Stewart's speeches in Parliament

S4M-01532 Special Areas of Conservation (Designation)

2012-02-08T17:45:00.000Z

Meeting of the Parliament 08 February 2012

... ... ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith): The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01532, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, on the designation of special areas of conservation. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with alarm concerns expressed by local communities in the Western Isles regarding procedures and scientific data used by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) for designating special areas of conservation (SAC) in East Mingulay and the Sound of Barra; notes that the concerns were assessed by SNH, which, in the case of the East Mingulay consultation process, deemed them to be unfounded, and notes that the designation process is continuing for both sites, despite continuing local concerns and what it understands to be government-sponsored evidence of substantial economic damage and little quantifiable benefit as a result of SAC status.

17:03
... ... ...
17:37

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson): I will start by acknowledging some important points. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about people in Barra—Homo sapiens—seeking to protect their economic and environmental interests. In that regard, I acknowledge the substantial contribution to informing the debate that the local MSP, Dr Alasdair Allan, has made. Barra residents Angus Brendan McNeil and Donald Manford have also been in touch with me, as have others.

That leads me to an issue that may perplex some people. I assure members that SNH provides advice but, as Claire Baker correctly said, the minister decides. I do not necessarily have the free hand that some people might wish me to have, but I have the power to protect local interests. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall exercise that power in the following way.

If—for the avoidance of doubt, I said “if”—I designate the Sound of Barra, my objective is to do so when three conditions are fulfilled. First, I will invite local interests to participate in the development of a management plan that has the objective of protecting those interests. In particular, it should maintain a sustainable scallop fishery, the existence of which has, over many years, influenced the local environment such that it is optimised for that activity. The second condition is that any such management plan provides a continuing role for local interests in management of the area. Thirdly and necessarily, any package of proposals has to conform to European Commission rules.

Members might ask what I mean by “local interests”. I recognise that that term must include local fishing interests, local fish processing interests and local environmental and community interests.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con): I spoke in the debate on the issue that took place 10 years ago. Does the minister accept that the problem remains the same? Plus ça change. It is not that anyone doubts that there is a need for a designation; the issue is the manner in which the process is gone about. That is what needs to be addressed, and the Government agencies need to be held to account by ministers in that regard.

Stewart Stevenson: I will say more on that, because I do not reject the point that is being made.

I am asking my officials to bring forward proposals that address the issue of management, so it is vital that local fishing interests engage in the process that I have just described.

In the limited time that is available to me, I would like to respond to a few of the points that members have made. Jamie McGrigor mentioned the Halcrow report. It is worth saying that the value of identifying potential impacts is that it informs the decision of this Government and this minister and enables me to be aware of the need to safeguard vital services, and to ensure that there is a thriving local economy.

It is worth saying that there are some things in the consultation that might be of interest. The Sound of Barra is referred to on page 14 of the consultation, which shows that the significant impact of the Eriskay causeway has not been reflected in damage to the environment in relation to things such as reef. I had not heard about the issue for creel fishermen in Strangford Lough—I will follow that up after the debate—although I have examples of places in Scotland where we do not appear to have such problems.

Alasdair Allan said that we have to work on the basis of scientific rather than economic issues. Tavish Scott said that economic issues can be part of the decision-making process, but they cannot form part of the scientific advice. However, I can, of course, consider economic issues, and members can be assured that I will so do. I smiled at the mention of Marine Scotland simply because it is my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment who looks after that organisation rather than me. Ministers are responsible, and that is absolutely correct.

It is some time before I expect to receive the report. When I do, I will consider it.

I want to address the point that John Scott and others have made. I fully accept that relations between SNH and local people have broken down. I cannot allow that situation to endure, but I recognise that it will not be possible to fix it quickly. Rebuilding trust will extend well beyond the resolution of the issue that is currently before us. Part of that process will involve my officials being party to more of the discussions. However, it is necessary to avoid an extended period of reflection on what has been. We must focus on what happens next.

One issue that has exercised the Barraich has been the limitation—which derives from EU law and court judgments, not from SNH’s preferences—that, when considering possible SAC designations, only environmental issues can be considered. That has caused huge angst—even at a substantial distance, I have felt the intense frustration that it has caused for those who are concerned, quite properly, about economic impacts.

The good news is that, in considering the management of SACs, the Government’s view is that we should take account of economic factors. The law permits that. Indeed, in certain cases, an adverse environmental impact may be contemplated when there are “Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest”—that is a quote from the relevant directive.

Jamie McGrigor: Will the minister take on board the fact that windows of economic opportunity are not an overburdening factor in the Western Isles? Windows of economic opportunity must be grabbed, not thrown away.

Stewart Stevenson: I wish that we all had four hands to grab them with. In the relatively brief meeting that I was able to have with the people from Barra who are with us tonight, I committed to have further engagement on economic issues, so I am on song with the member’s point.

I take the opportunity to thank those who have travelled here, at no minor expense, to listen to the debate and to meet me. I trust that they feel that, although there is a distance to travel on the issue, the minister has been listening to the MSP for the Western Isles, to this debate and to people beyond. I ask the people from Barra, when they go back there, to highlight that the minister has visited Barra many times over a 30-year period. I absolutely understand, and I am committed to ensuring the economic viability of the island both now and in the future. We need to work together—in the Parliament, but more fundamentally with local people on Barra—to deliver on that commitment, and we need to rebuild trust.

Meeting closed at 17:45

S4M-01406 United Nations Climate Summit [Closing Speech]

2011-11-24T17:00:00.003Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01406, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on Scotland’s contribution to the United Nations climate summit.

14:57
... ... ...
16:48

Stewart Stevenson:

The debate perfectly illustrates the old saying that something starts off as a heresy, then becomes an argument and eventually an orthodoxy. Actually, I suspect that we have a heterodoxy—in other words, we all agree, but we have different opinions about certain aspects. The agreement that we struck across the political divide in Scotland in 2009 took a lot of hard work on everybody’s part and was an excellent foundation for future action.

Elaine Murray, Aileen McLeod and other members raised the issue of a second commitment period under Kyoto. We should be careful in one respect. A second commitment period for the existing treaty is clearly second best to having an up-to-date treaty that is legally binding across the world and which reflects today’s needs. It is certainly something that should be kept in the locker, but the UK Government is clear that the focus has to be on negotiating a new treaty that is suitable for a new era in which we understand more about the issues. The second commitment period is very much a fall-back position and we agree with that approach.

Elaine Murray mentioned CFCs and so on. Those are, like peat, outside the accounting system. We would like the accounting system to take more account of things that have an impact—positively or negatively—on greenhouse gas emissions and, hence, on climate change.

Let us remind ourselves of something that I have said on many occasions, including in 2008-09, which is that the targets are long term, although the impacts are immediate and with us now. The target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 is one that we share with the UK Government. According to the registrar general’s report a month ago, he predicts that, in Scotland, my life expectancy is another 16.7 years. I hope that he is wrong. I would be 104 years old in 2050 if I am so spared—I would rather like to see what is happening.

Elaine Murray asked a very specific question about whether the fossil fuel levy can be used to restore peatlands. I do not know the answer to that question, but I will ensure that she gets an answer. There are technical issues about what that money may be spent on but I, too, would like to see some of it being spent on that.

I think that we are in agreement on the value of small-scale biomass in local communities. I thank Elaine Murray for the good wishes—I have also received them from other members, notably Malcolm Chisholm—that I take with me to Durban.

I say to Alex Johnstone that the temperature in Durban today is 19ºC and it is raining heavily. Of course, as I will be inside throughout the entire visit, I will not see any of the place. Alex Johnstone talked, as many Conservatives increasingly do, about wind. It is worth reminding ourselves that we have a diverse range of renewable energies. Thanks to the work that was largely led by Tom Johnston, the famous and very effective Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, we have a significant hydro industry, which has been with us for a long time.

We are moving towards tidal energy, which is a much more predictable and reliable source of energy. It has a diurnal cycle, which is not a large cycle, and it also has an annual cycle, but it is predictable. Alex Johnstone says that a pragmatic, sustainable approach is needed, and moving to tidal delivers on that.

Rob Gibson referred, as he would normally be expected to, to peatland. We need to measure and account for our land use, land use change and forests. We hope to see progress on that.

I very much welcome Claudia Beamish to the debate. I recognise that in her previous life, before she became an MSP, she was engaged in the issue. She has an insight and a range of experience that is well worth listening to. She made a point about a report on energy efficiency in which the Scottish Government comes well down the field. If I am thinking of the correct report, it related in essence to whether we had put in smart meters and whether we had got our buildings accredited. We are going for the accreditation standard but we have not gone for accreditation. We are, because of our policy, taking the actions that smart meters might force us to take. We are doing rather better than that report perhaps suggested.

We share Claudia Beamish’s disappointment about the sudden change of financial support for solar panels, which follows the disastrous change in the regime for oil. Those changes affect industries that require long-term certainty. Fergus Ewing wrote to the UK Government on that, but I do not believe that we have yet had a response.

I am delighted to say that I have visited the woodland allotment in Peebles, which is an excellent initiative. The climate challenge fund has supported 1,000 allotments so far. I wrote down what Claudia Beamish said in essence as, “Don’t be too restrictive”, and I do not believe that we are. Claims submitted by projects to the climate challenge fund showed a reduction at one point of 700,000 tonnes, and that figure is now rising because we are continuing the funding.

I said in committee just over a year ago that not every project will succeed because we are not drawing the regulations so tightly that we are excluding innovation, which may or may not succeed. It is important to recognise that that is the case.

Graeme Dey gave us some fairly alarming figures from an IPCC report that showed that violent storms, CO2 emissions and so on will increase. That is absolutely true, and we will continue to exercise leadership. Annabel Ewing made an important contribution in which she referred to the Comrie Development Trust, which—if I recall correctly—has three projects supported by the climate challenge fund. I visited the projects, including the allotments, around 18 months ago.

I welcome Jenny Marra to the debate. On transport, she should remember that we continue to make substantial investments in the rail network—for example, we have invested around £1 billion in the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. On the subject of eco driving, that can be funded by the companies and drivers themselves; I recently heard of an example in which the entire cost of an eco driving course for a team of white van men was recovered in six weeks in reduced fuel consumption. We can see that that is happening around Scotland.

Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the freight facilities grant. Alas, we never got enough good projects, although I must say that I constantly banged the drum in my previous ministerial position. Patrick Harvie seemed to talk down our achievement of a 27.6 per cent reduction in emissions, en route to 42 per cent by 2020, but it is an excellent achievement. Various people have said that it is important that we now lock in that achievement, and we will seek to do so.

Patrick Harvie: Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson: I am sorry, but I do not have time now.

It is important that we recognise the economic value of the activity that we are doing. When we create jobs, we create wider commitment to the agenda. We expect that the number of jobs in the low-carbon economy will rise from 70,000 to 130,000 by 2020, which will amount to approximately 5 per cent of the workforce in total.

I turn to a couple of things to which Sarah Boyack referred. She mentioned carbon capture, but I am afraid that we cannot forget—or forgive—the fact that the Labour Party in government at Westminster failed the test of government when it sabotaged the Peterhead carbon capture system, and it therefore ill behoves Labour members to speak on that subject. Sarah Boyack said today that she had resisted the temptation to provide a list of budget amendments to address various issues, but she fails the challenge of opposition.

I hope that we have a good conference in Durban, and I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate.

S4M-01406 United Nations Climate Summit [Opening Speech]

2011-11-24T15:10:00.003Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01406, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on Scotland’s contribution to the United Nations climate summit.

14:57

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

Against a background of continuing global economic difficulties, over the next two weeks around 200 nations, parties to the UN framework convention on climate change, will meet again in Durban, South Africa, to continue negotiations on international action to tackle global climate change.

Climate change is certainly a huge environmental threat to the international community, with the poor and vulnerable, particularly in developing countries, being worst affected. It is also a huge threat to the global economy. Unchecked, it is reckoned that it could cost between 5 and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product.

At the Copenhagen climate talks two years ago, Scotland presented its strategy of acting as a model of best practice on climate change. In unanimously agreeing a world-leading target to cut emissions by 42 per cent by 2020 in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, the Parliament had strong support from business and civic society. Despite the strong commitment of Scotland and others to tackling the issue, there was no breakthrough at Copenhagen. Our hopes for a single, global, legally binding climate change treaty now rest on making steady progress, year by year, in constructing the building blocks for a treaty to be agreed at some, hopefully not-too-distant, future date.

Scottish ministers were determined not to let the disappointment of Copenhagen dilute our commitment. We had already moved on from seeking high ambition to putting in place the framework for delivery: annual targets that would allow us to say, year on year, how we proposed to meet our 2020 goal; proposals and policies to drive down emissions; plans for public engagement; and research on consumer behaviours.

International interest in Scotland’s climate change commitments and programmes continued to grow. At last year’s UNFCCC summit in Cancún, Scottish ministers had a place on the United Kingdom delegation for the first time. As well as working with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the UK team, we began work to strengthen our support for developing countries, progressing our partnership with the Maldives with the funding of a study by Robert Gordon University into the marine energy potential of the islands. That study has now been finalised and will help the Maldives Government’s development of its renewable energy strategy.

We have also launched international partnerships with the Inter-American Development Bank and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, and we have begun discussions with Malawi on how we could build on the renewable energy pilots by the University of Strathclyde that have been funded under our international development fund.

In these hard economic times, while people throughout the world understand the environmental and moral messages on the need to act on climate change as a matter of climate justice for developing countries, they are naturally concerned about jobs. The Scottish Government believes that the evidence from Scotland demonstrates the powerful jobs, investment, trade and economic growth potential of the low-carbon economy.

In Scotland, we have a GDP of around £100 billion, with a low-carbon market of around £8.8 billion that is forecast to rise to some £12 billion by 2015-16, thus representing more than 10 per cent of the Scottish economy and around 5 per cent of the workforce. Globally, the market is already worth £3 trillion—£3 million million—and is forecast to increase in value to £4.3 trillion by 2014-15.

With 25 per cent of Europe’s offshore wind and tidal energy resource, 10 per cent of Europe’s wave potential and its largest offshore storage capacity for carbon dioxide, Scotland has a unique competitive advantage in the low-carbon economy. The market offers a broad range of opportunities across the economy for Scotland, and it includes sub-markets of renewable energy and low-carbon, environmental and clean technologies.

Our strategy is to encourage investment in jobs by remaining at the forefront of the development of regulatory frameworks for clean energy technology. We believe that the competitive advantage lies in being at the forefront of technological innovation.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): Does the minister accept that such a clear and unremitting focus on the economic benefits that he seeks to gain from low-carbon technologies will be seen as coming at the expense of the moral responsibility that we talked about when we passed the 2009 act if he decides that Scotland should use carbon credits to meet what were intended to be domestic targets for reducing emissions?

Stewart Stevenson: I hope that the member was listening when I appeared at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee earlier this week. It is not a plan of ours to use carbon credits, but any country that does use them has a choice in the nature of the credits. If a country used credits, it would certainly be important for it to consider how the credits can deliver a benefit to the developing world as a way of managing issues in its own country. Credits can be used to deliver a moral and social purpose if a country believes that it needs them, but we are not in that position at this stage.

Our strategic approach has attracted major international investors, such as Mitsubishi, Iberdrola and Gamesa, to set up global research and development centres in Scotland. Over the past year, there has been further growth in international interest in Scotland’s progress on low carbon.

David Cameron has thanked the Scottish ministers for their support for greater ambition in the European Union on climate change and to drive green investment, and he has acknowledged that Scotland has good examples to share of progressive climate policies delivering jobs and investment. At the invitation of the UK Government, we have provided low-carbon case studies to assist it in its international influencing efforts. Indeed, we use them ourselves.

Members should not just take David Cameron’s word that Scotland is setting the pace on international action—there are some here who might be reluctant to do so. The First Minister was recently given the international climate leadership award by the Government of South Australia—a part of Australia that, under the previous premiership of Mike Rann, has been taking the lead on the climate change agenda in the southern hemisphere.

With co-operation from the UK Government, I have been taking Scotland’s messages on low-carbon economics to colleagues in Europe. I have met ministers from Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia and Malta to share the Scottish experience of low-carbon jobs, investment and economic growth. Those messages about the jobs potential of the low-carbon economy have been warmly received and there are clearly opportunities for co-operation.

The Scottish ministers have an unprecedented level of international engagement on climate change. That will continue in Durban, where I will be part of the UK ministerial team. There, we will continue to demonstrate how we are making the low-carbon economy a reality. We will demonstrate how our leadership in low carbon is resulting in jobs and growth even in these stretched financial times. We will demonstrate that investment now will lead to energy security and lower costs for consumers in the long term.

A Scottish Government official will also work with the UK team on the UN’s capacity building work stream. That, as Mr Harvie may care to note, is of key importance to developing countries. We plan to strengthen further our support for developing countries in line with our new profile in the world.

There are significant positives on which to build. There is now an agreed aim of limiting the global temperature rise to no more than 2°C, although current emissions reduction pledges are not nearly enough to achieve that. A lot more work is needed to break out of the current low-ambition stand-off of major international players.

Scotland is not alone among countries in setting high ambition. The UK, Germany and Denmark have also committed to high targets for 2020 and the Australian Government is introducing carbon legislation. There are also good examples of helpful actions in China, India and the United States.

It must also be said that, despite the slow progress towards a global treaty, the other countries that are not yet adopting the formal targets are, nonetheless, making investment in the low-carbon economy where they see economic benefit. We can expect countries such as China and India to continue to do that to an increasing degree in the years to come.

Scotland has been an active member of the Climate Group’s states and regions alliance for many years. That highlights the fact that many progressive policies and actions are being delivered at sub-national and local levels of government, including in US states such as California and Texas.

The leadership of the EU and the UK is another invaluable asset. The EU has said that it is open to a second commitment period for the Kyoto protocol after 2012, which keeps the way open for other parties to make similar commitments.

However, time is short. We do not expect to break through at Durban and, with global emissions at an all-time high, we have only a short time span to get them on a downward track, allowing for the time that it would take for countries to ratify a new treaty.

Therefore, my message when I attend the UNFCCC in Durban as part of the UK delegation will be that it is imperative that we do not miss the massive opportunities that the fundamental shift in the global economy will provide. We believe that action is needed now to grasp the opportunities that higher ambition on emissions reduction presents to drive and incentivise investment in new low-carbon markets, to achieve energy security and to achieve environmental and climate justice objectives.

The evidence already shows that investment is happening in Scotland and that the country is already securing competitive advantage through new technologies and markets. Other countries should follow suit.

In addition, it is imperative that Scotland continues to articulate to the international community that, as an industrialised country, we have a moral obligation to act on climate change and to influence others worldwide to do the same.

Many countries are, of course, far less fortunate than Scotland is. They do not share our wealth of natural resources and renewable energy potential. By sharing our knowledge and information, creating partnerships between academic institutions and working with countries that are likely to be disproportionately affected by climate change, we not only support our overall approach to international development but assist developing countries in their transition to a lower-carbon economy appropriate to their circumstances.

The Scottish Government is giving clear direction and support to the development of the low-carbon economy. Similar action should take place in Europe and around the globe and we must work together to ensure that we grasp the low-carbon economic opportunity.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that Scotland will be participating in the 17th Conference of the Parties on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as a member of the UK delegation; encourages active engagement with other delegations to deliver the message that action on climate change is both necessary and urgent, and recognises that Scotland’s experience demonstrates that action on climate change can create jobs, investment, trade and economic growth opportunities.

15:10

S4M-00902 Low-carbon Economy

2011-09-22T17:00:00.002+01:00

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00902, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the low-carbon economy.

14:55
... ... ...
16:51

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

We often say that climate change is one of the most important challenges facing our country, and many contributors to today’s debate have made that very point. The other side of the matter is how we respond to making the transition to a low-carbon economy, which is clearly one of the greatest opportunities that is currently before us. We are fortunate in Scotland to have the natural resources and expertise to enable us to be at the forefront of a new global economic condition. We have tremendous potential in our renewable resource, our capacity to develop carbon capture and storage, our high-tech research and our business acumen. As the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism said, we aim to meet the equivalent of 100 per cent of our electricity demand from renewable sources. I note that some commented that that seems overambitious. In response, I would say that many of the conversations that have been had with the power industry suggest that it is eminently achievable.

What we do not need, and what the Government will absolutely not promote, is new nuclear facilities. Therefore, when we come to decision time, the Tories should not look for support for their amendment, because of its inclusion of that subject. Nuclear power is a hugely expensive technology of the last century and it need play no part in Scotland’s long-term energy future.

Alex Johnstone: Will the minister accept that the statistics on which he bases his ambition to achieve 100 per cent of our electricity requirement from renewable sources involve the transfer of power back and forward across the border, which means that he has conceded that Scotland needs and will have a new nuclear power station, but it will be built in England and we will buy its electricity across the grid?

