me that the new Government will do what the previous Government failed to do and urge the Treasury to create a level playing field for places where people voted to remain in council control rather than to transfer?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The answer to Margo MacDonald's question is yes. That level playing field is essential. The Government's decision on the right to buy is also important in allowing an even playing field for public sector provision by councils in Scotland. That councils have built virtually no houses in Scotland over the past few years is absolutely deplorable. If we are to reconcile the needs of the people with future housing policy, Margo MacDonald's suggestion should be taken up by all political parties and not just the Government.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a further supplementary from Roseanna Cunningham.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Does the First Minister agree that the Defence Aviation Repair Agency's rotary wing and components business at Almondbank in my constituency is profoundly important for the military helicopter fleet, as well as providing more than 300 highly specialised and much-needed local jobs? Is he as concerned as I am at the likely imminent announcement of the sale of the Almondbank facility to a small Canadian company, with all that that implies? Will he join me in supporting proposals that have been submitted by the joint trade unions that would ensure the long-term viability and success of the business within the public sector? Will he accept my invitation to visit DARA Almondbank just as soon as his diary permits?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will be glad to arrange that meeting and that visit. I share the constituency member's concerns on the matter and I will be very happy to pursue it in that light.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

To ask the First Minister what discussions Scottish ministers have had with the United Kingdom Government concerning the development of offshore wind projects. (S3F-371)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Scottish Government is pleased to be working with the UK Government on its strategic environmental assessment for offshore wind. The study will include Scotland's deep offshore waters and will be vital to unlocking our vast clean energy potential.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

Given that a significant proportion of the UK's potential offshore wind, wave and tidal capacity is in Scottish waters, what steps will the Government take to ensure that the discriminatory connection charge regime comes to an end, thereby enabling Scotland to benefit fully from our huge renewable energy resource?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government, acting with major companies that are involved in the sector such as Scottish and Southern Energy, Scottish Power, Scottish Renewables—and, indeed, a number of local councils—has put together an unanswerable case for a level playing field in terms of access to grid connection in Scotland.

If we are to develop and access the enormous potential that Scotland has in its renewable resource, access to grid connection must be at a fair price. We cannot allow massive subsidies to be paid out for grid connection in some areas of England when the very areas that have the greatest potential for generating renewable energy—those in the north of Scotland—face penal charges. Even now, despite some moves and indications that things will improve, there is no security that the islands of Scotland will be able to mobilise their natural resources for the overall benefit of the country.

I hope that the case that we will present to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets is instrumental in doing what the previous Administration did not do. I hope that it will rectify a situation that is probably the single greatest obstacle to realising the potential that Scotland has as the renewable powerhouse of Europe.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Does the First Minister agree that Burntisland Fabrications in my constituency embodies the economic benefits that Scottish business can look to secure from a healthy offshore wind sector? The company played a key role in developing the Beatrice project and I am delighted at its recent success. Will he join me in congratulating the company on the contribution that it has made, and will make, to the sector? Will he ensure that it can access the necessary infrastructural support that it requires to expand? I ask the question in light of the Scottish Enterprise reorganisation.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Government has provided support to help to build up the energy centre in Fife in terms of construction and fabrication. I visited the facility when the Beatrice demonstrators were being built and the sight was hugely impressive. Tremendous economic benefits are available in the sector; the potential is enormous. As I am sure the constituency member knows, Burntisland Fabrications has positioned itself not only as a key supplier for the Beatrice project but has been selected as the preferred bidder to supply 30 jacket substructures for the proposed Ormonde wind farm. I understand that the company is also heavily involved in looking to expand the Fife energy park.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

At a meeting of the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency last night, Neil Kermode of the European Marine Energy Centre made the point that offshore wind, wave and tidal energy resources are rarely, if ever, to be found in the same place. What assessment has the Government made on where those sources of renewable energy will best be harnessed? Will he confirm that, in the decisions that are made on grid connection, one technology will not be played off against another? In his new-found friendly and constructive discussions with UK ministers, will he reinforce the need for improved access to the marine renewables development fund for those who seek to test and develop marine technologies in Scotland?