Stewart Stevenson: I do not accept that. I accept that there will be transfers of energy across the border—going south, because we are already a significant exporter of electricity and will become even more so. I note that over the extended period—I think that it was two years—when Hunterston was not delivering to the network, we did not miss that nuclear capacity.

I will deal with comments that were made during the debate. Lewis Macdonald made an effective contribution, much of which I agreed with. He said that transition is possible but not certain. That is, of course, correct. It will not happen without our driving it forward; it will not happen through passivity. He talked about the need to join up different levels of government. That is a perfectly proper point to make. With Alison Hay of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I jointly chair a group that is working with local authorities to take steps to improve the contributions at that level by engaging officials rather than just politicians and related decision makers. Our relationship with the UK Government—previous and present—on this agenda has been effective. I have been at the environment council with Chris Huhne, Caroline Spelman and Ed Milliband. Although we disagree on matters of detail, we are completely aligned in our central purpose, and we have worked well together.

The challenge is to take many of the countries of Europe along with us. At the most recent environment council meeting, we moved to a substantially better position than existed before, as 26 of 27 countries were able to sign up to a motion that recognised the need for higher targets. We must now translate that into higher targets throughout Europe, as that is important. We will continue to work with other administrations—at local government, UK and European level—to seek to deliver on that.

Members have expressed support for carbon capture, and I introduced some of the relevant issues when I intervened on Lewis Macdonald. In many ways, there has been some timidity on the part of officials in various jurisdictions—that is perhaps a greater issue than ministers’ enthusiasm, or not. We are now behind the curve, but we do not have to be there.

Alex Johnstone mentioned Tory overenthusiasm, which is a novel concept that I look forward to hearing more of. I will give members a little sense of some of the opportunities. The Scottish Wildlife Trust yesterday gave me a report that suggested that restoration of our peatlands alone could contribute 2.4 million tonnes of abatement per annum. As Scotland’s emissions as a whole currently amount to 50 million tonnes, one could almost persuade oneself that peatland restoration could do the job on its own. Of course, it is a bit more complex than that, but we certainly want to continue to make progress in that area.

Kevin Stewart mentioned the success of combined heat and power in Aberdeen—indeed, Lewis Macdonald has made similar contributions on previous occasions in the chamber—which is an important demonstration of what can be done. Malcolm Chisholm understands that I will not comment on specific proposals on which the Government may need to make decisions, but I highlight that we have supported more than 50 small-scale biomass projects in small and medium-sized enterprises, which represents around 12MW of energy. There is certainly a place for biomass.

I hope that Malcolm Chisholm recognises the value of the objective analyses that SEPA—which is, of course, a Government agency—brings to bear on applications. He—like other members—stressed the importance of good heat distribution. In my previous ministerial role, I visited the Michelin plant in Dundee and noted the difficulties that it was experiencing in obtaining an appropriate heritable right of way—known in England as a wayleave—for getting heat to adjacent houses and businesses. There are some issues in that regard that we must revisit.

John Wilson mentioned the climate challenge fund, which has supported more than 400 projects in communities throughout Scotland. That is a substantial contribution to empowering people in Scotland and ensuring that we are all moving together on this agenda.

Jackson Carlaw wished us to genuflect before the Government’s achievements. We will certainly consider that, although some of our knees are getting a little creaky, which may make genuflection a bit more difficult than it might have been in the past. However, when it is at the altar of SNP achievement, I am prepared to sacrifice my knees.

There are significant difficulties with nuclear as much as with anything else. We in Scotland cannot make as much of it in terms of new jobs and new opportunities as we can by putting our efforts into renewable technologies. That is where we must be in Scotland.

The Labour amendment is fine as far as it goes, but it is flawed in the sense that it asks for more money—this is the wrong time and the wrong place. We look forward to engaging with the Labour Party and others on a number of issues.

I will reflect the position at the end of my speech as I did at the beginning. We have a challenge and an opportunity. The global economy has experienced much uncertainty in the past four years. Our important way forward is through low-carbon growth, which gives us energy security and new jobs. We as a Government wish to encourage demand for low-carbon goods and services. I hope that the Parliament will support those aims at decision time and vote for the Government’s motion.

S4M-00448 Rural Connectivity

2011-06-30T17:00:00.001+01:00

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00448, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on rural connectivity. I will give members a few moments to swap places. As the debate is undersubscribed, the Presiding Officers will be slightly more generous in allocating time. If members want to take interventions, we will do our best to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by that.

15:04
... ... ...
16:45

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

It is a delight to speak on a subject that kept me in gainful employment for many years and finally deposited me here. Despite a powerful and impressive speech from Alex Fergusson, I intend to support the motion in the cabinet secretary’s name. I assure colleagues that, having looked carefully at the amendments, we are prepared to support them. We have slight reservations about some of the wording in the Labour one, but let us not get diverted into a discussion about bits of the debate. Incidentally, in my intervention on Elaine Murray, I made the distinction between bytes and bits, so, before I move to more substantive matters, I will expand members’ knowledge by saying that, in the trade, half a byte—which is four bits clustered together—is referred to as a nibble. There we are.

The debate has been useful. The cabinet secretary and I and our colleagues will be tramping many distant corners of Scotland, hoping for good weather and for adequate mobile phone signals and the ability to communicate with our officials using broadband, whether wireless or fixed. I am sure that members of other parties and members of our party who are not in the Government will be doing something similar.

Like the cabinet secretary, I welcome John McClelland’s review of public sector ICT. The debate is about delivering a wide range of benefits to rural Scotland by having the right communications in place. It is clear from the debate that those benefits are not simply economic. We need to equip our communities and the people and businesses in them with the appropriate technologies, if only to level the playing field. That will create an opportunity to avoid further disadvantage, and it will create advantage. Improving rural communications is very much central to our purpose.

I want to say a few words about history generally and the role of communications in it. Eight thousand years ago, the human race was in essence a herdsman culture. At that time, in Sumeria—there are debates about where and when it happened, but I adhere to the view that it was in Sumeria—the settled culture that is the basis of our culture today first appeared. From that point, communication became important because, as people did not travel around, they needed to send messages to other communities to communicate with them.

The world started to change. We had the invention of money, which involved the tying of knots on string when people put grain into grain stores. Many things that we have today started then. In the city of Jerash in the middle east, one can find the cart tracks that are still there in the main street from 2,000 years ago. Transport, which was one of the first instruments of connectivity, became important. As I mentioned last week, the Romans created an empire that endured for between 400 and 500 years, partly because they created a system of hilltop signalling that enabled messages to go from a corner of the European empire back to headquarters in Rome in about six hours. Communication was important, too, for Scotland. The reformation and the introduction of the Bible printed in English drove communication and education in Scotland.

An awful lot has happened in a relatively short space of time. When I was involved, at 11 am on 25 January 1985, in the launch of the first universal access home banking system to allow people to look at their bank accounts, the speed at which that system worked, delivering huge value to people, was 1,200 bits per second down to the customer and 75 bits per second from the customer up to the bank.

Alex Johnstone: The minister has raised a subject that I believe continues to be a problem with broadband provision to this day. The upload speeds that are generally provided are as little as 5 per cent of the available download speeds—can he tell me why? He obviously has greater knowledge of that. Is it simply a historical anomaly, or is there a technical reason? We are finding that there are many more reasons why higher upload speeds would be of value as we develop the broadband system.

Stewart Stevenson: The member is absolutely correct, although I will try not to be overly tempted by the question. A range of technologies could have been chosen when we developed broadband, but the technology that is used is called asymmetric digital subscriber line—ADSL. It was felt that the pressing need was to get data out to people. However, the reality is that, in rural areas in particular, we need good speeds back to the centre because businesses are serving other customers through that relatively slow connection. As we move to fibre, there will be opportunities to work with different technologies—essentially, symmetric technologies—that will provide an answer to the problem for those who use ADSL on copper. I do not know whether anybody else in the chamber understands that, but I hope that Alex Johnstone does.

Even with regard to telephones, the world has changed enormously. In 1958, when my father made the first transatlantic call from our house—it was on business: one of his patients was very ill and he had to communicate with her husband, who was in the United States—it had to be booked a day in advance. It was to last precisely three minutes—he could not get any longer—and it cost three guineas, which was approximately one third of the average weekly wage. Now, people can use a mobile phone and for 6p can call the States on demand. A lot has happened in a short space of time and a lot more will happen.

Many interesting technologies have been developed in local situations. In the Swiss Alps, yodelling was a way of communicating using the human voice. Alexander Graham Bell demonstrated the telephone in 1876. The Bank of Scotland installed its first telephone only five years later, in 1881, when there were already 300 subscribers in the Edinburgh telephone directory. Mind you, when the bank installed its telephone, the board required that the telephone not be used to conduct business.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, I must stop you for a moment. I ask that members who are coming into the chamber do so quietly, please. If you want to have conversations, I would be grateful if you would have them outside the chamber. Thank you.

Stewart Stevenson: The first electronic digital communication between Edinburgh and London was installed in 1868. It was a telegraph, and the telegraph is what opened up the west of the United States and made it the prosperous area that it now is. Those are just some of the many historical examples of how communications have helped.

Elaine Murray said that 3G coverage in Scotland is patchy, especially in rural areas. Where I live, I pray for 2G coverage—3G coverage is a distant hope. The map of my constituency has two tiny blue dots on it, which indicate where 3G touches. Frankly, for most of Scotland we could hold up a blank sheet of paper with a few wee blue bits on it representing 3G coverage. That is why it is important that, when we go to 4G coverage, we take a different approach. Whatever Government does it, we will be creating huge commercial opportunities for the operators of 4G networks, just as we did for the operators of 2G and 3G networks. In exchange for giving access to those huge commercial opportunities, we should place different conditions on the operators. One that might suit Scotland well is the condition that 4G phones should, at no additional cost, roam between different companies’ masts. Why should they not? It would not cost the companies much to ensure that and it would reduce the number of masts that there would need to be—reducing the costs to the companies responsible for the 4G networks—as well as delivering a better solution for Scotland. That would probably not be of great interest in densely populated areas, though. Those are some examples of what we can do.

We have moved on from the election that I fought in 1987, when I had to carry tuppences in my pocket and know where every telephone box in the constituency was. In 1992, we had the first generation of analogue mobile phones, and in 1997, we had the first digital phones. Every time there is an election, things have moved on, and things move on very fast.

Sarah Boyack: Where does the minister think we will get to by 2015?

Stewart Stevenson: The answer depends partly on how our relationship with the UK Government develops. We will work with it closely and proactively—we will not be passive—and consider the achievements of countries such as Finland, which Rhoda Grant mentioned. We have ambition, but we will work with other people to ensure that things happen.

Rhoda Grant noted that Highland Council had put in a fibre network but that it was difficult to access it for other purposes. We need to ensure that standards are in place for the exploitation of private networks—even when they are licensed—to create the technological solutions to allow other people to access the available services.

Paul Wheelhouse discussed the difficulties in the Borders, which a number of members have described. The Government’s major investment in the development of the Borders railway will help one aspect of communication in that rural area, but electronic communications make a real difference.

For small businesses that deliver goods to market via carriers, we must look at getting the carriers to pick up in rural areas, as we have had significant difficulty in getting them to drop down. Paul Wheelhouse referred to business parks as a potential source of connectivity for many businesses and for people who work in rural areas, and I am sure that that is the case.

George Adam spoke about Sandra Webster’s two autistic sons and about social integration, and there is something very important in that. It is a fact that people in rural areas are more isolated but, increasingly, the existence of communication technologies can shrink that distance. As families have moved all over the world, communication has become an important part of keeping them together, and it is the same as families move throughout Scotland, so George Adam is right to highlight that.

Jim Hume and other members talked about telehealth. It is difficult on a snowy night to get a doctor, a nurse or a midwife to a particular location, but if a video camera can be used via Skype or other services to help or provide advice to someone, that is a real life saver. It is important that we focus on that as one of the many benefits that we can deliver.

Rob Gibson mentioned that, although there are more than 1,000 BT exchanges in Scotland, some people are paying for 8 megabits per second and getting only half a megabit per second.

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): I ask the minister to begin to wind up now.

Stewart Stevenson: Rob Gibson is correct to say that there is huge variability in speed, and that we need transparency in what is paid for and what is delivered. That is very important indeed.

Joan McAlpine reminded us that it was only in 1985 that Vodafone permitted the first mobile call. Things are going to move fast, and we must ensure that we support the potential of the outward-looking and dynamic communities that exist in rural Scotland. Our farmers, our fishermen and all the people who live in the country contribute to world-famous industries such as our food and drink industry, and the potential of our wave and wind power is vast.

However, there is more potential in rural Scotland that can be realised through the delivery of effective digital communications. It is this Government’s ambition and determination that we will do that, by working with the UK Government and private companies, but most of all by working with those who live and work in our rural areas.

Subject Debate: Taking Scotland Forward: Rural Affairs and the Environment

2011-06-22T17:00:00.003+01:00

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): The next item of business is a debate on taking Scotland forward: rural affairs and the environment.

15:05
... ... ...
16:51

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson): Let me start by both congratulating those who made their maiden speeches today, excellent as they were, and thanking members for the few kind words that have been sent in my direction. I dare say that there are few enough such opportunities for me to hear kind words, so I will bask in the reflected glory for at least five minutes.

The Scottish Government has as its central purpose supporting sustainable economic growth, and we have a strong mandate to pursue that over five years. We wish to see rural areas empowered to support their communities and to contribute to a better Scotland, and I think that that captures the sense of the debate that we have had today. We will continue to work with the Parliament, listening to ideas from wherever they come and seeking to build consensus for all that we do. The early meetings that both the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and I have had with our opposite numbers in other political parties speak to the reality of what we are doing.

Mike MacKenzie, in a particularly powerful contribution, invited us all round to his place for a wee refreshment. We will be round at the weekend, Mike, don’t you worry. In his short speech he referred to the economic powerhouse that rural areas can be. That captured an important point.

We spent a fair bit of time talking about the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which was par excellence an example of the Parliament working together to common purpose to deliver something that is truly world leading. We will listen to all the voices in the Parliament, as we did as we worked through the 457 amendments, which were in some cases amendments to amendments, to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.

The legacy paper that the previous Rural Affairs and Environment Committee left for the new committee makes an important point. It states at paragraph 52 that we should avoid

“focussing too narrowly on the ‘three Fs’ of farming, food, and fishing.”

Those are all important, of course, but at the core of the matter is what life in a rural setting is like and what contributes to enhancing that. It is not simply food, farming and fishing. It is a much wider agenda altogether.

I am afraid that I will be unable in the available time to deal with every point that came up in the debate. Clearly, we will return to many of them in committee. However, I will try to deal with some of them.

Sarah Boyack talked about public food procurement, which is worth about £130 million in the public sector. We have supported small and medium-sized enterprises in particular to make it easier for them to bid for contracts. We absolutely agree that local businesses should work with the local public sector. It is important that that happens. In particular, through the climate challenge fund, we have provided £2.5 million to 39 organisations to support local food and grow-your-own projects. Indeed, I visited one such project at Letham in Fife, where I received a basket of the most wonderful vegetables—my wife almost wanted me to drive back to the south of Scotland to bring some more home. I therefore declare an interest in good-quality local food and its consumption, not just personally but across the board.

We certainly want to connect rural Scotland to everywhere. One reason why, 2000 years ago, the Roman empire was more successful than the Greek one was that the Romans had good communications. In fact, they could send messages from Londinium to Roma in six hours by a system of hilltop signalling. That underpinned 400 years of success for the Romans. Today, high-speed broadband will be equally important in the success of Scottish rural businesses.

Sarah Boyack referred to flooding. We have spent some six times what the previous Administration did on flooding interventions, so I think that our record is worth looking at. The member also referred to allotments. I am delighted that I was able in my previous ministerial role to visit at least two allotment sites that we supported—in Huntly and Crieff. Electric vehicles were mentioned, too. We have been part of a successful Scottish consortium to secure £30 million for the plugged-in places initiative sponsored by the UK Government. A great deal is happening indeed.

I welcome back Alex Fergusson. In the committee this morning, I nearly referred to him as Presiding Officer, so familiar a face has he been in that position of authority. We will now treat him as an equal and, when he speaks on farming, we will listen carefully to what he has to say. There is considerable sympathy for his view that form filling is an area in which we should continue to revise and improve—it is important that that happens.

As Alex Fergusson heard in the committee this morning, the long-run picture on the area of Scotland that is afforested is unlikely to be changing much. We wish to increase the size of the area, but we see year-on-year fluctuations because some years are more intensive for harvesting than planting while others are the other way round.

While I remember, it is worth reminding members that it is our target to have broadband all over Scotland by 2020.

David Torrance, in his maiden speech, talked about local food. With great pleasure, I visited the Food Train in Dumfries in my previous role. That is very important indeed.

Helen Eadie touched on the supergrid and the smart grid technologies. They are very important, particularly the smart grid. I was talking at the environment council yesterday to several other European environment ministers about work that is happening on smart grid. We need standards, because the smart grid can deliver right down to individual consumer devices. For example, it could protect heart and lung machines or dialysis machines installed in domestic houses, so that, if there is a power shortage, the deep freeze would be switched off for a few hours but the dialysis machine would not. A lot of work is going on, and we are pleased that the European Union made its first visit on the subsea grid to Scotland, recognising the importance of Scotland in the provision of renewable energy.

Mark McDonald focused on services in rural areas and talked about the Udny community wind turbines. It is important that anyone, including any community, wishing to establish developments such as wind turbines engages with the communities that will be affected by their presence, gets consent and momentum in favour and does not take consent for granted. I am afraid to say that there have been one or two examples when that has not been done.

Food and drink are vital, as is a fair deal for producers. Mark McDonald talked about exports and mentioned Dean’s of Huntly. If I was looking at my constituency, I would of course prefer to talk about BrewDog, which now has a successful export industry.

Many members touched on the report on proposals and policies. We will report on progress on implementing that in the not-too-distant future.

There were a few comments on housing. In 2009, the median house price was £160,000 in remote and rural areas, £173,000 in accessible rural areas and £128,000 in the rest of Scotland. That shows the attractiveness of rural areas for housing—people want to move there.

I have barely scratched the surface of what was covered in the debate. Rural affairs and the environment are a wide-ranging Government portfolio, and the speeches from across the chamber, all of which were worth listening to, reflected that. I will deal quickly with three issues.

The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick): Minister, you must wind up.

Stewart Stevenson: We will support communities that want to control their future, we will promote food and drink and we will drive down emissions. That is how we will take Scotland forward, leaving a greener Scotland than the one that we have borrowed from our children and grandchildren.

S4M-00102 Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban)

2011-06-09T17:36:00.004+01:00

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith): The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00102, in the name of Elaine Murray, on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the decision by the UK Government not to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses; notes that in the recent past a travelling circus visiting locations including Dumfries included an elephant as one of its attractions; believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the view that life in a travelling circus does not allow for acceptable standards of welfare and quality of life for wild animals; notes the work done by animal rights activists and third sector organisations to argue for such a ban, and considers that action in this area is needed to prevent suffering to animals.

17:05
... ... ...
17:29

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

I join other members in congratulating Elaine Murray on securing this debate.

It is clear that the views that have been expressed almost unanimously across the chamber are passionate and driven by a clear desire to improve the welfare of circus animals. I have no difficulty at the outset in accepting the basic proposition that is delineated in the motion.

There is a long history of animals in circuses. By coincidence, it appears that the practice started almost exactly at the point when children were no longer sent up chimneys to clean them and when slavery was abolished. Perhaps one form of slavery was replaced by another.

Kevin Stewart referred to the long-standing ban on circus animals in Aberdeen. The continuing ability of circuses to visit Aberdeen in the face of that ban demonstrates that the practical effect of a wider ban would not necessarily be too great. He also referred to objective evidence of stress in travelled animals. My briefing pack did not draw my attention to that point, which will inform us all in considering the issue, as it is objective evidence. With only 39 animals remaining in circuses in the UK, one issue is that there is a limited evidence base to drive the argument.

Hugh Henry and others made the point that the issue is not simply about objective evidence. The evidence, such as it is, has been considered for a long time, but the issue is also our duty to animals that are in our care and, beyond that, to those that remain in the wild. It is correct that Richard Lochhead has supported efforts on the issue.

I turn to Alex Fergusson’s speech. I can never quite remember whether it was St Thomas Aquinas or someone else who said, “Oh Lord, give me chastity, but not yet.” I think that we might have had Alex Fergusson’s second maiden speech, which is probably relatively unique, although would that he had waited for another occasion, if I may say so. Claudia Beamish made a good point in her intervention that many animals might be “performing”—I use that word in quotes—through fear. Mr Fergusson’s support for the eventual elimination of animals from circuses, qualified as it was by his suggestion that we wait until the natural lifespan of existing animals has expired, is at least a recognition that the practice should end, so I welcome that. However, it is inconsistent to be against something in principle but to allow it to continue in practice, which is what was said.

Alison Johnstone said that we should press the UK Government for a ban. I am going to make a rod for my own back by saying that we have the powers to do it ourselves. The proposal that is currently before the UK Government is in fact an England-only provision—the devolved Administrations can make their own arrangements. Yesterday, there was a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. Unexpectedly, a Conservative member, Penny Mordaunt, topped any of my contributions by revealing that one of her previous jobs was as a magician’s assistant. Perhaps Mr Fergusson should consult her to find the magic way out of what is a rather awkward place to be.

The general public and animal welfare organisations are unambiguously clear and have been since 2004 in Scotland. Last year, 95 per cent of respondents to a DEFRA consultation were against the practice. We have heard the numbers quoted, and I do not debate any of them.

Elaine Murray highlighted the case of Anne the elephant. Virtually nobody could fail to be moved by the plight of that poor animal, and we wish her a long and happy retirement at Longleat, but there is not huge evidence that that was anything other than an isolated example of systematic abuse. However, the debate is not about systematic abuse, although it occurs; instead, it is about the restriction of liberty and normal behaviours. Many organisations, including the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association, have made that point.

The UK coalition Government is seeking to regulate animals in circuses through licensing and inspection. Some people believe that that could lead to an increase in the number of wild animals in circuses. It is worth referring to the definition of wild animal that the Radford report used:

“a species whose collective behaviour, life cycle or physiology remains unaltered from the wild type despite their breeding and living conditions being under human control for multiple generations.”

It does not simply cover animals caught from the wild and put in circuses; it includes wild species that have been domestically bred.

In 2007, the circus working group stated:

“our present state of knowledge about the welfare of non-domesticated animals used in circuses is such that we cannot look to scientific evidence”.

That is why Elaine Murray and others are correct to look at the issue from a different perspective. The Radford report also stated:

“The status quo is not a tenable option”

and concluded that a ban should be proceeded with.

The question is an ethical and legal one. The dilemma for ministers is how a ban could be introduced. There have been legal challenges, in Austria in particular, on human rights grounds, although they appear now to have been disposed of. We will certainly continue to look at the issue. As a result of this debate and other inputs that we have had, and the information that continues to come from Westminster, we have been watching the matter with considerable interest and engagement.

Elaine Murray asks me to state that it is unacceptable for animals to be used for entertainment, and I am absolutely happy to do so. I will continue to work with the member to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Meeting closed at 17:36.

S3M-8177 Bus Services Regulation

2011-03-17T10:03:00.003Z

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-8177, in the name of Charlie Gordon, on transport.

09:15
... ... ...
09:57

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

Let me declare a personal interest in the debate: I am a bus card holder. I note that the only bus card holders who are likely to participate in the debate appear to be on the SNP benches.

Mr Gordon is clearly destined for great things in the Labour Party. He is almost unique as a front-bench spokesperson, as he is the only one who has not been kicked in a tender part of his anatomy by a forced U-turn in policy.

Of course, questions arise over the issue of re-regulating the bus industry. Sarah Boyack was the transport minister when the previous legislation went through, but she is absent today so we cannot ask her about the decisions made and about why some of the constraints are what they are. However, let us explore them. Statutory bus partnerships are likely to be at the very edge of what is legally possible under the Scotland Act 1998. The renationalisation of the bus network, via the imposition of regulation, is unlikely to come within the legal powers of this Parliament.

The Labour Party has a track record on such issues. It wishes to reduce the VAT on fuel from 20 to 17.5 per cent—entirely and blissfully unaware of European law that means that only three VAT rates may be operated within a state. The three VAT rates that already exist are 0, 5 and 20 per cent. It is simply not legal to reduce a single element of the 20 per cent VAT to 17.5 per cent. There is not the legal power to do it. However, there is the legal power to overturn the fuel duty increases that are hitting the bus industry—increases that were introduced by Labour. But of course, Labour has not joined the consensus that wants to do something about that. The Labour Party should do its research properly. It has manifestly and demonstrably failed to do that.

Let us consider the position of the bus companies. We have some regulated bus services in the United Kingdom, most notably those that are operated by Transport for London. Let me pose a question that has a rather awkward answer. We are talking about a convenient policy hitting an inconvenient fact. In a regime in which there is regulation, are the returns for bus companies higher or lower than in an unregulated regime? Curiously enough, they are higher. The bus companies would probably be quite happy with such a policy.

Furthermore, because it would in effect remove a private right from commercial interests, we would have to pay the bus companies for loss of right to operate services. What figure should be put on that? The normal rule of thumb in such circumstances is one year’s turnover. To renationalise bus services in Scotland would cost—admittedly only once—£750 million. Even for the Labour Party, that is a breathtaking financial commitment, of which it has said nothing in the debate thus far. If the Transport for London model is anything to go by, Labour would find itself paying more for bus services. I am sure that Brian Souter would be giving his money to the Labour Party if it were to implement such a policy.

Let us consider the amendments. I say in all candour that they all have some merit. Alison McInnes conceded that the abolition of the bus route development scheme has perhaps not yet happened. It is a matter for local authorities, which makes that issue a problem.

In the current environment, local bus services’ mileage has gone up by 3.8 per cent, in part because the BSOG has been increased. The BSOG has also been environmentalised. In addition, the average fare has dropped by 2.5 per cent. “If you want to get on Labour’s bus, we’re going your way”—I do not think so, any time soon.

If we nationalise bus services, we can forget local decision making. Someone will be sitting in Edinburgh, deciding which local bus services we want. That is how it will work. At the moment, the decision making is close to the point of application.

There is support for bus services. I have used them hundreds of times. I highlight the 308 from Aberchirder to Inverurie. On the most recent occasion I used the service, on the whole route I was the only passenger. I admit that it was a Sunday afternoon. Services such as the 308 are essential services that are surviving with the support of the council in Aberdeenshire—a Liberal-led council—and of course through the Government’s support for the BSOG. Yes, there is a challenge to do more in buses, but the Labour Party should not deceive the people of Scotland by imagining that what it is saying today is anything other than a £750 million commitment, no defined outcomes, 100 per cent focus on process and nothing for passengers.

10:03

S3M-8126 Certification of Death (Scotland) Bill

2011-03-16T11:09:00.002Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8126, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Certification of Death (Scotland) Bill.

10:32
... ... ...
11:03

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I have a few observations to make, some of which pick up points that others have made and some of which are new. Dr Ian McKee talked about the importance of death certification feeding into health care planning. That is correct, but we must not fail to take account of the need for death certification to feed into immediate response to possible epidemics. Professor Stewart Fleming did not make reference to that in his definition of the three aims of the certification process.

Ian McKee also talked—absolutely correctly—about folie à deux. It is worth saying that in aviation some 20 years ago we had precisely that situation in the cockpit, when a very senior captain would often not be told by a very junior but recently trained and high-quality first officer that they were getting it wrong. In designing the relationship between different players in the system, we must be aware of the influence that respect for experience and seniority has and must ensure that a junior person can point out freely and frankly to a more senior person that they are not up to the standard that is required. Folie à deux was killing people in aviation 20 years ago, but training has changed and it is not killing people now.

Last week, I had the very great pleasure to be in Giffnock synagogue to launch a Jewish education project on the internet. On that occasion, I received representations on the particular issues surrounding Jewish burial practice, which are equally applicable to people of the Muslim faith. It is important that we take account of the fact that those faiths use burial rather than cremation and make sure that we acknowledge that and preserve those traditions.

Rhoda Grant talked about testing. It is worth observing that testing has more limitations than one might imagine. About 30 years ago, IBM produced a computer that turned out to incorrectly multiply 10 by 10,000,008. Every other calculation appeared to be correct, but it was established that to use testing to see whether they were correct would require every model of that computer that had ever been produced to run through exhaustive tests for more than 1,000 years. It is important to get the design of the system correct.

We have heard some discussions about computers and I want to make some observations, of which members might or might not be aware, that indicate the need for some caution. For the registration of births, Registers of Scotland provides 200 characters for forenames and 50 characters for surnames. Approximately 19 per cent of current registrations are for people who have three or more forenames, so that issue is not insignificant because people have more complex names than they once had. Until a few months ago, I was refusing to take my parliamentary payslip—I was still taking the pay, of course—because my name was not right on the payslip. I am James Alexander Stewart Stevenson and the system provided for only two initials, thus omitting the initial that I use.

Joining computer systems together is often complex when we look at the metadata, to use the technical term, that are associated with information. I say that in the context of my genealogical researches on my great-grandfather who was a coal miner in Bannockburn. He first appears in the record in the 1841 census. The difficulty is that he is one of 328 Stevensons who were working in coal mining in Bannockburn in that year. Having the ability to distinguish names is very important indeed.

Equally, even if we impose rigorous standards for data collection and entry, there might be difficulties. When I worked in the Bank of Scotland, financial services legislation was introduced that required that we collect people’s dates of birth. Our tellers found themselves inhibited in asking ladies of a certain age what their date of birth was, but they had to put in a date so they just chose a random date. We ended up with something like 9 per cent of dates being 1 January. A further 2 per cent turned out to be the teller’s own birthday and, for a further small proportion, the teller simply entered that day’s date and discounted the number of years. Computer systems are not just mechanical systems; they have to interact with the human effects that often surround the collection of data.

If time permits, Presiding Officer—no; I see that you are signalling to me to wind up.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: That would be a sensible idea.

Stewart Stevenson: In that case, I will close. Clive James’s autobiography contains the wonderful phrase,

“Don’t take life seriously; you won’t get out of it alive anyway.”

Today, we take death seriously and we are entirely correct to do so.

11:09

S3M-8127 Local Electoral Administration (Scotland) Bill

2011-03-16T09:47:00.002Z

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is the stage 3 debate on the Local Electoral Administration (Scotland) Bill.

09:24
... ... ...
09:39

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): The debate is perhaps an opportunity to look at the changing nature of how we run elections. If we go back to the UK election that took place in 1832, which is the earliest one for which I have been able to find records, 658 members of the House of Commons were elected and 827,776 people cast votes, so the number of votes per member of Parliament was just a wee bit over 1,000. That was a very different environment from the one in which we live now. Indeed, fewer votes were cast for each MP than we would now expect to be cast for each member of a local authority.

If we fast-forward to the Westminster election of 1945, we had multimember seats and seats for which the alternative vote or the STV system was used. We are looking at changing the electoral system for Westminster elections, but the Conservatives, in particular, will not be in favour of the multimember first-past-the-post system that Brian Donohoe proposed yesterday in a House of Commons debate as a replacement for the list system for Scottish Parliament elections because, of course, in 1922, when Churchill stood for re-election in Dundee, he came third in a two-member seat. He was defeated by a Scottish prohibitionist, Edwin Scrymgeour and by the Labour candidate. The results are not always what we expect.

In 1945, when three members were elected to the Combined Scottish Universities seat by STV, a form of alternative voting, the third person who was elected on the second ballot obtained only 4.15 per cent of the first preference votes and was elected despite losing their deposit. Therefore, the systems that we have had over the years can lead to various differences.

Moving forward to the general election of October 1974, the turnout in Scotland was 74.81 per cent. That was a highly memorable election. After it, Westminster had more nationalist members than it had Liberal members.

Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): Shame!

Stewart Stevenson: There were 13 Liberal members and 14 nationalist members, including three Plaid Cymru members and others. It is clear that, over the piece, there were changes in the way things were done. In 1945, it was a fortnight after the election before the results were known because, in days before the advent of the internet, the service vote took some logistical organisation.

I add to the commendation that there will be for Duncan McNeil’s contribution on the subject in October 2008, when he reported to Parliament on his committee’s deliberations. The committee’s work was vital in underpinning what we are discussing. Its report highlighted a general point that I and my colleagues and, I think, some others would make, which is that having different bodies and different parliamentarians responsible for the rules for different elections is a potential source of difficulty. It is certainly the case that in 2007 the Scotland Office did not cover itself in glory.

Even though a vote on the use of AV for Westminster elections is coming up shortly, it has not led to a single question from an elector to me so far. The SNP has just completed two days in Glasgow at our party conference. In my hearing, the subject never arose, although it may have arisen in other people’s hearing.

We have heard about some of the difficulties in 2007. It is certainly important that the Electoral Commission should report on how elections have gone. An illustration of when a report by the Electoral Commission might have been useful is the referendum that was held on 1 March 1979. I was at the count in Lothian. Members who are old enough to remember the campaign may remember that the “no” campaign bought lots of poster space. The posters had a picture of the ballot paper with the words “yes” and “no” on it. Opposite the word “no”, instead of an X, the word “no” was written. More than 2,000 electors in Lothian chose to write the word “no” opposite the “no” option.

We might think that that was fair enough. Most of us here might think that the electors’ intentions were relatively clear, and that is the normal test. However, on that occasion, the returning officer decided that, because the electors had written “no” opposite the word “no”, those votes should count as a “yes”. Being a campaigner for the “yes” campaign, I was not greatly upset by that decision, although I was astonished by it. On appeal, the returning officer of that count agreed that those votes would be counted as spoilt papers. That is an example to show that it was not just in 2007 that we have had difficulties; there have been previous occasions on which it would have been right and proper to examine what went on.

When we have complex elections, it is important that the electors know what is going on. One of the rules in the forthcoming election, as in all previous elections, prohibits election communications from referring to other elections, which might help people to understand the nature of other, simultaneous elections. That prohibition might be thought to be unhelpful and the Electoral Commission might have to look at that.

As someone who spent 30 years in computers, I will make a wee reference to the nature of some of the difficulties that might arise with computer systems. We computery people always used to apply a rule of thumb when we were given numbers relating to the throughput of a computer system. The rule of thumb was that marketing people always get estimates wrong by a factor of 10. It was the computer people’s job to work out whether to divide or multiply. In some ways, that is exactly what part of the problem was in 2007. We did not anticipate that more than 20 people would be standing on some of the lists, and there was a limitation in the software. In Lothian, the number standing on the list exceeded that limit so there was a last-minute ad hoc redesign of the ballot form that caused the computer systems great difficulties. I hope that the stress testing that will take place in the autumn will focus on some of the more unlikely boundary conditions that might occur, because that is where computer systems almost invariably fail.

I am pleased to see the legislation coming through Parliament. I sniff not a whiff of dissent and I hope that the motion will be carried unanimously at decision time.

09:47

S3M-8114 Scotland Bill

2011-03-10T16:25:00.007Z

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8114, in the name of Iain Gray, on the Scotland Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.

14:40
... ... ...
16:19

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

Bad news: we have had Wendy Alexander’s last speech in the Parliament, although I do not expect that this will be mine, which is the second part of the bad news. I, too, congratulate Wendy Alexander on what has been a distinguished and often interesting—sometimes for the wrong reasons—career. I also extend my congratulations to Cathy Jamieson on leaving this place. They are two of the six female members who will voluntarily stand down at the end of the session.

It is worth saying that the committee has turned out better than I feared but has achieved less than I had hoped. Murdo Fraser and Linda Fabiani have discussed the committee’s approach. In that regard, the 2,000-year-old Latin phrase, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—who will guard the guards?—shows that that is not a new issue for politicians.

Robert Brown suggested that this is the last major debate of the session—I note that we are not packed to the rafters—and said that we strengthen a federal structure for the UK. On Tuesday night, I was at a dinner in Newcastle, sitting with many of the Liberal Democrat politicians who run that city. I will not name names, as what they told me was unattributable, but it was clear from that discussion that the asymmetric federal structure that we have, if we have one at all, leaves those Liberal Democrats much less excited than their colleagues in this chamber.

Wendy Alexander said that the committee was the first specialist committee to study a bill—I think that she meant that it was the first specialist committee to study a UK bill—and reminded us that the UK Government has announced that EYF will be clawed back. Does that not precisely illustrate the difficulties that arise from being in continual thrall to the Treasury?

Peter Peacock talked about states. States across the world have many ranges of power. In the United States of America, they have power over sales tax, corporation tax and so on. There have been talks about income tax, but I do not think that we have seen much in the way of proposals about how the UK Government might implement what is in the bill.

I am always wary of geeks bearing gifts, when they are Labour Party geeks. However, Guido Fawkes, one of the most prominent bloggers, has today reported that the Labour Party itself is £36 million in debt.

The committee’s substantial report contains 225 paragraphs of conclusions and recommendations. Three of them are on Antarctica—I will say little more about that. However, insolvency and health regulation receive only four paragraphs each. I think that they are more important than those eight paragraphs suggest. Scotland has a different approach to bankruptcy and a different set of terminology for the various stages of financial difficulties that individuals and companies can experience. We have absolutely no guarantee that the UK insolvency service will be able to adapt its processes and resource itself to take over what is done by the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland. There is little doubt that the case for that has not been made.

Robert Brown: Has Mr Stevenson read the letter from the Law Society of Scotland, who should know a little bit about this matter? It takes the opposite view, because of the technical difficulties of the current situation.

Stewart Stevenson: There are many technical difficulties that cross boundaries. The question is, is it possible to work within them and are there distinct advantages to having our own system, which is capable of being adapted more rapidly than it would be if the powers were returned to Westminster? We can work rapidly when we require to do so; it is more difficult otherwise.

With regard to the regulation of health professions, the General Pharmaceutical Council believes that having displaced powers in that regard creates no problem. It does not believe that there is any need to centralise the powers in London.

Jeremy Purvis talked of Gladstone’s Midlothian campaign. When I heard Gladstone speak in Midlothian—well, not quite. However, my Liberal family discussed the Midlothian campaign at lunch once. I recall that the issue of Irish home rule split the Liberal party and that most of its members joined the Tories. Plus ça change? Perhaps.

In relation to the parliamentary question that Jeremy Purvis referred to, he should of course have informed the chamber that there will be no effect on projects that are being funded by the Scottish Government and that the issue is simply one of getting the money out of Europe and into Scottish hands.

This has been a debate about principle, on which there is, fundamentally, broad agreement. On the issue of tactics, however, there is much less agreement.

Today’s debate is not the end of the matter; we all wish to debate the issues further at a later date. We certainly hope that that debate will lead to something that suits Scotland’s needs even better.

16:25

S3M-8110 Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill

2011-03-09T17:52:00.001Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8110, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill.

17:11
... ... ...
17:46

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): It is a great pleasure to have returned to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. I previously served on the Rural Development Committee under your benevolent dictatorship, Presiding Officer. Your performance in that role was so impressive that I was delighted that you expanded your convenership by taking control of the Parliament.

As a late joiner in relation to the bill, I missed the early discussions and the clearly significant engineering contributions that John Scott and others made.

Those members who were in Malawi and missed some of the proceedings should not feel in the slightest bit guilty about it because there the issue of water has a much different character. It is about getting clean, wholesome water in adequate volume to many of the communities in that country. In Scotland, we are fortunate to have sufficient water and simply to have to apply the technical solutions to ensure that we deliver that water to our communities and, through our dams and reservoirs, provide a significant contribution to the amenity of Scotland and the recreation of its inhabitants.

It is worth observing that the extension of the regulation on dams will slightly less than double the number of dams that are covered but, simultaneously, just under one third of those that are currently affected will experience reduced regulation. The bill strikes a proper balance on that.

Deciding that the amount of water that is held in a reservoir that comes under the bill should be 10,000m3 rather than 25,000m3 is quite difficult for the layperson to grasp. To do a little thinking about it, a single cubic metre—1m long by 1m wide by 1m high—is approximately 1 ton in weight because 1 gallon of water weighs 10lb. If 1m3 of water were to be flung over the top of a dam and fall something like 120ft, it would be travelling at 60mph or 70mph by the time it got to the bottom. Members should imagine 1m3 of water hitting an individual: it would be like stepping on to a motorway and being hit by a car.

John Scott rose—

Stewart Stevenson: I suspect that we will get the exact figures from John Scott.

John Scott: Would Stewart Stevenson expect that water to have reached its terminal velocity over that distance, given the gravitational effect on it?

Stewart Stevenson: Let us have a really technical discussion. If it were ice, its terminal velocity in that shape would be approximately 120mph. On the other hand, it is travelling as a liquid, so it will of course disperse and to some extent become aerated. It is a complex issue. Does that not touch upon the very complexities of water? I speak, by the way, as someone who has undertaken parachuting, so I know about terminal velocity and all that sort of thing—it is quite exciting, I have to say.

At 10,000m3, we are looking at holding back something of the order of 10,000 tonnes of water.

Climate change is an important part of the future of not just Scotland but countries around the world. We will see dams that are overfilled because of increased rainfall; as atmospheric temperature rises, that will be one of the consequences. Equally, there will be periods of drought, when there is less water behind the dam.

Concrete is a very old material; the Romans used it 2,000 years ago. Many of our dams are constructed of concrete. As Barnes Wallis discovered when he designed the bouncing bomb, concrete is very strong in pressure but very weak in tension. If you take away the water from behind an elderly dam, there is a risk—although not a huge risk—that the dam might collapse backwards towards the water that previously held it in place. There are a range of risks to which some of our older dams can be exposed. The explosive effect of the bouncing bomb—taking the water suddenly away from behind the dam—is of course what caused the concrete to fall backwards and the water to come forward.

Water is essential for human life. It is worth saying that the well-nourished member of this Parliament could probably survive without food for a couple of months but would survive without water for something less than a week. In paying attention to Scotland’s natural resource that is water, we do something very important indeed.

This is a bill of considerable technical complexity that is simple in its purpose. It is fit for purpose and we should all support it at decision time.

17:52

S3M-8058 Scottish Parliament Elections

2011-03-03T09:36:00.002Z

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8058, in the name of Alex Salmond, on the 2015 election. Time for speeches is tight.

09:11
... ... ...
The Presiding Officer: I call Stewart Stevenson. You may make speech number 401, but you have only three minutes, Mr Stevenson.

09:33

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

When I consider the signatories to the motion and what I have heard in the debate thus far, I suspect that there will be a degree of unanimity at decision time.

When we look at the processes of democracy it is always useful to consider history and experience elsewhere. The President of Iceland, for example, is elected for a single year and he or she may not stand again for a further 10 years after one term of office, because the presidency is a symbolic role. In Australia, at Prime Minister’s question time, each question is timed out after seven minutes, whether or not the participants have finished.

Perhaps the example that touches most vividly on the issue that is before us comes from the United States, where people are faced with a vast array of propositions, which might be associated with presidential or state elections. It is worth considering the effect of such an approach. As is the case here, in the US there is space in the media for debate about only one essential election, which is generally the presidential election, the gubernatorial election or the elections to the Senate. The propositions—we would call them referenda—receive scant attention.

There is a real danger when a series of unrelated decisions that an elector has to make are drawn together to be dealt with in a single visit to the polling booth. I apply that not only to the co-incidence of a UK Parliament election and a Scottish Parliament election but, of course, to the forthcoming referendum on the alternative vote, about which there has been no public hubbub and little comment. Not a single constituent has raised it with me.

Let us not imagine that we are introducing something new with AV. We used to have multimember, single transferable vote seats in the Westminster Parliament. The last general election in which that was the case was 1945. We saw the ludicrous situation of Graham Kerr, a Conservative who received 1,361 votes in the first ballot in an overall vote of 32,786—4.15 per cent of the first-preference votes—nonetheless getting elected on the second ballot.

Perhaps the Conservatives will support the AV referendum after all, because it certainly can lead to results for them. However, we need to have the debate, and we can do that only if there is time for it.

It is a great pleasure to speak on the motion. I, of course, will support the unanimity that I expect to see at 5 o’clock and I hope that everyone else will do so as well.

09:36

S3M-8032 Fuel Duty

2011-03-02T17:53:00.025Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8032, in the name of Keith Brown, on fuel duty.

17:04
... ... ...
17:47

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

It is a great pleasure to speak on the subject of fuel duty. In my first contribution in the Parliament in 2001, I spoke about fishing, which is a vital interest for my constituents. Therefore, it is a great pleasure as I make my 400th speech today to speak about something of equal importance. [Applause.] I thank members for that kind applause. It is richly deserved—for those who have had to listen to my 400 speeches.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative): I will start with the most outstanding speech in the debate, which was from the former minister Stewart Stevenson

I will be serious. The fair fuel price campaign featured in the middle of the newsletter that I distributed in 2001 for my first election to the Parliament. Fair fuel prices were an issue then, and they remain an issue today for rural constituencies such as mine. In 1997, the price of a litre of petrol was 61p. Alison McInnes referred to the price of diesel in Banff. I understand that the price of petrol in Banff today is 134.9p a litre. When I had my first car, I could fill up its tank, take the four people in the car for a fish supper, go to the cinema, and get change from a pound.

The world has changed, but the Labour Party’s inability to engage on the subject has not. When it debated it in April last year, parties were able to coalesce around a shared belief that we had to take action, but the Labour Party—the 36 members of it who turned up to vote, that is; 10 were missing—was on the wrong side of the argument, and the indications are that it will be on the wrong side of the argument today.

Charlie Gordon: Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson: I will do so later.

Charlie Gordon said in that debate that he remembered lager being half a crown a pint, so I know that he is of a similar age to me.

Those staggering increases in the cost of fuel affect everyone, not simply motorists. If businesses face higher fuel costs, those costs are in turn passed on to consumers and we all pay more for the things that we buy. The case for a fuel duty regulator to halt the constant fuel price increases that people face has never been more urgent.

I do not have an intrinsic difficulty with the idea of reversing the recent VAT increase on fuel that the Labour Party proposes in its amendment; my fundamental difficulty is that although that would give some relief, it would be a one-time hit, whereas what the Labour Party seeks to delete from the motion is a proposal that would provide a long-term, permanent solution to smooth out the price of fuel. The one thing that really affects business and individuals is erratic changes in prices. A study of the graph that the House of Commons has provided in its research shows that pricing has become much more erratic in nature.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): The member describes a fuel duty regulator as a permanent solution to the problem of volatility. Surely he accepts that it is not a permanent solution to fuel price rises, which, at present, are not being driven by taxation.

Stewart Stevenson: I absolutely accept that if the intrinsic price of the underlying raw material is to change over a long period of time—I think we all accept that it is—we cannot beat the system, but we must give business the certainty of understanding what its costs will be.

Charlie Gordon rose—

Stewart Stevenson: I am coming to Charlie Gordon in a minute.

We must also give rural constituents such as mine the opportunity to do their budgeting, as well as giving them some relief in the meantime.

Charlie Gordon: As an aside, can I say that I yearn for the days when I was younger and better looking than the former transport minister?

I have explained that the Government’s own advisory body says that a regulator would not work. I have made it clear that we are being practical: cutting back the VAT on fuel is a practical measure that can be taken this month. If the member checks the Official Report of the debate that we had a year ago, he will see that I left the door open, as I did earlier this evening, on the concept of some limited derogation for very remote rural parts of Scotland.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat): I had the privilege of being invited to bear witness to Stewart Stevenson’s 400th oration

Stewart Stevenson: If the door is capable of being opened, the three parties who are on the other side of the argument in the debate are handing the Labour Party the key. It should take it, turn the key and go through the door. A fuel duty regulator is a process by which we can give certainty and use the huge sums that the Treasury has—it has £1 billion in tax more than it anticipated having—to fund relief for people in rural areas who simply do not have alternative means of transport and who have to use their cars to go to work or to the shops, and to undertake social, educational or medical journeys. It is extremely important that we focus on that.

Charlie Gordon (Labour): It was good to debate with Stewart Stevenson again. Once again, I found him to be a conscientious adversary

I welcome the fact that it appears that our island communities are to receive some relief, but many mainland communities are equally remote and equally affected by fuel prices. A fuel duty regulator would be a way of controlling price, and I hope that members will coalesce behind the Government’s motion and unite in sending a message to the Government at Westminster.

17:53

S3M-7992 Regeneration

2011-02-24T10:08:00.005Z

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7992, in the name of Johann Lamont, on regeneration.

09:16
... ... ...
10:02

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): ...

I wish John Park every success in the recovery of his lip. Indeed, I wish him every success in the coming election. I hope that Labour sets new records—for second places. The contest to come will be interesting.

Regeneration is a subject that is timely and important to communities not only in central Scotland but right across Scotland. In my remarks, I will make some comments about areas outwith central Scotland.

John Park highlighted an important issue when he said that it is not correct to focus only on people. When we look at regeneration, I agree that we also have to consider the physical, social and economic environments. In fact, a complex set of interlocking issues make up the single issue that is regeneration. The need for regeneration has run through the generations in far too many of our communities.

That is precisely why the Conservatives absolutely miss the point when they focus on the idea of workers relocating to find new work. Indeed, Norman Tebbit has been on the campaign trail in Wales this week. He gave an interview in which he suggested, once again, that the “get on your bike” phrase that he used years ago still has a resonance. That focus is simplistic, inadequate and inappropriate.

It is good to hear members on Labour’s front bench—if not members on Labour’s back benches—reinforcing the importance of the Forth replacement crossing, which is not only a transport investment but one that creates significant jobs. I hope that Lord Foulkes remains a sole voice.

Regeneration is a key part of our economy. It is needed just as much in rural villages and towns as it is in urban city centres. Just as we have seen significant change in the industrial structure of Scotland in many communities in the central belt, so we have seen the structure of our traditional industries of fishing and farming change significantly. Those industries have reduced the number of people who are employed within them and that has caused suffering for a number of associated engineering industries, too.

The Coalfields Regeneration Trust does excellent work for the communities that it supports. I do not think that during today’s debate we will hear criticism of its efforts, although we may focus on differences.

However, there is a Scotland beyond the central belt. Just yesterday, on 23 February, Portsoy in my constituency was granted £500,000 from Historic Scotland’s conservation area regeneration scheme to repair historic buildings in the harbour and to give people training in traditional skills. That is the kind of initiative that the Government is taking. It will make the area more attractive to visitors, but it will also boost the local economy. Building on traditional skills and renovation work will create for young people, in particular, key opportunities to engage in new activities.

Elsewhere in my constituency, there have been successful regeneration schemes in Peterhead, and £3 million has been spent on a townscape heritage project in Banff. In August, Aberdeenshire Council allocated slightly more than a third of £1 million from Scottish Enterprise to regeneration projects in Banff and Buchan.

Regeneration is important throughout Scotland. That is why I welcome the document that the Government has just published on the subject, which recognises that many of the traditional models are less viable. For too many companies, reliance on debt finance simply is not possible. Together with difficulties in accessing land and property in the current climate, that is making it more difficult overall to attract investment. We need community-led regeneration, rather than a top-down approach. We need to empower our communities so that, through the Scottish Government’s concordat with local authorities in particular, we can find ways of doing the things that are required in our local communities. Regeneration works when each community has a stake in it.

I think in particular of Maud, a small village in my constituency, where over a long period—regeneration is not a quick fix—the community has engaged in redeveloping an area that 50 years ago was the biggest, most active cattle market in the whole of Scotland. Today, the area is thriving, with many different activities in a new centre that has been developed in close co-operation with the community, through a planning for real project that engaged the very young and the very old.

Like others, I welcomed the 2007 debate on coalfield regeneration. After waiting for four years for another debate, we find that two have come along on the same day—not, I must say, miraculous scheduling on the part of the Labour business manager.

In comparison with the minister, I must go back one more generation to reach my mining ancestors. My great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather were miners in Bannockburn. They were among more than 300 Stevensons who were miners in that community 150 years ago. Business changes, and we must respond. Regeneration will be important. I will support the Government tonight.

10:08

S3M-7923 Early Intervention

2011-02-10T10:05:00.002Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7923, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on early intervention in health and education.

09:04
... ... ...
09:59

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

The tone of the debate suggests that we are heading towards a broad consensus on the issue and a recognition that all members might have lost opportunities to address it. A saying that I have held dear—particularly in recent times—is that someone who never made a mistake never made anything. If we are able to look forward, that is an excellent way in which to go, and I thank Murdo Fraser and his colleagues for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject.

It is clearly a long-run issue in the sense that we have been engaged in it for decades without having identified everything that we need to do. More fundamentally, it is a long-run issue for our youngsters. Neglect in the early years will result in issues that remain all the way to the end of one’s life. Ross Finnie, in particular, captured that when he said:

“there is no liberty in poverty and no liberty in ignorance.”

When I was a minister, I had the great pleasure of attending a GIRFEC event on behalf of Adam Ingram on 12 March 2010 in Aberdeen. The room was full of several hundred very enthusiastic people who were very switched on. If they are representative of the professionals in the field, our confidence level ought to be seriously high. The presentation that preceded mine was an interesting one about the role of music and how kids interact with music. We were shown videos of children who, in their first day of life, were beating along with a musical beat, showing a degree of interaction. I have no insight into that; I only report what I saw. However, that illustrates that it is never too early to engage a newly born infant with the world and that learning starts, if not in the womb—although who knows?—certainly from the moment that we leave the womb. We must create an environment in which that learning enables people to develop into well-rounded and capable adults.

The multi-agency approach is important. My father was a general practitioner from the 1940s onward, and even at that time he had to work with other practitioners. That not only made a difference to his ability to support his patients; more fundamentally, he was able to bring professionals to the table, although we must accept that the world was much simpler then than the one in which we live today.

The sort of things from which children benefit are diverse. I was lucky enough to be brought up in a house that was chock-a-block with books. Ironically, my ill health in the first decade of my life—I am an asthmatic—helped me because I spent most of my time at home picking up books and reading them. These days, too many children live in houses with no books. The minister’s comments about the provision of books highlighted an important part of what we must do.

Liz Smith talked about literacy and numeracy. We often talk ourselves into thinking that we are innumerate. Many people say that they do not understand numbers; yet, in any bookie’s, we find mathematics that I, a mathematics graduate, am incapable of doing. The guys with the wee pencils behind their ears, working out complex odds on five-way accumulators, can tell one instantly whether to pay the tax in front or behind and how much it will be. People do not realise how numerate they are. I also have a small personal obsession with our failure to utilise the Trachtenberg speed system of basic mathematics, which is a wonderful system for engaging children in mathematics.

We must always support the next generation. I am now almost certainly in the last quarter of my life, and I am conscious—as others should be—of the fact that it is the younger people in our society who will choose the care home in which I will live. If I do not look after them now, there will not be a very good outcome for me. The question that has always engaged us all is that of nature versus nurture. In parts of Scotland, there are generations of people who have not been brought up in a nurturing environment, and there is a clear need to address that.

We have seen that the early years of children’s lives are crucial and that successive Governments have sought to engage on the issue. I very much welcome the contributions that have been made to the debate. There has been unexpected humility, so far, and welcome consensus.

In closing, I make the observation to the Labour Party that I am not entirely sure that four-day weeks in school and the mooted proposal that I heard last week to delay entry to school until the age of six will necessarily help, but I am interested to hear what proposals will be made, by Labour and others, in the coming election.

I am happy to support the amendment in Shona Robison’s name.

10:05

S3M-7630 Scotland’s Science Centres

2011-02-09T17:13:00.002Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7630, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on Scotland’s science centres. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament congratulates what it sees as the excellent work of Scotland’s science centres in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen; welcomes in particular the official launch of the Dundee Science Centre Science Learning Institute in support of the Curriculum for Excellence and lifelong learning, through which the science centre has formed what is considered a unique partnership with the University of Dundee and Dundee College; considers that this initiative, which will offer interprofessional science communication training for cross-sector audiences, will bring more science to the people of Tayside, promoting public engagement with scientific research and discovery and supporting science-sector skills development, and wishes all four centres and their partners every success in such ventures in the future.

17:03
... ... ...
17:03

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

I congratulate Joe FitzPatrick on providing us with the opportunity to discuss science. Science is often thought of as a minority interest, but almost everybody depends on and engages in it. It is important that we acknowledge the role that the science centres—in my case, Satrosphere in the north-east of Scotland—play in bringing science to people’s attention.

Curiosity, which Joe FitzPatrick highlighted, is something that I retain. A day when I do not learn something new, however quirky or unusual it is, is an unusual day. I suspect that all members present have a similar attitude.

The gateways in our major cities can spark a lifetime’s interest in scientific discovery. It might start with a wee boy watching the development of a tadpole in a jam jar in the kitchen and go on to that person making major scientific advances, which many Scots have done in their contributions to the world.

However, it is matter of concern that knowledge of what our science centres can do is declining. I hope that tonight’s debate is an opportunity to spread the word and to increase the number of adults who are aware of science centres and, hence, are more likely to take their children along.

In Aberdeen, the Satrosphere has had a hugely positive impact since it opened in 1988. It has some 50 interactive exhibits and it has helped schoolchildren—and accompanying adults, I guess—in the north-east into pursuing careers in science. It has also developed an important partnership with my former university, the University of Aberdeen. Aberdeen is famous in mathematics—my particular subject—and in a wide range of engineering and scientific endeavours. It is vital that we generate interest in science and discovery among young people, and I am sure that science centres can play a very important part in that.

There have been a number of joint initiatives between Aberdeen university and Aberdeen College on the back of the partnership initiative. Aberdeen College’s planetarium will, after almost a decade, reopen in the coming months and a new discovery dinner hour will be launched to bring university researchers together with the public in a themed social event in the college’s training restaurant. Those initiatives, together with the Aberdeen public engagement partnership, are exactly the sort of things for which our science centres can be very much a focal point.

MSPs have one of the centres on our doorstep, just across the park. We regularly visit it as MSPs, but we go there, have our meetings and leave. Next time we go to our local science centre, we should ensure that we look at what is on offer and try to learn something. We can then proselytise to the youngsters and their parents in our respective areas.

I very much support the work of the science centres, and I commend their activities to every member in the chamber.

17:13

S3M-7436 Further Education Colleges

2011-02-03T17:20:00.002Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7436, in the name of Andrew Welsh, on Scotland’s further education colleges. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament congratulates the staff and students of Angus College on what it considers another successful year in providing high-quality training and resources in its continuing exceptional contribution to building Scotland’s skills base for the future and also acknowledges the wider role of Scotland’s further education colleges in upskilling and retraining across the range of professional and practical skills considered essential in overcoming the challenges of the current economic situation.

17:03
... ... ...
17:16

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

First, I congratulate, in the conventional way, Andrew Welsh on securing this debate. Of course, my congratulations are tinged with sadness, because there is every chance that this is the last motion that will be debated in Andrew Welsh’s name in a distinguished parliamentary career that extends back more than 37 years. Another opportunity might come along, but I suspect not. Presiding Officer, I must also apologise to you, the minister and colleagues as I will be leaving the debate early. I have been in the chamber almost all day and have one or two other things to do.

As it is the Chinese new year, it is particularly appropriate that the debate centres on Angus College, which has been developing links with Yantai Vocational College in China. Moreover, I know that the member sponsoring the debate has great interests in China and, indeed, is one of the few members who can speak some sensible words in Chinese. That link reflects enthusiastic work that has been carried out by organisations right across Angus and illustrates that successful colleges not only have deep roots in their own communities, but will work with others. I am sure that such a relationship, with the college at its centre, will benefit the local area.

Of course, when the economy is in a less-than-ideal condition, it becomes ever more important that we have a range of opportunities to allow people to upgrade and change their skill sets. Indeed, many people go to college not because it is second best—a phrase that Johann Lamont did not want us to use and which I certainly do not wish to—but because it often provides a second chance to acquire the skills that they require. It is also a good starting point that allows people to take things to whatever level they are capable of reaching. A sufficient and capable further education sector is a central part of the Government’s programme.

Offshore energy is a very important industry in Angus and, indeed, in my constituency, where Banff and Buchan College has a long engineering tradition, thanks to its proximity to the offshore industries that will continue to be important. Now that Peterhead has been designated as a key hub of Scotland’s offshore renewables industry, the local college in my constituency will play an important role in ensuring that we have the necessary skills to support the economic benefits that will come from that industry.

Colleges play an important role in allowing people to retrain or to gain more skills throughout their lives and are, of course, a vital destination for many school leavers: last year, 27 per cent of school leavers attended FE colleges.

There are, of course, specific challenges in rural or relatively sparsely populated areas. I think that we all welcome the announcement that was made yesterday that the University of the Highlands and Islands has finally become a university formally. It reflects the specific needs of the very different area within which it operates. Exactly the same point can often be made about our colleges.

In my previous role, I was engaged with Montrose harbour, which is an important place where people from Angus College may go. It is slightly amusing that Montrose was, of course, the base of an important American engineering company called Stewart & Stevenson.

17:20

S3M-7821 Certification of Death (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

2011-02-03T15:56:00.002Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7821, in the name of Shona Robison, on the Certification of Death (Scotland) Bill.

14:56
... ... ...
15:47

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

I find myself at both an advantage and a disadvantage in this debate, as I am a doctor’s son and therefore have much of the language of the medical profession but almost none of the understanding. As my father once said, that is a perfect fit for politics, because one is a plausible ignoramus.

The registration system that we have today came into operation in 1855. For many years after, it was not uncommon, in situations in which a doctor was not reasonably to hand, for the cause of death to be shown on the certificate as “Doctor not present” or something similar. As a person who has pursued genealogical studies for 50 years, I have come across many instances of that, almost invariably on the islands. It is interesting that, 150 years on, we are still confronting the issues that are associated with population sparsity and remoteness.

We have come a long way from the situation in 1855. In particular, cremation is now a significant option that is chosen by families. Even when my father became a GP in the 1940s, it was pretty much the exception. Of course, there were practical reasons for that. For example, where my father practised, in Cupar, there was no crematorium to hand. In my constituency, where the crematoria are some distance away, it is a less significant part of funeral arrangements than it might be elsewhere.

I hope to be cremated about a year after my death because, like others in my family, I have recorded my wish to be sent for medical research, and the arrangements are that the various bits come together a year later and are cremated. If I get my wish—it is increasingly difficult for the wish to be delivered, I have to say—I will be most thoroughly examined post mortem. Of course, for me, as for one or two others here who are perhaps, arguably, in the last quarter of our lives, this is not a matter of philosophical debate but a matter of practical concern.

The proposed measures will make more systematic and robust the system of checks and balances that oversees our system of registration. Of course, the bill is not simply about implementing a new process. It is about what that process has to deliver, and about detecting statistically significant variations from the norm and, crucially, the factors of personnel or treatment with which they are associated. In that sense, like others, I believe that we will have to move sooner rather than later to a process that, however it is achieved, allows the analysis of robustly captured data on computer systems. As a genealogist, however, I hope that we will continue to see the signature of the person who registers the death in the electronic record, because it is fascinating to see one’s ancestors’ signatures. Indeed, in one case, the signature showed me, to my surprise, that my father registered the death of someone I had not previously realised he was in contact with at that stage in his life, and that was before he was a doctor.

In one of its variants—I recognise that there are many—the Hippocratic oath includes the phrase:

“I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing”.

Not all doctors take the Hippocratic oath, which is perhaps diminishing in importance, but, after a period of 2000-plus years, it does still capture something important about the relationship between doctors and their patients. Above all, the ignoramus that is the general public in relation to medical matters places an immense trust in doctors and, if the bill can further build confidence in doctors and other health professionals, it will serve a good purpose indeed. What we do in the bill must address that issue.

When I was a trainee nurse some 47 years ago now—it is quite alarming how long ago it was—ours was essentially the ward that people came to if they were expected to die. When someone died, we did not necessarily wait for a doctor before laying out and moving the remains to the mortuary. I believe that practices such as that have been much refined and there is now clear involvement of doctors or other qualified health professionals. The fact that they are masters of the fact of death is important.

Let me talk about statistics and inspection. The issue of cover, be it 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 4 per cent or 100 per cent, is not a trivial one. Superficially, the higher the figure, the better it sounds, but a higher figure does not necessarily deliver better outcomes. What is equally important is what is examined and the depth of the examination. In many areas and different professions, if a large number of examinations are conducted for little return and there is little resulting intervention, the psychological phenomenon of ennui comes in, and when a case comes along that requires attention, people are more likely to miss it because there is less time to devote to each individual activity that is undertaken. I do not come up with any answer to that. I merely say that we have to be careful.

Returning to electronic recording, I point out that there is a system that is operated by the registrars of births, marriages and deaths, and that is the system into which the data go. I wonder—without having any answers myself—whether it would be an idea to roll the system out more widely with mild adaptations to allow conditional registration by health practitioners and to capture data relatively early. However, I know that it can often be quite difficult to adapt computer systems.

It is remarkably easy to make errors. When, in 1984, I registered my mother’s death, I forgot her father’s name and put her grandfather’s name on the death certificate by accident. I had not known those grandparents; they were not familiar to me. There is plenty of scope at all levels for getting things wrong.

Ian McKee said that we will all die. Arguably, we will all die from heart attacks. It is not at all clear that there is no room for judgment and debate about what should go on a death certificate. Indeed, in these days of mechanical apparatus that keep the body functioning, if not alive, it is not always entirely clear when death might happen.

I hope that we respect the rites and practices of a wide range of religions—in fact, I am sure that we will—and I very much support the bill.

15:56

S3M-7819 Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

2011-02-03T10:52:00.002Z

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7819, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill. We have a fair amount of time in hand, so I will not be stopping members unless we are in extreme circumstances. I call Kenny MacAskill to speak to and move the motion.

09:15
... ... ...
10:37

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

I welcomed the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s referral of this issue to the Scottish Law Commission in 2007. That was an important step in taking forward a matter that we have debated and engaged with in this place for some time.

Of course, the principle of ne bis in idem or, in French, autrefois convict has been in Scots law for some 800 years. It is worth thinking of the kind of world that existed at that time. The English had been conquered by the Normans, but Scotland had yet to face down the substantial challenge that Edward I would bring 100-plus years later. That was a very different world, with a very different approach to legal matters. The fact that the principle has endured over such a lengthy period should put us substantially on notice that it is not a matter to be treated trivially, but one of the utmost seriousness. It has been at the centre point of Scots law—and the law of many other countries—for a very long time.

For me—and, I suspect, for other members—one of the most chilling speeches that has been made to the Parliament was the speech by the Lord Advocate on the World’s End murder case. It was a lengthy speech that left the chamber as quiet as I have ever heard it. There was no fidgeting—there was a stillness among us as we heard the Lord Advocate lay out matters before us in a judicial manner to which we are not used. Those who listened to that statement—some members found it sufficiently disturbing not to stay for the whole of it—will understand the issue that is before us.

Cathie Craigie was absolutely right to focus on issues relating to the victims of crime; I think that she was the first speaker in the debate to do so. The point is not simply to identify someone’s crimes and to ensure that an appropriate punishment is put in place, but to serve the interests of those who have been affected by crime. When considering whether, after 800 years, we should look at the matter again, there are very substantial issues that we must consider.

Having served on two justice committees of the Parliament and having spoken on the subject previously, I see today’s debate as a welcome opportunity to revisit it. Of course, revisitation is the whole point of the bill. It could be argued that it is somewhat strange that trials can be restarted for a variety of reasons up to the point of decision but that cases cannot be revisited thereafter, as decisions are absolute and inviolate. We have now moved beyond the point of accepting that. Equally, we have accepted that it is no small thing to do so. The English example shows us that the criminal justice system and the interests of justice do not collapse when such a measure is introduced. That can give us substantial confidence that it is worth our while proceeding in this way.

Clearly, there are other ways in which the ends of justice can be served. We have observed with varying degrees of interest and engagement the use following a civil trial of the law of perjury for one of the former tenants of these premises. Let us not forget that people are found not guilty—they are not found innocent at any stage, although the presumption is that they are innocent. If someone has been prosecuted and has not been found guilty, there are other ways, one of which is the law of perjury, of serving the ends of justice. Of course, that is not an easy matter with which to deal.

What tests are we putting in place? Are they sufficient and adequate? The hearing that must precede any reprosecution is a very important part of the changes that we are contemplating. For example, all of us recognise that not all confessions are sincerely made. I suspect that there will be instances of people who are clearly engaged in criminality and may already have substantial criminal records embellishing a tale to the point of confessing to crimes that they may or may not have committed, because they are publishing a book or have the opportunity to be paid large sums of money by one of the tabloid newspapers. For that reason—and many others—the hearing process is important, as it will allow us to test whether a reprosecution should be contemplated in the interests of justice. It is equally important that the person who may be subject to a new prosecution has the right to appear and to be represented in it. Those are important provisions in the bill.

We have had some exchanges on the scope of reprosecution; I suspect that we will continue to have such exchanges as the bill proceeds through Parliament. Should it be limited to original prosecutions on indictment, or should it be extended to summary prosecutions? Perfectly properly, Robert Brown said that it was pretty unlikely that evidence would come forward following a summary trial that would have caused the case to be taken on indictment in the first instance, but we cannot exclude that possibility. If we are thinking of the victims, we need to think very carefully about where we strike the balance.

There are some things that are not in the bill that could not, sensibly, be in it, but which it is worth having a think about. For example, should we be able to reprosecute people who have died? That might seem a slightly amusing idea, but the reality is that holding a court case to prosecute someone who is dead—which can be done in other jurisdictions—does, in certain instances, serve the interests of justice and of the victims. However, that is an extremely difficult thing to contemplate and the size of the bill, which at present is relatively modest, would be substantially greater if we were to do so. I mention that just to point out that we should not imagine that we are solving every issue that surrounds double jeopardy.

Robert Brown: I am not quite clear what Mr Stevenson has in mind, but I wonder whether he is thinking of the Megrahi case and the situation whereby the reported death of Mr Megrahi, in due course, would have interrupted the re-review of proceedings. Does he think that that would have given rise to an issue whereby the victims would have been deprived of the opportunity to test the issues before the appeal court, following on from a decision by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission?

Stewart Stevenson: The member cites a perfectly reasonable example; there would, of course, be others.

There are other ways in which the issue can be dealt with, besides having a retrial in a criminal court, but it is clear that victims often do not regard such alternatives as being equivalent to prosecution in a criminal court. Prosecuting someone after they have died is not dealt with in the bill, and I would not wish the Presiding Officer to draw me up too tightly for speaking on a matter that is not strictly before us.

Turning to things that are in the bill, an issue that has been raised relates to acquittals when there has been interference with the jury. Section 2(5) says:

“But the acquittal is not to be set aside if, in the course of the trial, the interference (being interference with a juror and not with the trial judge) became known to the trial judge, who then allowed the trial to proceed to its conclusion.”

Superficially, that looks okay, but the reality is that the effects of that interference might have been greater than the trial judge was aware of at the time at which they allowed the trial to proceed to its conclusion. Those who will take the bill forward might wish to look at that again, if that part of the bill is to be retained. If one juror was nobbled, they may have contaminated other jurors or put other jurors in a state of fear and alarm before they were removed from the trial. The judge may not have been in sufficient possession of the facts to have realised that that had happened. As almost everything that a judge decides can be reviewed elsewhere, to exclude a review of a judicial decision to allow a trial to continue after a juror has been nobbled may be an exclusion too far.

I am conscious that we have a certain amount of time so, if I am permitted, I will proceed to deal with the committee’s report. Paragraph 33 mentions the concerns of the SHRC and the Law Society about what the standard of proof should be. They thought that beyond reasonable doubt should be the standard of proof at the hearing but, of course, that would not necessarily have been the case in the original prosecution. It is important to bear in mind that the procurator fiscal could have considered a lower test—the existence of a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

Paragraph 48 mentions that the SHRC, and John Scott talked about the range of serious offences. As the bill proceeds, it will be important to test that we can combine the trial of new charges with the retrial of old charges in a way that will serve the interests of justice, and I hope that the members concerned will do that.

The committee considered at great length the retrospective application of the bill, which, instinctively—like others—I am not comfortable with. However, in this particular case, I think that it would leave a huge gap in our ability to deliver justice for many people if we were not to have the opportunity to revisit trials that took place in the past.

Earlier, I intervened on Bill Aitken on the subject of extradition, and I think that there remains a substantial issue there. People may be extradited to other jurisdictions in the European Union and to the United States in a variety of circumstances, without there being any necessity to show that there is a case to answer—that is a matter for the jurisdiction to which the extradition takes place. In a case in which someone who has already been found not guilty in a Scottish court is extradited, there is an enduring potential for injustice but, of course, responsibility for the law in respect of extradition lies elsewhere and it is not at our hand to change it.

Section 10(3) relates to article 54 of the Schengen convention, which touches on some of that. I had been aware of the Schengen convention only to the extent that the UK is outside the common travel area that it created, much to travellers’ inconvenience. I will go away and read it to discover what other delights it contains.

I congratulate the Government and all who have pressed for such provisions on the introduction of an excellent bill that will serve the interests of justice and of victims, and which will be a source of great fascination to those of us who are interested in the minutiae of legal legislation.

10:52

S3M-7667 Supporting Local Forums’ Involvement in Delivering Community Care

2011-02-02T17:20:00.002Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7667, in the name of Rhoda Grant, on supporting local forums’ involvement in delivering community care. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises the value of supporting local forums’ involvement in delivering community care; notes the research undertaken by the Inverness and Highland community care forums that highlights the vital role that lunch and social clubs play in supporting older people in the Inverness area; believes that these forums provide a vital service in creating and maintaining social networks and alleviating the effects of social isolation; considers that, when funding for the Highland Community Care Forum ceases in June, local forums will be left without any independent support and will not survive, and would therefore welcome an extension to Highland Community Care Forum’s present contract to cover the gap between the old contract and the new and a continuation of support for local forums through the new contract so that they continue to have a part to play in the delivery of future localised community care services and are able to undertake consultations on service provision independent of funders.

17:08
... ... ...
17:15

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

I congratulate Rhoda Grant on giving us the opportunity to debate what is a very important subject for an increasing number of people across Scotland.

I represent a constituency in Aberdeenshire, which is less remote than the Highlands but where a higher proportion of the population live in a rural setting than is the case in the Highlands. Therefore, many of the issues that Rhoda Grant has delineated are familiar to people who live in Aberdeenshire.

It is important that we have in place mechanisms and structures that allow people to make a contribution to those in need. Voluntary arrangements whereby voluntary bodies deliver community care and are involved in its planning are an important part of ensuring that we have a focus on the needs of people in local communities. It is important that people in those communities are involved in the process.

I am not sure that I share some of Rhoda Grant’s concerns about how the council may choose to restructure things. I am not speaking about a council that is a political ally of mine, so I am entirely neutral from that point of view. It is certainly the case that we must ensure that we have arrangements in place that deliver the best value for the money that is available.

We should remind ourselves that the current budget, on which we will make a decision next week, includes some £70 million for a change fund in health and social care, so everyone who chooses to vote against the budget next week will be voting against the provision of money to ensure the appropriate kind of change.

It is important that there is a voice for older people. I am not the only member whose years are marching on more rapidly than they used to and who has seen parents in the system—albeit that, in my case, that was some distance back. It is important that we reduce red tape and improve joint working. Today’s announcement of £2 million for a system of lead commissioning is part of how we can tackle the issue.

There is no question that the care budget is enormous. Because the pressure on it from the rising proportion of our society who are aged will continue to increase, it is important that we leverage voluntary action into caring for our people, but we should not imagine that that is particularly new. I was involved in voluntary action many decades ago and I know that the same is true of other members. Today, however, we expect a great deal of the voluntary sector, which is why it is important that we support it by ensuring that lunch clubs and social events for older people are supported and that there are links between older people and younger people so that we do not simply create an environment in which people who are already close to those in need provide additional care.

I very much agree that we are debating an extremely important subject and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say on it.

I see that Richard Simpson is likely to speak in the debate and I encourage him to speak to his colleagues about the proposed national care service, which kind of runs against the proposals that we have heard discussed today. Such a service is essentially centralising, which is one reason why it would not have my support. Nonetheless, considerable discussion is to be had between now and the May election; tonight’s debate will be a little part of that.

17:20

S3M-7793 Dementia Strategy

2011-01-27T11:09:00.002Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7793, in the name of Shona Robison, on the dementia strategy.

10:31
... ... ...
11:04

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

Irene Oldfather described Alzheimer’s as a terminal illness. That reminded me of what Clive James said in his autobiography:

“Don’t take life seriously; you won’t get out of it alive anyway.”

In other words, we are all going to die; something will kill us. Laughter has a place in every care home.

We must ensure that we have environments in which quality of life includes the whole range of human emotions that people suffering from dementia are capable of enjoying. It will be different for each person, so care must be tailored to each person. If we are to do that, the focus must be on diagnosis—and early diagnosis.

Jamie Stone covered some of the range of difficulties that people with dementia and their families can experience. I suggest strongly that, while mental capacity exists, people should get the kind of advice that will enable them to deal with future mental incapacity. Like some other members, I guess, I have already made arrangements for my future mental incapacity—to which my wife refers from time to time—by putting in place a power of attorney, so that arrangements are in place if I get into a position of mental incapacity in the legal sense. Early diagnosis and good advice to carers and families helps them to do that and removes one of a wide range of burdens that they will experience during the progression of the condition that is dementia.

Ian McKee talked about the changing nomenclature and descriptions that have been attached to the condition. As someone who for at least 50 years has taken an interest in genealogy, I have probably read thousands of death certificates, because they contain a lot of information. The modern system of certification was introduced in Scotland in 1855. On certificates from that date onwards—including certificates for members of my family—you see the term “senile decay” or “senile dementia”, with an indication of the period of time over which the person concerned suffered it. The diagnosis is relatively imprecise and imperfect, but it is clear that dementia is not a new condition but has been with the human race for a long time.

We must also focus on the fact that the burden that we place on carers—the expectations that we may have of close family members—can create illness, especially psychological illness, in those carers. It is important that they get the right kind of support. The gamut of emotions that many carers experience is not dissimilar to bereavement, but without the opportunity to move to the final phase of bereavement—accommodation, which involves putting in place happy memories of the person who has been lost and coming to terms with that loss—because the loss of the person from their carer’s life is postponed by their condition, even though their mental capacity to interact with the carer may already have departed.

I have a dear friend whose wife is suffering from dementia. She distresses him so much that he has not seen her for four years; she has been unable to communicate with or to recognise him for well nigh 10 years. The condition of that very elderly gentleman tugs at my heartstrings whenever I talk to him about his wife.

My sister-in-law has just retired—at the age of 73—as a mental health nurse, working in a care home for the elderly mentally infirm, and my mother used to chair the local mental health services committee in Cupar in Fife, so I have had a lifelong interest in this issue. There are absolutely no easy answers to it, but the document that the Government has produced and the good heart that has been seen in all participants in the debate should give us great encouragement that we are on the right track.

11:09

S3M-7504 Car Sharing (North East Scotland)

2011-01-26T18:00:00.004Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7504, in the name of Alison McInnes, on getabout and liftshare. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes that, following the first ever liftshare week, membership of the UK-wide car-sharing network has now exceeded 400,000; further notes that car sharing, as well as bringing environmental benefits, can save participants money through shared travelling costs; congratulates liftshare on its recent success in the Contribution to the Community category at the Nectar Small Business Awards; considers outstanding the work of Getabout, a partnership between Nestrans, Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire councils, local universities and other organisations, in promoting better transport choices, including car sharing, in the north east, and believes that encouraging car sharing and other more sustainable transport options can play a key part in helping the transport sector to meet its share of Scotland’s climate change reduction targets.

17:49
... ... ...
17:56

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

I congratulate Alison McInnes on bringing the debate to the chamber. I know of her very personal interest in the matter over the long haul, as she was previously chair of the north east of Scotland transport partnership.

I have on my parliamentary desk two mugs with the getabout logo on them, because I attended the launch at Inverurie. It is fair to say that the best car journey is the one you do not make, but it is necessary to make car journeys. Sharing our journeys with others in rural areas is economic and addresses climate issues.

Alison McInnes referred to travel planning, for which there is a range of options. Traveline Scotland is now a well-established part of the landscape; I used it to find out how to get from my rural home in Banffshire to the Burns supper in West Kilbride at which I am speaking on Saturday night. I think that there are seven legs to the journey, but members can imagine the difficulties if I had not had access to automated ways of planning it.

In the old days there were other ways in which we could avoid driving our own cars. As a student in Aberdeen I used to hitch-hike regularly to get home to Cupar at the end of each term. It was not to save the planet, of course—it was mainly to save my wallet. Many of us used to do that, but it is no longer a popular way of doing things as there are real concerns about safety.

A structured approach that gives people the opportunity in a controlled way to join up with others who are making similar journeys is something that we must encourage. Every time we get two people in a car there is a 50 per cent saving in costs and climate impacts.

Some significant ideas that are relevant include giving priority parking to car sharers. That type of facility would increase the attractiveness of the option and be worth publicising. Car pools organised by employers are another way of ensuring that we make the most of the commute that must be done.

Here in Edinburgh, on the very doorsteps of Parliament, we can see cars from the Edinburgh city car club, which is another part of the package. A Labour councillor with whom I worked in my previous role has given up his car, and was able to attest that he was saving some £3,000 a year and suffering no disadvantage whatsoever. I hope that such schemes will be extended across Scotland in due course, because if we have fewer vehicles on our roads there will be less impact on the infrastructure of our roads, less need to spend money on maintaining them and less need to invest in creating additional capacity. The benefits come at a primary level and at many secondary and tertiary levels as well.

It is important that we look at our successes. Co-operation between Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire now happens in a range of areas. We should look to that co-operation and ensure that the lessons are more widely learned. On that basis, it is timely that Alison McInnes has introduced the debate—and I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about the future of such schemes.

18:00

S3M-7735 Protecting Public Services

2011-01-20T09:56:00.006Z

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7735, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on protecting public services.

09:15
... ... ...
09:52

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

Michael McMahon rehearsed a very old calumny about the SNP’s inability to work with Westminster. I put on record my gratitude for the letters from a UK Government minister and from three members of the Labour Party at Westminster that I received on my recent departure from office. That shows that I, for one, was able to work with Westminster, but I know that there is nothing unique about my experience. Early in my ministerial career, I met a UK Labour minister who said that after a considerable number of years in office, I was the first Scottish minister they had met. Co-operation is the name of the game, and the SNP knows how to play it.

I want to cover just two issues in my short contribution. The Green motion contains the phrase

“rejects the Scottish Government’s decision simply to hand on these cuts to Scottish public services”

and goes on, essentially, to demand tax rises. A more “economically illiterate”—to use another phrase from the Green motion—approach would be hard to find.

Let us remind ourselves what tax powers we have, because the Calman powers, if they come at all, certainly will not be with us for years, nor would a land value tax, were we to conclude that we wanted such a thing. We can raise or lower the basic rate of income tax by 3p and we can tune the council tax, but raising taxes would not make the cuts go away. It would move them to cuts in personal incomes across Scotland, and it would not even do so in a progressive way. The council tax, in particular, hits the elderly hard. That is why we sought to build a coalition of interests in this place to replace it with a new, fair, income-determined tax.

Patrick Harvie: Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson: I will give way to the member if he takes 10 seconds.

The Presiding Officer: We have some flexibility on time, Mr Stevenson.

Patrick Harvie: I understand the overall question of cuts versus taxes but I believe that it is possible to take a progressive approach that means that the poor pay less and the rich pay more, and that untaxed business assets pay their share, too. If the member does not accept that, surely he must accept that if we are not willing to raise revenue, we are handing on the cuts. The numbers do not add up any other way.

Stewart Stevenson: It is a question of who pays for the cuts. The cuts are the reality that the cabinet secretary and all members of this Parliament have to engage with. If we take an approach that takes money out of individuals’ pockets, we affect the whole economy, diminish the prospect of economic recovery and prolong any difficulties that arise from the cuts. I will talk about business in a moment.

We know that the Green party is essentially an anti-growth party and taking money out of ordinary peoples’ pockets would support that objective. I am not sure that it is a sure-fire election winner and, as Patrick Harvie said in his opening remarks, using the SVR is unlikely to be popular. It would certainly create difficulties.

My second point is about business rates. Again, screwing down on business would support the anti-growth agenda. If we were to tinker with business in the wrong way and unravel the huge amount of support that we have given to small business—a vigorous small business sector is the very heartbeat of our economy—we would find ourselves in difficulties.

In recent weeks, the Green party has been rehearsing the idea of introducing a tax on empty properties. Let us look at the effect that that tax has had south of the border. Properties are being demolished and roofs are being taken down, because the burden on a shrinking business with a fixed cost associated with its property leads to such behaviour. It is hardly green to destroy property that could be brought back into use at a later date. That will not improve the economy and it is not the kind of response that will help us to grow our way out of the difficulties that we are in.

This debate has been timely because we are in the run-up to next week’s stage 1 debate on the budget, but I fear that the Greens’ proposals to increase taxes are simply a road that would make things more difficult, not less.

09:56

S3M-7716 Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s “Report on the public sector’s support for exporters, international trade and the attraction of inward investment.”

2011-01-19T16:22:00.014Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7716, in the name of Iain Smith, on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s “Report on the public sector’s support for exporters, international trade and the attraction of inward investment.”
15:11
... ... ...
16:14

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

Like others, I congratulate the committee on its work. Like Jeremy Purvis, I have come to this from outside the process and have read the report with some interest.

Paragraph 237 of the report says that not enough companies are looking for assistance. We must remember that there is a fundamental difference between the approach of the public sector and the approach of the private sector. The public sector is, essentially, risk averse—that is something that we need to change—thinks strategically and looks, generally, to the long term. The private sector, on the other hand, is highly entrepreneurial and opportunistic and tends to look to the short term. Sometimes, the two sectors make quite uncomfortable bedfellows. When we add them together, we can subtract one from the other and end up worse off, or we can benefit from the hybridisation that arises from their diverse approaches. It is quite difficult to achieve the latter, but we should certainly try to do so.

Paragraph 247 addresses the need for SDI not to

“duplicate or crowd out the type of advice and support that is currently being provided by other bodies in Scotland”.

That is a self-evident truth that we should take on board.

Fundamentally, we have a two-way street, just as there is a two-way street between the public and private sectors. There is a benefit to us from bringing trade and companies to Scotland and there is a benefit to our getting out and investing and engaging elsewhere.

Paragraph 241 talks about SDI’s physical presence. I am not in as much sympathy with the points that are expressed in this paragraph as I am with others. In the past three and a half years, I have met SDI people in various locations and spoken with them about what they are doing, and I have always been struck that, although they might have an office in Düsseldorf or wherever, they spend a great deal of time elsewhere. I had 1,303 nights as a minister, but I spent only 467 of them at home; the rest were out and about—and not many of them were holidays or party business. I am sure that the SDI employees work on a similar basis and that they spend a bit of the time in their home base but most of their time on the road. Indeed, one third of my 2,769 ministerial meetings were outwith Scottish Government offices.

Iain Smith: The member had too much time on his hands.

Stewart Stevenson: If only I had had more time. I will come back to that issue later.

The key point is that the location of the office is one thing but what is important is the location of the folk who are doing the job.

It is clear that the world is changing rapidly. I first visited China in 1978, and the change that I saw when I visited China as a minister in 2009 was fundamental. In Beijing, there are significantly more cars per household than there are in London, Edinburgh or Glasgow whereas, in 1978, there were probably no private cars at all in China. I visited a wind turbine manufacturer that is co-operating and working with Scottish interests—SDI was key to that arrangement. I visited an electric vehicle manufacturer, where I saw 400 vehicles that were going off to the United States. Ironically, I visited China’s dedicated weather television channel, where I was given the opportunity to see how difficult it is to do a weather forecast. If only I had learned the lesson more thoroughly and remembered it a year later, but there we are. Ho hum—one has to learn from life.

Scotland is famed for its exports. On my world travels, I saw in Burma what is claimed to be the biggest Buddha in the world, which was sitting on a steel stand that was made in Motherwell. Similarly, the ferry that runs across Lake Titicaca between Peru and Bolivia was built on the Clyde. It had to be dismantled to be taken over there and then rebuilt, but it is certainly there.

The Liberals in particular should be proud of the Scotch whisky industry. Lloyd George introduced the requirement—to restrict supply during the first world war—that whisky must be kept in bond for three years. That improved the quality of the brand by eliminating the rotgut and, as a second-level effect, laid the foundations for the Scotch whisky export industry. There are still brands today that state that they are exported under British Government supervision. Of course, Lloyd George’s secretary was Frances Stevenson, so he must have got the good ideas from somewhere.

Educational exports have gone up, as paragraph 248 mentions. I spent some time in the two years before I came to the Parliament lecturing at Heriot-Watt University and had students from more than 20 countries in my class. It is clear that Scotland has huge and very important international connections that we can exploit.

Jeremy Purvis talked about the merchant company that was founded in 1694. That brings to mind, as perhaps it does for Lewis Macdonald, the Aberdeen Shore Porters Society, which was founded in 1492 and claims to be the oldest business in Scotland. That tells us that in Aberdeen the business of exporting, the shore and the harbour have been important for a long time.

I say to Chris Harvie that I have been on the little train from Darjeeling to Ghum; so exciting was it that I kept the ticket. We have that kind of experience to sell to the world.

We should not beat ourselves up too much, as one can take different things from the figures. In table 3 on page 11, the committee provides us with the HM Revenue and Customs regional trade statistics. We can see that, excluding services such as banking and tourism and financial investments, the low in Scotland was £12 billion in 2006, and it has gone back up to £15 billion, albeit that our share is not doing so well. We should look to our successes as well as focusing on our failures.

As we approach 25 January, we should remember that our cultural icons, such as Robert Burns, can deliver a great deal for this agenda. I will be speaking in Bethesda in Maryland on Friday evening, but by internet—I will not be there physically. The modern technology world gives us new export opportunities, and we should try to make use of them.

16:22

S3M-7693 Electricity Market Reform

2011-01-13T16:20:00.003Z

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7693, in the name of Jim Mather, on electricity market reform.

14:57
... ... ...
16:10

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

I was delighted to respond to Liam McArthur's motion on renewable energy on 28 October. In my speech on that day, I focused on the fossil fuel levy, which has been part of the discussion today. It is slightly disappointing that, with 50 minutes to go in the debate, I am the last speaker in the open part. I am, however, happy to use as many of those minutes as the Presiding Officer allows me.

Today, I read a statement by Georg Adamowitsch. He said:

"The North Sea has different conditions and potentials for the generation of renewable energy. Scotland is a fine example of how different offshore technologies (wind parks, wave and tidal technology, onshore potentials, various wind potentials) can be combined to form a coherent approach."

Of course, if we want more and more of the energy that is used in the UK and Scotland to come from renewable sources, that means implicitly that the shift will be towards electricity. Therefore, it is right and proper that we focus on transmission of that electricity from where it is generated to where it is required.

There are, of course, a number of low-level issues that will be discussed on another occasion, such as the fact that if we are to have electric cars, we must also have local delivery of electricity for them to use. Today's debate is much more about transmission over the high-voltage network, which involves minimising transmission losses so that we can deliver from one end of this island to another.

Liam McArthur: I hope that my intervention will help Stewart Stevenson to get through the 20 minutes that are available to him. Transmission is an important issue, but will he touch on the importance of storage? Everyone who has spoken in this debate has been guilty of glossing over that issue, which involves issues around transport and other factors.

Stewart Stevenson: I am not sure that the Presiding Officer responded to my suggestion that I should speak for 20 minutes—

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): We could suspend.

Stewart Stevenson: Hopefully, not by a tender part of my anatomy.

In response to Liam McArthur's point, it is quite interesting to note that one of the storage mechanisms that is mentioned in the Redpoint Energy report is pump storage. Electricity is going to be a key part of producing hydrogen, which might turn out to be one of the main fuels of choice for transport in the future and, of course, there is a range of challenges in relation to how one stores hydrogen because, being the smallest atom that exists, it sneaks through almost any metal and dissipates rapidly.

I will turn to issues that are a little more parochial. In Aberdeenshire, we have some of the highest transmission charges in Scotland, at some £20 per kilowatt, which is in contrast to the subsidy of over £6.50 per kilowatt that is available in the south of England. That does not seem to be fair, and it does not seem to serve the interests of any part of these islands. As Georg Adamowitsch's contribution to the debate illustrated, Scotland has a huge potential to be the renewables powerhouse of Europe, which will benefit Europe and the UK and will, fundamentally, create economic opportunity for Scotland. We have won the energy lottery again, so it is important that we have in place the right policies and practices that will allow us to capitalise on that.

We and the UK Government share a 2050 target of an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions, and the effective generation and delivery of electricity is vital to that.

A huge proportion of the UK's gas supply comes ashore in my constituency adjacent to Peterhead, and there is a gas power station in Peterhead itself. It has been very disappointing that because the charges are so great, there is a real risk that one of the generation units could be closed. The unit has to pay £29 million a year for access, whereas an identical power station in the London area would be paid £3 million to generate the power that is required.

There is a broad consensus among energy producers, business groups and trade unions that locational transmission charging is no longer appropriate, and we very much welcome that. Broadly, I have heard no dissenting voices on that, and the issue has now been picked up in the UK Government's consultation. It is a shame in some ways that we did not get to that sooner.

As there are some 26,000 potential Scottish jobs in renewable energy, it is important that we make progress and move away from a model quite distinctly different from that which is used elsewhere in Europe. The Scottish Government has continuously pressed for a change in that regard. As Scotland generates some 12 per cent of the UK's electricity but is forced to pay some 40 per cent of the transmission costs, significant change is in the interests of everyone in these islands.

There has been one disappointment that I have found in my research for which I have not really found an answer. I had thought that there were significant transmission losses when electricity was pumped over long distances, but there is a clear assumption, even in the UK Government's consultation document, that what you put in is what you get out at the other end. I am obviously wrong on that, and I have been corrected by reading the UK Government's document.

It has been entirely appropriate to take a consensual approach on this subject. It is fundamentally clear that any policies in this area will outlast the term in office of any Government in any part of these islands; it is probable that a series of Governments will continue to engage in the policies that are set as a result of the current consultation. It is important that we all contribute, and that we express clearly and unambiguously today the needs of Scotland and the opportunities that we have to provide for the energy needs of our neighbours elsewhere in these islands, and further afield through interconnectors to other countries in Europe.

I will address—perhaps in a slightly contentious way—the point that Stuart McMillan raised about the performance of individual managers in banks, whether those are green banks or otherwise. I came into politics to purge myself of the taint of having worked for a bank for 30 years. We should perhaps start to call bonuses "performance-related pay" and they should perhaps be taken away from a person's pay if that person does not deliver. If we consider the issue in that sense, performance-related pay is not a bad idea, provided that it delivers for the public good and for customers, and is focused on the outcomes that an individual has delivered. In any case, it should be paid only from profits, should there be any.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, Presiding Officer, to—as I can see—the great relief of many of my colleagues in the chamber. I welcome the support that I heard in Liam McArthur's reading of his amendment, which confirmed what I took from it. His party can deliver a positive contribution in Government at Westminster via the UK Government's consultation, to give us equitable access and go a little way towards offsetting some other areas of disappointment.

I particularly welcomed Chris Huhne's recognition yesterday that the SNP Government is led by one of Europe's leading energy economists. It should be no surprise that our First Minister has long been engaged in criticising the access regime and the effects that it has on Scotland and on energy supply in the UK as a whole. The existing process of charging must change. I am happy to support the minister's motion—and to allow others to try to fill the time.

16:20

S3M-7605 Antisocial Behaviour Framework

2010-12-16T16:29:00.004Z

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 16 December 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 09:15]

... ... ...

Antisocial Behaviour Framework

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7605, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the antisocial behaviour framework.

15:32
... ... ...
16:22

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):

It is a very great pleasure to return to a subject in which I was closely involved during the passage of what became the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. In the stage 3 debate on the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which I opened for the Opposition, I stated that there was

"a real problem and ... a real casus belli underlying the Executive's determination to pass the bill",

but I also said that there were continuing disagreements about

"whether the remedies that the bill proposes are proportionate and appropriate."—[Official Report, 17 June 2004; c 9369.]

An issue on which the then minister, Margaret Curran, and I agreed—I always agree to recognise the wisdom of someone who accepts an amendment from me—was that research and reporting post hoc would be important to inform future generations of legislators as to whether certain provisions about which we disagreed were or were not effective in practice. It is self-evident that some of those provisions have contributed much less than the Labour Party suggested that they would in 2004.

Let me lighten Nigel Don's darkness. In an answer to me in March 2007, Robert Brown said that there had been no parenting orders. In response to the questions that he asked in spring and autumn 2008, John Lamont received the same answer.

James Kelly: The member stresses the importance of reporting and monitoring. Does he share my concern that page 36 of the report that is before us outlines the fact that there will no longer be any requirement for reporting at national level and that monitoring will take place only at local level? Surely that undermines the ability of national Government to assess the statistics on antisocial behaviour.

Stewart Stevenson: One of the clear lessons that emerged from the then Communities Committee's travels around every police area in Scotland was that success in engaging with antisocial behaviour depended on local action. Such engagement was successful when local action was taken.

On the subject of reporting, I identify for members that my amendments 95 and 96 to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which sought to introduce sections after sections 14A and 20, both specified a reporting period of three years. In accepting an amendment from me, Margaret Curran recognised that three years was an appropriate period to assess what was going on.

Of course, there are still differences between members and parties in the chamber. With some disappointment, I heard Mr Butler suggest that an ASBO being granted is a measure of success in dealing with antisocial behaviour. I take a fundamentally different view. The issuing of an ASBO is a measure of failure to deal with antisocial behaviour. I worked very closely with Donald Gorrie, a previous member of the Liberal Democrats, and he took the same view.

Bill Butler: An ASBO is simply a court's recognition that an offence has been committed. Does the member not agree?

Stewart Stevenson: That is fundamentally correct, but that it should get to the point at which the last and only remedy available is a court intervention is a measure of possible failure in the process. I do not regard the figure of 0.1 per cent of complaints leading to ASBOs as necessarily a sign of failure. I take a different view and other members will do that, too.

It is worth saying that we have seen the courts make a range of interventions that we regard as helpful. For example, the length of sentences for knife crime has doubled in five years, from an average of 118 days in 2005-06 to 263 days now. Of course the courts have an important role to play in that area, as they do in dealing with the criminal and the antisocial lout. It is important that the courts clearly address the needs of each individual case. I quote Chief Constable David Strang:

"Each offender has a personal background and I think it's absolutely proper that the court, having heard all the circumstances of the offence and of the offender's circumstances, can impose a sentence that is appropriate."

I trust the courts. I might not always agree with them, but they have an expertise that I do not necessarily have.

Robert Brown said that there is no simple solution, and I am happy to agree with him.

Labour's obsession with ASBOs is simply unhelpful, and as it turns out, I agree that Labour's proposal is pointless, simplistic and a waste of time.

James Kelly said that I could look out of St Andrews house and see the snow. My office was actually at Victoria Quay, but we should not quibble about that.

In the past week, I have been delighted to receive, as I often do, an e-mail from a constituent; they welcomed the resolution of a local problem in one area of my constituency as a result of something that I described in a similar way at stage 1 of the bill. I said:

"The councillor had the initiative and the guts—as councillors and members of the Parliament should have—to bring community groups together, to hold public meetings"—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; c 6472.]

and to ensure that solutions were obtained. By the way, I was describing and commending the work of an Edinburgh Labour councillor. Everyone in politics has a shared duty to their constituents.

I close by making an observation about Labour's approach to the debate. There was a glimpse of a proposal from the Labour members, but we now know that it is toothless and it will simply lead to more bumping of gums. There is never a proposal of substance from Labour, never a suggestion for action, never a way forward and nothing but girn and gripe.

If that sounds like an empty phrase from me, I have found a way to measure it. It occurred to me that a word in Labour's amendment sounded familiar. I refer to the first word, which is "regrets". Labour members are no fans, then, of Edith Piaf's "Je ne regrette rien", but serial offenders. There are currently 16 motions before Parliament that contain the word "regrets"; 11 are from Labour, three are from the Green Party, and there is one each from the SNP and Liberal Democrats. There is regret among the Labour members; action is entirely absent.

16:29

Statement: Severe Weather

2010-12-08T14:47:00.004Z

Scottish Parliament

Wednesday 8 December 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 14:01]

... ... ...

Severe Weather

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is a 10-minute statement by Stewart Stevenson on severe weather. As the minister will take questions at the end of the statement, there should be no interruptions or interventions during it.

14:37

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

I am grateful for this opportunity to update Parliament on recent weather events and their damaging effects on the transport network. I should begin by saying that the westbound M8 fully reopened to all traffic at 13:15.

On Monday, a combination of events—the return of many adults and children to work or school after a period of school closures and disruption from previous snow, combined with more and heavier snow that fell over a longer time than expected—contributed to a very sudden deterioration in road quality and public transport services in central Scotland. The key question is whether our response could or should have been better in these very unusual circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that if the transport system grinds to a halt and people are forced to spend the night in their cars, something has clearly gone wrong. I regret that and apologise for the failure to communicate the situation effectively to the many people affected on Monday when the extent of the problem became apparent.

Of course I am sorry that anyone should have to experience the gridlock and inconvenience of recent days and, in terms of the aspects of the problems that can be resolved by Government, I accept that responsibility rests with me. We must be clear what the issues are.

I also want to be very clear on one matter. No doubt parts of the system did not work, but that does not mean that thousands of men and women—local government workers, those on gritters and in emergency services and many volunteers—did not do the best that they possibly could in the circumstances. To those who have worked the extra hour, who have helped their neighbour, who have pushed cars and who have brought aid and assistance—thank you. [Applause.]

That said, we are looking at exceptional circumstances. There are two big issues to address: fixing the immediate problem; and considering how we as a society can adjust if this weather is to become more common.

For the benefit of this chamber and the people beyond it I will try to describe the events that led to this situation. I should add that I am more than open to the idea of a wider review of what happened and I will be attending next week's meeting of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee where these matters may be discussed.

On Monday morning, we faced a perfect storm. A highly unusual weather system came in and hit our transport system exceptionally hard. Over the past fortnight, Scottish resilience has been managing snow volumes in the central belt at significantly higher levels than have been seen in many years. The Cabinet sub-committee on Scottish Government resilience has been in operation since 24 November. Resilience arrangements were well established over the weekend of 4 and 5 December, and meetings took place on both days; indeed, meetings have been occurring on a daily basis both at ministerial and official level. Weather forecasts from the Met Office were monitored closely throughout that time as part of the resilience process. Across the whole country, strategic co-ordination groups—connecting emergency services and local authorities, which plan for all manner of contingencies—were already working on the snow situation.

On Sunday 5 December, we were aware of weather warnings in which snowfalls in central Scotland were forecast. I have been asked what forecasts the Scottish Government received and when it received them. I would like to give members some details on that.

The first indications of heavy snow were issued by the Met Office at 16:01 on Sunday. The bulletin said:

"A band of heavier snow is expected to affect higher parts of the Ayrshires and Lanarkshires giving 5-10cm of fresh snow. Higher parts of West Lothian and the western Borders could see accumulations of 3-5cm. Western areas will still see mainly rain although this could gradually turn to snow in Glasgow where accumulations of 1-3cm are possible. Elsewhere accumulations of 1-3cm are likely including in the Edinburgh area."

A Met Office bulletin that was issued at 08:01 on Monday described the weather forecast at that time. It said:

"Generally amounts of fresh snow will be in the region of 2 to 5 cm although higher areas may see a further 10 cm. Behind this band of snow it will be generally dry and clear."

Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer: Order. There is too much noise.

Stewart Stevenson: The next Met Office bulletin, which was issued at 10:37 on Monday, accepted that the position had become unexpectedly severe. It said:

"The band of snow that moved southeastwards overnight extended further eastwards than forecast, which has given more significant snow accumulations than were expected yesterday across eastern parts of the Central Belt. This has caused transport disruption across parts of Scotland and has been exacerbated by ice quickly forming on roads and the fact that the snow arrived across the central belt during the rush hour ... The snow will continue to move southwards during this morning, clearing the Central Belt by mid afternoon."

We have now received accurate measurements of the snowfall during the 24 hours from 09:00 on Monday. Those measurements show that some areas clearly received more snow than the amount that was forecast. At Gogarbank in Edinburgh, 7cm of snow fell; in Penicuik, 9cm of snow fell; and at Livingston Mill in West Lothian, 12cm of snow fell. There were falls of 20cm in other areas, which was twice the maximum that was forecast. Some reports suggest more than 30cm of snow fell in East Kilbride. A North Lanarkshire Council report that was issued at 02:50 on Tuesday said:

"The heavy snowfall yesterday morning was not forecast to be as late in the morning or nearly as severe."

All that demonstrates that, although the Met Office was giving reports to the best of its ability, the snowfall was greater than it was estimated to be even after the incident had started.

Let me say a little about preparation and forecasting. We have a network of cameras around the trunk road network that are generally co-located with ice-monitoring equipment. When actual temperatures drop to 3°C, we invoke road treatment action in anticipation of icing. In that respect, we act in a similar way to the Met Office and others. Observations of current conditions are used, coupled with a view of recent changes to predict future weather conditions. Ploughs and gritters were out and applying appropriate treatments before the snowfall hit central Scotland, but access to the road network became difficult as jack-knifed lorries—as many as a dozen of them on Monday evening—and a small number of car incidents blocked key roads and junctions.

In central Scotland alone, Transport Scotland had 327 staff using 63 vehicles working round the clock. Throughout Monday night and Tuesday, more than 1,000 additional police officers and the Red Cross were active. I pay tribute in particular to the work of police officers throughout Strathclyde, Central Scotland and Lothian and Borders. We hired in extra vehicles to recover lorries, but in many cases clearance was followed too quickly by further incidents, and it became increasingly difficult to reach those lorries.

For the M8 westbound, the absence of moving traffic and temperatures below the level at which salt works allowed significant build-up of ice, despite appropriate treatment, and led to closure. As I said, the M8 is now fully opened. This morning, Transport Scotland and its contractors have given a special treatment to the M8, with double levels of salt and grit, and gritters and snowploughs operating together.

There have been problems on our railways, too. Network Rail has special squads looking after the most critical junctions. Heating blankets are supplementing points heaters and have proved largely effective, but diversion routes and sidings are not available, which means that any train failure has greater-than-usual impact. Therefore, Network Rail has restricted network capacity. Our most modern diesel rolling stock, the class 170s, are designed for operation down to -17°C. In fact, they did a bit better than that, but were frequently defeated by ice, with up to 3 tonnes per carriage.

Yesterday, 80 per cent of scheduled bus services and 55 per cent of normal train services operated. Today, our airports are open, with the exception of Campbeltown and Wick, which will open shortly. Overnight, vehicles worked continuously to keep the road network working. Police report that temperatures dropped to -17°C in places and the Met Office said that the temperature would continue to fall until 9 this morning. The Army has been helping, and we thank it. It has assisted the Scottish Ambulance Service by providing 10 four-by-fours and 50 soldiers.

A slight alleviation of the worst of the cold conditions is forecast for the next few days. I am determined that we should make the best use possible of that window of opportunity to bring services back to normal. Today, two thirds of schools are open, which is a better performance than for 10 days.

I am the transport minister and I am responsible. What happened on Monday has been extremely difficult and challenging. It should not have happened and I have apologised for the failure to communicate the position better and earlier. However, the steps to prevent it and the actions to negate it are hugely complex. The areas that I want to review are long-term strategic issues. Public communication should be improved. What went wrong with links between Met Office forecasts and information flows? Do we need to invest more in heavy-duty winter equipment? Although we deployed help and assistance quickly, should we have increased additional resources even more speedily than we did?

My focus now is to make this work and to put in place a system that is robust. If the weather is to be more severe, more often, the fact is that we need a step change. That applies to everyone in Government, every business and every household.

2010-06-09T16:50:00.002+01:00

Scottish Parliament

Wednesday 9 June 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 14:00]

... ... ...

Active Travel

S3M-6476 Active Travel [Opening Speech]

2010-06-09T15:38:00.001+01:00

Scottish Parliament

Wednesday 9 June 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 14:00]

... ... ..

Active Travel

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6476, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's report on its inquiry into active travel.

15:15
... ... ...
15:27

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

Patrick Harvie opened his speech by referring to the health benefits of his rather speedier-than-expected journey to the chamber.

As you might already have guessed, Presiding Officer, if I am seen to be masticating before you, it is not because I am eating, but because I am chewing a Fisherman's Friend. I hope that the smell of menthol does not unduly distract members from this important debate.

I welcome this afternoon's debate on active travel. It comes at a significant time because we are about to publish the first-ever cycling action plan for Scotland. The debate is a welcome and timely final check on the contents of that plan. We will, of course, listen carefully to what is said today and consider it in finalising the plan. To adumbrate what our plan will contain, I say that it will set out an ambitious vision, it will present continuing investment in the national cycle network and it will see the Government looking to work in partnership on cycle networks throughout the country. It continues our partnership working on road safety for cyclists, which the convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee mentioned in his opening remarks. It will seek to facilitate the co-ordinating role of Government in working with local authorities because, at the end of the day, if there is no local commitment to action, it is unlikely that there will be successful local delivery. We will also seek and identify opportunities to include active travel in planning guidance, and we will continue to invest in community cycling initiatives. I will return to a number of those themes later in my speech.

As members will know, the Scottish Government has been working in partnership with all stakeholders to identify ways in which we can encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport instead of private vehicles more often, particularly for shorter trips. The ambitious targets that the Parliament adopted on climate change a year ago, and our vision for bikes to achieve a 10 per cent modal share by 2020, mean that the making of short trips by bike or on foot—by walking or, in the convener's case, running—should be encouraged.

Let us be clear about the scale of the task: if we were to switch a third of all journeys of less than 5km that are made by car to bikes, we would achieve the 10 per cent vision in the cycling action plan for Scotland. If we switched to bike half of all the journeys of less than 3km that are made by car, we would achieve an 11 per cent modal share for cycling. However, if that is the approach that is taken, it is clear that delivery on those numbers would not happen overnight. We must work in partnership to change travel behaviours for the greater good of Scotland.

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): I intervene if for no other reason than to allow the minister to do some more masticating.

The minister referred to modal shift, but does he recognise that in some areas mixed-use travel is necessary? In my constituency, we need to allow people to use public transport for part of the journey and to be able to cycle along the cycle routes in the Borders. When I have put that to bus companies, they have said that from an engineering point of view, it is difficult to put bike racks on buses. What is the Government doing with the wider public sector to ensure that when contracts for bus services are put out to tender, part of the process involves consideration of the use of bike racks and other means that would make it easier for people to use public transport in combination with the cycle routes in which we are investing?

Stewart Stevenson: Jeremy Purvis has touched on an important issue. It is worth saying that the Traveline Scotland website provides information about bus services that already have the capability to carry cycles, and about how cyclists can access that capacity—which is, in fairness, relatively limited both in its geographical spread and in the amount of space that is provided. From memory, I think that such provision is largely available in the Highlands rather than in the Borders.

Jeremy Purvis asked what role the Government can play. Our role has been to encourage and persuade. Support for mixed-use travel increases bus companies' opportunities to cater for commuters, to support tourist traffic and to access new revenue streams. There is good practice that shows that it is possible to provide for cycles, either in a basic way by allowing bikes to be put in the hold of buses, or by providing specific facilities on board buses. I have seen such capability only this week.

We will work in partnership on that issue and more generally to change travel behaviours for the greater good of Scotland. We need to provide communities and individuals with the right information to help them to decide to use active travel for shorter journeys, or as part of the mixed-mode journeys to which Jeremy Purvis referred.

As part of our national performance framework, we have outcomes and targets that will help local authorities to meet their single outcome agreement targets, which will enable Scotland to achieve economic sustainable growth and health and environmental benefits across the country. It is vital that local authorities play their part in delivering change. I am pleased that throughout the development of policies on active travel—such as smarter choices, smarter places and the soon-to-be-published cycling action plan for Scotland—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been a supportive partner.

I want to expand on the policy areas in which the Scottish Government agrees with the committee's recommendations. We will, of course, ensure that the committee receives an advance copy of the CAPS document ahead of publication.

At the inquiry into active travel, I gave assurances that the committee's recommendations—and those from this debate—would be considered for inclusion in the final plan. I believe that we will succeed in meeting that commitment and I will expand on the recommendations that the Scottish Government will take forward.

First, on cycle training, the committee asked for a carefully co-ordinated and managed scheme with national standards. That will be taken forward and managed centrally by Cycling Scotland, in partnership with key delivery agencies such as Road Safety Scotland and the active schools network. The new approach will integrate the three levels of cycle training and will offer cycle training for children starting in primary 3 through to second year at secondary school. Training and support for volunteers will also be part of that. Cycling Scotland and partners will also develop a delivery plan for, in particular, delivering more on-road cycle training, which will be formulated by the end of 2010.

Secondly, on planning, the committee sought for active travel to be at the heart of new developments. The action plan will promote existing guidance to achieve more well-designed and accessible cycling facilities throughout Scotland. I await with interest the output of the inquiry, in which the committee is currently engaged, on the relationship between transport in general and land use.

I was pleased this morning to see published the document, "Cycling By Design", which provides a comprehensive guide to contemporary examples of best practice in cycling design. Its primary focus is the establishment of guidance for practitioners throughout Scotland to ensure consistent and appropriate design. Transport Scotland currently requires consultants and contractors who are working on trunk road projects to follow that guidance. That will help raise the game of everyone involved.

Thirdly, on leadership, in integrating cycling with public transport we will strengthen partnerships, lead on investigating how other countries achieve traffic-management measures to integrate active travel, and seek opportunities to ensure that active travel is an integral part of planning decisions, which of course will help to improve health, regenerate communities and make roads safe for all.

Patrick Harvie: The minister mentioned leadership and attempts to reproduce the success that other countries have achieved. Will he have time in the rest of his speech to address the central question of funding? We have heard time and again from many witnesses that if we do not address that with rather more than a 16 per cent increase in funding from such a low starting point, we will not have a chance of reaching the targets that the Government is setting itself.

Stewart Stevenson: Funding is certainly an important issue, which is why we have seen the budgets for cycling across Scotland rise year on year during the time of this Administration. I recognise that the budgets have risen, not the expenditure. The expenditure saw a one-time diversion from a cancelled scheme, but the budgets have been rising and continue to do so. I will comment further on that in my concluding remarks at the end of the debate.

We are in a period of financial constraint and we are keen to hear at all budget debates suggestions from members on which policy areas should be given priority.

I observe once again that I see quite different outcomes in different parts of the country where the expenditure is similar. It is perfectly possible to get much more for some of the money that is spent.

I look forward to a productive discussion on how we can increase active travel and improve the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Who knows—it might even address my throat.

15:38

S3M-6417 Climate Change (International Aviation and Shipping) (Scotland) Order 2010

2010-05-27T17:00:00.001+01:00

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 27 May 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 09:15]

... ... ...

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): The next item of business is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion. I invite Bruce Crawford to move motion S3M-6417, on the approval of the Climate Change (International Aviation and Shipping) (Scotland) Order 2010.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (International Aviation and Shipping) (Scotland) Order 2010 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]
... ... ...
16:58

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson): I start on a consensual note. I agree that there is an effect associated with aviation that is greater than the effect of emissions at the surface. I think that the whole Parliament is of that view, which is why in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 we made provision for the Government to set a figure.

The question is whether we are in a position to do so. The UK Committee on Climate Change has provided us with advice on the subject, which is that it is not yet able to identify the science that shows what the figure should be.

I want to talk about the need for multiple figures for different kinds of aviation. In setting a target, we should seek to incentivise aviation to move from more contaminating to less contaminating modes of flying. It is clear that a pure jet engine that flies at around 39,000ft to 41,000ft has much higher contamination than does a turboprop engine that flies at 20,000ft to 25,000ft. For the small planes that operate public services in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, the effect is likely to be similar to the effect at the surface, given that they fly at between 500ft and 2,000ft. Therefore, we should properly have different figures for different classes of aviation. We have asked the Committee on Climate Change to provide those.

An important issue of which members should be aware is that there is no difficulty in waiting to set the figure. When the factor is set at a figure other than 1, it is backdated. Therefore, there is no cost in terms of accounting to waiting for a scientifically based figure that provides the opportunity to restructure the way in which flying operates. Many short-haul flights that currently operate within the UK—and, more fundamentally, to the Republic of Ireland and other parts of Europe—can increasingly be conducted using turboprops, which result in lower contamination. Setting a different figure for that category of aircraft would be more appropriate.

I seek members' support for the motion.

2010-05-05T14:47:00.003+01:00

Scottish Parliament

Wednesday 5 May 2010

[The Deputy Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 14:00]

... ... ...

First ScotRail

(Industrial Relations)

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-5722, in the name of Elaine Smith, on First ScotRail industrial relations. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament understands that a provision exists in the First ScotRail franchise agreement that provides the Scottish Government with discretionary powers to reimburse the company for revenues lost due to industrial action; supports the position of the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) that it is wholly wrong for public funds to be used to support private companies such as First ScotRail in disputes with trade unions; also agrees with the STUC that the provision and use of such powers is not conducive to good industrial relations as it weakens the incentive for private companies to reach agreement; further supports the view of the STUC that such powers should not be used in the event of industrial action in the current dispute between First ScotRail and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT); welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government has been in dialogue with the RMT over the issues involved in the dispute, and believes that the interests of constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston, passengers, rail workers and Scotland would be best served by an early and agreed negotiated settlement to end this dispute.
... ... ...
14:38

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

I thank Elaine Smith for the opportunity to debate one aspect of railways. A broad consensus welcomes the substantial investment in and continuing development of railways throughout Scotland, but the debate relates to trade unions and their relationships with employers.

I commend the work of the STUC and the rail unions, one of which is in dispute with First ScotRail. In particular, I highlight a number of discussions on whether it would be possible for there to be a bid for the next franchise in 2014 in which there is a greater public interest component. Elsewhere, a co-operative venture is looking at the east coast franchise and Go! Co-operative Ltd is looking at running services in parts of England. The STUC remains interested in the proposals that we have made on that front. The discussions that we have been having over the past year will, no doubt, continue.

Of course, it is the responsibility of trade unions to represent and to protect the interests of their members. Last year, I was happy to respond to the request from the STUC and others to contact the Office of Rail Regulation and Network Rail about the programme of renewals on the rail network.

I turn to ScotRail industrial relations. I am pleased that ScotRail has guaranteed that there will be no compulsory redundancies or loss of current terms and conditions for any member of operating staff, including conductors, as part of the driver and ticket examiner operation on the Airdrie to Bathgate service.

Charlie Gordon: Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson: Let me continue a wee bit. I will come back to you, Mr Gordon.

I was about to pick up on a couple of points that Mr Gordon made. We are looking at what has happened on parts of the Scottish network where 56 per cent of rail journeys are supervised by ticket examiners.

Charlie Gordon: Published correspondence shows that ScotRail management was not minded to have driver-only operation on the Airdrie to Bathgate line but that Transport Scotland instructed ScotRail to go ahead with those arrangements. Did Transport Scotland clear that with the minister?

Stewart Stevenson: It is important to realise that the proposal for the operation of the line came from First ScotRail. Of course, it is necessary to discuss the arrangements that are made with Transport Scotland, which supervises the franchise. The debate is about safety. I met the unions on 5 January and again in March, when I received the safety dossier. At every stage, we have sought and received advice from the Office of Rail Regulation, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the Rail Safety and Standards Board, on which the RMT is represented.

The advice to ministers, Transport Scotland and First ScotRail is clear. Indeed, given that we have published it, it is clear to everyone else. The advice confirms that ScotRail's proposal for a driver and ticket examiner operation on trains is a safe method of operating trains. The Airdrie to Bathgate service is an extension of the Helensburgh-Airdrie-Drumgelloch line; trains will go on to Bathgate and Edinburgh to form the new service. Currently, those trains operate with a driver and ticket examiner and the Airdrie to Bathgate section and beyond would naturally extend that operation. In Scotland, 47 million journeys a year already operate with that method.

I turn to financial issues. The ScotRail franchise contract does contain a clause that allows the franchisee to ask for reimbursement for net losses as a result of industrial action—

Bill Butler: On that point, will the minister assure the Parliament that taxpayers' money will not be used to indemnify First ScotRail under any circumstances whatever?

Stewart Stevenson: The contract that is before me is clear. I can absolutely tell Parliament and everyone else that we have not advised ScotRail on how to manage the strike. We have not made a decision to reimburse any losses that they can demonstrate, nor have we compensated ScotRail for losses from strike action or paid training costs that relate to the strike. In addition, if a claim is made, before we come to any conclusion—we are contractually obliged to do this under the franchise that we inherited—we will consult the STUC and the unions. That is an important safeguard.

Hugh O'Donnell: Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson: I have to make progress. I still have quite a lot to cover in a short space of time.

It is important to note that, uniquely in the Great Britain rail network, the franchise contract for ScotRail specifies that a second member of staff, in addition to the driver, should be on board to perform revenue protection and customer care duties. Mary Mulligan raised the issue of women travelling alone. The important provision that I have described, which is unique in the GB rail network, ensures that there is someone on board to look after the customers who use our trains. All staff who are on board are trained in evacuation procedures.

Different parts of our railway network have different technologies, so it is important that training fits those technologies. We have heard the expert opinions of the ORR, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch and the Rail Safety and Standards Board. It is clear from everything that has been said to me that driver and ticket examiner operation is an appropriate and safe method of operation for the Airdrie to Bathgate service.

Gavin Brown asked whether things have changed on the railways and whether details are available. He also talked about historical accidents. I will provide members with some context. We provided a copy of the dossier with which the RMT provided us to the three bodies that I have mentioned, who responded to its contents. They said that, intrinsically, the dossier does not necessarily give a complete picture. In the letters that they sent to us, they were clear about what is safe and appropriate. In its letter, the RSSB indicates that it carried out a review of data from March 2009 to December 2009, which showed that, where the driver opens the doors, the rate of injuries resulting from boarding and alighting from trains is one third that where train doors are opened from elsewhere.

It is important that we deliver this project on time and on budget, that we deliver the 130 additional jobs that will be created and that we continue to grow the railway network and the services on it. Since the beginning of this franchise, there has been a 25 per cent increase in employment on the railway network; there has been an increase in the number of conductors; and further services, with more conductors, are planned. The appropriate way in which to deal with the dispute is for First ScotRail and the RMT to sit down together. I urge them to do so.

14:47

S3M-6142 Fuel Prices (Closing Speech)

2010-04-15T11:31:00.003+01:00

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 15 April 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 09:15]

... ... ...

Fuel Prices

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6142, in the name of Liam McArthur, on fuel prices.

10:29
... ... ...
11:25

Stewart Stevenson:

The debate has had running through it a strand of agreement on the definition of the problem. I do not think that anyone has suggested that there are not problems in rural areas. That at least gives us a consistent basis on which to argue about what some of the solutions might be.

Agreement on the solutions is perhaps less widespread, but there is a consistent thread. Alex Johnstone highlighted the fact that, in 1997, the price of fuel was 61p a litre. As I look round the chamber, I think that I may be the only member present who remembers when it was half a crown a gallon.

Charlie Gordon: I remember when lager was half a crown a pint.

Stewart Stevenson: Mr Gordon should not pretend that he is the same age as me and that he remembers that—it seems somewhat unlikely.

The fair fuel stabiliser that the Tories have proposed at least has the merit of providing an opportunity for discussion and debate. I note that Murdo Fraser said that there would be consultation on that idea. Ultimately, we should coalesce around whatever can be shown to work. That is the important thing.

Alex Johnstone mentioned that, according to road haulage interests, in essence the problem is the price of fuel and the volatility of that price. It is likely that we all agree on that. He highlighted the fact that independent filling stations have less buying power. That is where Duncan McNeil failed to grasp the nettle in relation to rural areas when he spoke about possible amendments to the planning system to increase competition. On many of our islands and in many of our remote communities, the issue is not competition. There is simply not the volume to support multiple outlets, and there never will be.

Duncan McNeil: I fully accept that. I made it clear that I was making a plea for the situation that urban communities face to be addressed. When will the Scottish Government respond to the Competition Commission's recommendation? Does the Scottish Government intend to progress it through planning legislation rather than competition legislation?

Stewart Stevenson: I will come to that in a minute, but I want to finish my remarks on what Alex Johnstone had to say. We did indeed vote against the Conservative amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion for the debate to which he referred on the basis that, as Liam McArthur described, it appeared to move the issue from centre stage.

I thought that Charlie Gordon was rather unwise to talk about the weakness of the pound making a significant contribution to high prices when the weakness of the pound is, of course, a reflection of the weakness of the economy over which the Labour Government has presided. We accept that there are global difficulties, but relative differences affect relative valuations of currencies. The pound has sunk against the dollar. That tells us that, in relative terms, the UK Administration has been less effective in engaging with the world's economic problems.

Charlie Gordon talked about my role as transport minister. It is a great pleasure to stand before members as the UK's longest-serving transport minister. There is a sense of déjà vu—we have had the reference to skinning a cat on previous occasions.

Mike Rumbles correctly made the important point that in rural areas, the purchase of fuel for cars and for goods transport is a necessity and not the luxury that the purchase of beer might be.

Reference has been made to the correspondence between John Swinney and Alistair Darling. I will quote from Alistair Darling's letter of 9 April, in which he said:

"different fuel duty rates for some parts of the country would be administratively burdensome both for fuel sellers and for the Government."

I do not think that that shows a willingness to engage constructively to solve the problem of rural fuel prices, as has been done elsewhere in the European Union. It can be done: if the Greeks can do it, I hope that the UK Government can do it.

I turn briefly to the competition issue that Duncan McNeil raised. One of the great difficulties of saying when planning permission is granted that a filling station may be operated only by, for the sake of argument, Shell, because BP runs all the other filling stations in the area, is that that would reduce the economic value of Shell's investment, because it would be forbidden from selling the filling station to another operator. In saying that, one would make development less likely. However, if one is blind to the company that makes a planning application—that is a principle of the current planning system—there is nothing to stop the planning permission being transferred to someone else. That would be the case even if account were taken of the company that made the application.

It is important to understand that refining costs are the same, wherever in Scotland fuel is sold.

It has been a good debate, in which we have been united in defining the problem in a similar way. Rural areas of Scotland have substantially higher fuel prices than urban areas do. I hope that the debate has illuminated some of the issues and opportunities that exist, and that all members will unite with political colleagues in other jurisdictions in their efforts to remedy the situation.

11:31

S3M-6142 Fuel Prices (Opening Speech)

2010-04-15T10:45:00.003+01:00

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 15 April 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 09:15]

... ... ...

Fuel Prices

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-6142, in the name of Liam McArthur, on fuel prices.

10:29
... ... ...
10:38

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

I assure Parliament that we can make common cause on the issue with our colleagues in the Liberal party. Liam McArthur talked of a rural fuel derogation, which is a broad term that encompasses a range of possible options. Let us not become unduly fixated on how to do that—let us unite around the principle that it must be done.

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): As with transitional relief?

Stewart Stevenson: Despite Mr Purvis's unhelpful intervention—he appears to have forgotten that the previous debate has been completed—let us unite around the idea that duty should be reduced.

Jeremy Purvis: I make a serious point to the minister. If he says that the principle is to have overall support for a derogation, why cannot the same principle of overall support apply to transitional relief for other businesses that are affected, which include rural petrol stations? Such relief would have an impact on precisely those businesses.

Stewart Stevenson: Mr Purvis knows that the small business bonus scheme has delivered benefit to 66,000 businesses throughout Scotland. No party and no previous Government have made the efforts that we have made to support small businesses and particularly to benefit businesses in rural areas.

I return to fuel duty. I welcome the fact that Liam McArthur has initiated the debate again, although I regret that it appears to be an annual event. We have yet to see movement by the UK Government to recognise the concerns in remote rural and island areas of Scotland about the effect of fuel duty and of high fuel prices on those communities. As I said in the debate in April last year, the issue affects the people of Cumbria, Northumbria, Cornwall, Devon, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that they will be interested in what we say.

As Liam McArthur said, as a high proportion of our population lives in rural and remote areas, the effect on such communities cannot be overestimated. A disproportionate burden is placed on households and businesses, particularly in these difficult economic times.

Liam McArthur acknowledged that we have again recently engaged by letter with the UK Government. He should not imagine that our engagement is limited to an exchange of letters. We regularly meet and have telephone conversations with ministers from the UK Administration. The subject is raised on a wide range of fronts and forms part of the dialogue that ministers for a range of portfolios present in speeches and at meetings with a wide range of people.

Writing to the chancellor is of course important to put formally on the record the need to reduce the fuel price differential between urban and rural households and businesses throughout Scotland.

Liam McArthur: It is helpful that the minister sets out the representations that have been made, but does he accept that the direct response to SPICe from Scottish Government officials was that the letter of 14 November 2008 was the most recent representation that the Government had made on the issue?

Stewart Stevenson: I am certainly happy to explore why SPICe had that view, but Liam McArthur should be aware that not all correspondence between the Government and the UK Administration is necessarily or routinely put before SPICe. I am happy to ensure that members are well aware of our activity on the subject and I hope that the debate and my speech have provided clarity.

It is important to examine the evidence of the disparity in fuel pricing between rural and urban areas. Mr McArthur is of course aware that a disparity of about 10p exists between prices in Kirkwall and in Glasgow. That varies from day to day and week to week, but it endures and is of that order. Similarly, the Western Isles and the Shetlands have large burdens from the cost of fuel.

The purchase of beer was referred to. I am sure that that is more expensive in London, but it is a voluntary purchase, whereas the provision of fuel for vital rural services is not a discretionary buy for businesses or people who must travel to their work and transport themselves around. Throughout Scotland, we must all consider whether every journey is necessary. However, when the public transport options are fewer—as they inevitably are in rural areas—fewer journeys are discretionary and more are necessary, so more are affected by the high taxation regime.

The latest letter to the chancellor, which was sent on 19 March, asked him to reconsider his decision not to take corrective action through the tax system. Any derogation of whatever character—be it that proposed by the Conservatives or by us or the Liberals' variant—would do if it delivered the result. I am not partisan about that. A derogation would make a difference and put rural areas on a more equal footing with urban areas, which would reduce the competitive barriers of high fuel prices.

The chancellor's latest rejection has let down thousands of households and businesses in remote parts of Scotland that face high fuel costs, despite the actions—to which Liam McArthur referred, as other members no doubt will—that have been permitted throughout the European Union in places where national Administrations have made and argued the case for them. I refer, in particular, to the example of Corsica, an island that is greatly affected by high fuel prices and is now benefiting from the actions of the French Government.

With the price of petrol having risen by 27 per cent in the year to March 2010, it is important that we get the early action that is needed. There has been a change in the way in which increases are phased, but there will still be increases. It is time for action. On behalf of my party, I will support the Liberals' motion and my amendment.

I move amendment S3M-6142.2, after second "mechanism" to insert:

", including consideration of a fair fuel regulator".

10:45

S3M-5978 Climate Change (Closing Speech)

2010-03-18T12:22:00.003Z

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 18 March 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 09:15]

Climate Change

... ... ...

The Presiding Officer: ... we come to the first item of business, which is a debate on motion S3M-5978, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on climate change.

... ... ...

10:17

Stewart Stevenson:

Parliamentary debates on climate change have thus far produced consensus, and today's debate has been no exception. I join other members in welcoming the £220 million that the European Investment Bank is providing to Nissan to build a facility at Sunderland where up to 50,000 electric cars a year will be produced. Nissan states that it will provide the first mass-market, affordable electric car. We will watch that with considerable interest.

Cycling has been raised several times. I, too, read the Spokes bulletin. Spokes chooses to focus only on what the Government spends, not on what is spent on cycling in Scotland, and one can reach very different conclusions if one looks at the whole picture. Particularly in cycling, delivery works well if it is led at the local level. In the past, I have referred to the efforts of Moray Council, but there are many other councils with cycling initiatives, including East Lothian Council, which has good schools practice. I mention those two councils only because I am familiar with their initiatives, not for any other reason.

We published a sustainable procurement action plan in October 2009 that includes guidance on climate change issues, low-carbon vehicles, renewable energy and so on. We also have contracts in place for information and communications technology improvements and for lighting and water supply to our offices that show that we are taking action. Public sector engagement has been mentioned several times. Work on a strategy and a linked behaviour change research programme is under way, and the public engagement strategy is being developed.

Time permits me to turn to only a few of the things that have been said in the debate. Alison McInnes welcomed our continuing commitment to a 42 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. We will work together with the Parliament on that.

Patrick Harvie made the point that we must reduce energy use in the home, and we are engaging on that subject. However, he said that, even in the context of electric vehicles, increasing mobility is not a public good. There will be less consensus across the Parliament on that. Given the present climate in which we continue to burn oil out of the ground for much of our transport infrastructure, I accept that while we have seen huge improvements in the fuel economy of vehicles it is not appropriate for people simply to increase the amount of travelling that they do, as that would lead to a rising curve of oil consumption. That points to some of the limitations of viewing tackling climate change as simply an engineering problem. Particularly in relation to oil use, it is an issue with a human aspect to it as well.

Malcolm Chisholm rather unwisely referred to the use of hybrid vehicles in his time as a minister. The hybrid vehicles in which he travelled emitted 215g of CO2 per kilometre, whereas the vehicles that we now procure—which all have diesel engines—emit only 149g of CO2 per kilometre. That is a 31 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions.

Sarah Boyack: Will the minister give way on that point?

Stewart Stevenson: I do not have time. My apologies.

I use that illustration to make the general point that considerable work is going on to improve all the technologies that are deployed in transport. Governments of all shades, including the Scottish Government, do not have a particularly good track record in betting on winning technologies. We must, therefore, ensure that we have a variety of technologies going forward, as we just do not know what will work best. Hydrogen fuel cell technology will complement the work that is going on to develop electric vehicles.

George Foulkes provided some good, knockabout stuff. He referred to the three weeks in which Stewart Stevenson made so many journeys. It is true that I did. I am going to upset a former school colleague. I went to school with Nina Myskow, who is one of the ladies who appear on "Grumpy Old Women". I am a grumpy old man who does not like Christmas, and I happen to be the minister who was on duty for four days over the Christmas period, therefore my travel plans were entirely different from those of other ministers. Believe me, we get the message and we are on the case.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am afraid that, on that happy note, you must stop, minister.

10:22

S3M-5978 Climate Change (Opening Speech)

2010-03-18T09:31:00.009Z

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 18 March 2010

[The Presiding Officer opened the meeting at 09:15]

Climate Change

... ... ...

The Presiding Officer: ... we come to the first item of business, which is a debate on motion S3M-5978, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on climate change.

... ... ...

09:25

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

I hope that it will aid the debate if I say that we are prepared to support Mr Johnstone's and Ms McInnes's amendments.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. The debate comes at a timely moment, when we have had the chance to absorb and reflect on the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference at the end of last year.

Like Sarah Boyack, the Government feels that the Copenhagen proceedings were very disappointing. They did not deliver the hoped-for commitments to emission cuts or a timetable for a new treaty, but the Copenhagen accord can be seen as a first step towards a new legally binding international agreement. It captures recognition from major players—the USA, China, India and Brazil among others—of the need to keep the global temperature rise within two degrees of pre-industrial levels and to support adaptation in the developing world. That is an important step forward, as it brings countries to the table that had expressed varying degrees of reservation.

The United Nations tells us that 70 countries have submitted mitigation targets and plans to the accord, representing more than 80 per cent of global energy emissions.

Scotland retains its position among the leading nations prepared to commit to high ambition in tackling climate change. One of the interesting things in the UK Committee on Climate Change's advice is that it draws attention to the fact that, on the basis on which the UK Government has set its targets, our 80 per cent is equivalent to 84 per cent, because of our inclusion of shipping and aviation. We will continue to work with other nations, states and sub-state organisations to influence targets across the world and we will, of course, work closely with the UK and the EU, two of our most important partners that have influence over the majority of the emissions in Scotland—an issue that my amendment addresses.

The UK Government wants to broaden, deepen and strengthen the commitments made at Copenhagen, to secure a legally binding framework and increase the EU commitment from 20 to 30 per cent reductions by 2020, provided that there is high ambition from others. We want that to be converted to an unconditional offer of 30 per cent, and we will campaign and engage to try to achieve that.

As part of our commitment to being a responsible nation, I announced in Paris earlier this month our intention to plant 100 million trees by 2015 as part of a 1 billion tree commitment by the Climate Group's states and regions alliance. That is in the context of a commitment by that alliance to plant one tree for every person on the planet; we are planting 20 for every person in Scotland. That is the kind of policy change that we are implementing. The aims to encourage Governments, businesses and communities worldwide are clear.

We will see a shift in the year ahead to domestic delivery. We are committed to the economic opportunities presented by the low-carbon economy to which Sarah Boyack referred. We provide the certainty that businesses and communities need to plan for a low-carbon future. We are now seeing examples of the low-carbon economy developing at every level in society: in communities, businesses, districts, towns and local authorities. All of society needs to take action. We provide the political driver, working with our colleagues in COSLA, through the new public sector climate action group. Membership is drawn from across the public sector and I co-chair the group with Alison Hay, the COSLA spokesperson for sustainable development.

The subject of Government cars has already arisen. Three years ago, the typical car that we bought had emissions of 138g of CO2 per kilometre; today the figure is 119g. There have been even bigger reductions in respect of ministerial cars. We have put ourselves on the road to setting an example and implementing the agenda that we need to pursue.

The advice that we have had from the UK Committee on Climate Change is complex, but very useful. It shows that it is possible for us to meet the 42 per cent objective that we have set ourselves and we will, of course, continue to work towards that 42 per cent, even in the absence of the European Union stepping up its ambition from 20 to 30 per cent. I am sure that that will reassure many in the chamber.

I thought that I heard Ms Boyack say that she campaigned for what has turned out to be an unambitious council tax discount policy. I think that councils are engaged on the issue. Members will remember that we structured things in the way that we did to allow us to continue to have access to carbon emissions reduction target—CERT—money. I think that that is the right approach for us to take.

We are making the kind of progress that befits our ambitions as the leading country on climate change. We have good relationships with the UK Government at both official and ministerial level. I attended two environment councils with Ed Miliband and we have discussed this subject. We have shared ambition. Scotland has a huge contribution to make to UK ambitions and we will work effectively to ensure that we help the UK deliver its ambitions while also ensuring that we in Scotland do the absolute maximum that we can.

I move amendment S3M-5978.1, to insert at end:

", and urges the European Union and UK Government to take action to support Scotland's ambitious plans and targets."

09:31

S3M-5832 Commonwealth Day 2010

2010-03-10T17:38:00.008Z

Scottish Parliament

Wednesday 10 March 2010

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 14:30]

... ... ...

Commonwealth Day 2010

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan): The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-5832, in the name of Sandra White, on Commonwealth day 2010, science, technology and society. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament considers that the Commonwealth has a valuable role in strengthening relationships between nations across the world; welcomes the continued contribution of Scotland and its people to those relationships; reaffirms its support for the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA); notes that, this year, the CPA Scotland Branch and the Scottish Government have, as a key focus, continued to develop relationships with Australia, Canada, Malawi and New Zealand; considers that Scotland has contributed throughout the Commonwealth to promoting technological innovation as a powerful tool for fighting poverty and climate change; commends the CPA Secretariat for facilitating an online discussion via web and teleconferencing during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009; believes that it would be helpful if international organisations and donors focussed on science and technology to strengthen expertise in this area, particularly among developing countries, and commends the theme of Commonwealth Day this year, Science, Technology and Society.

17:07
... ... ...
17:30

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

This has been an interesting debate that has been brought to the chamber by Sandra White. I, too, add my thanks. I confess that I have not read the report on the Commonwealth conversation, which was published last week; however, I might be inspired to seek it out and see what it says.

Sandra White referred to morals and ethics for the 21st century. It is fair to say that that strand ran through several of the speeches tonight. The CPA is essentially not economic or military, but is an association of people who share values and want to build a world that is fair to everyone. In introducing that in her opening remarks, Sandra White was absolutely on the money.

Karen Gillon focused, as did Willie Coffey, on science and development. She talked about the need for access to knowledge in many parts of the Commonwealth and about the role that Scotland and the Commonwealth as a whole can play in ensuring that countries that have less capability than we have receive the support that we can give. She graphically illustrated some of the health threats in one of our close partners, Malawi, and focused on the academic links that both benefit the academics in Scotland by increasing their knowledge base, and benefit countries around the Commonwealth through the knowledge that we can transfer to them. That is done somewhat outside the parameters of the patents system, to which Willie Coffey referred and which is sometimes a severe inhibitor to the useful transfer of intellectual property for good social and health purposes.

Karen Gillon also raised one of my particular ministerial interests when she talked about climate change and mentioned the role of engineers in generating electricity. When we talk about technology, we tend to think about the advanced computer stuff and high-precision engineering.

However, it is interesting to see how quite simple things make real differences to people's lives. When I was in Barcelona for a pre-meeting for the Copenhagen climate change conference, I saw a solar furnace—a portable umbrella that a person can carry around in a bag and which, when set up with a kettle in the middle of it, will boil the kettle in 20 minutes by the power of the sun alone. There are many innovations that are simple, inexpensive, can be replicated without vast industrial infrastructures and which will be of use to Commonwealth countries around the world.

Willie Coffey referred to the patents system, and highlighted the role that global system for mobile communications phones have played throughout Africa. Occasionally, there is an advantage in not having an existing infrastructure, because that allows a country to leap forward over the old technologies to new technologies. The Commonwealth can be a vehicle for enabling countries to do that.

Ted Brocklebank spent over much of his time talking about Tommy Sheridan. My view of Tommy Sheridan is that he is his own worst enemy, which is—when we consider the competition—a terrific achievement.

As someone who is one and a half generations away from Gaelic and regrets having virtually none of it, I also found it interesting to hear what Ted Brocklebank said about work on the Maori language.

Jamie Stone has been engaged with the Commonwealth through his work in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for some considerable time.

Members talked about many people joining the Commonwealth. One of the interesting things that really illustrated the value of the Commonwealth was Rwanda's joining in 2009. Of course, that country has no historical connection to the United Kingdom, but was a colonial outpost of Belgium and Germany. The fact that it has joined shows that the idea of the Commonwealth is much bigger than perhaps anyone imagined when it was first dreamed up. The Commonwealth is a glue that binds many countries together.

Later this year, the Commonwealth games will be held in Delhi, after which we will see the transfer of host status from India to Scotland. The year 2014 will bring the Commonwealth, on the sporting field, directly to Scotland, which will show what we can contribute to the world on the sporting field and that we can organise such an event.

As a country, we have always looked beyond our borders. We might not have sent many convicts to Australia, but because I do family research, I know that one of my distant cousins—a first cousin four times removed, I think—was a member of Parliament in Australia, although I hasten to add that that was 130 years ago.

We are still managing to find the money to fund an international development budget. We are increasing it from £6 million to £9 million in 2010-2011. That is part of Scotland's contribution to the global fight against poverty.

My colleague the Minister for Culture and External Affairs will publish four components of a programme of engagements with south Asia before the summer recess. We are looking to build further links with India, Pakistan and south Asia more generally.

The Copenhagen conference was a great disappointment to many people but it was, nonetheless, an opportunity to make terrific links with various countries, which will serve us well as we progress the climate change agenda. In sub-Saharan Africa, the threat of climate change is real and imminent and is of a different character from the difficulties that we would experience from climate change. Running through the climate change agenda is the moral core that we need to take action on the climate in order to help people around the Commonwealth and around the world.

This has been a first-class debate, although it has barely scratched the surface of an immense subject that we will, I am sure, debate again and again, and always to good purpose.

Meeting closed at 17:38.

S3M-5859 A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 - et al

2010-03-03T17:00:00.003Z

Scottish Parliament

Wednesday 3 March 2010

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 14:30]

... ... ...

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): The next item of business is consideration of six Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Bruce Crawford to move en bloc motions S3M-5859 to S3M-5864, on the approval of Scottish statutory instruments on the Aberdeen western peripheral route.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the A90 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) (Craibstone Junction) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the A96 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Special Road Scheme 2010 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the A956 (Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route) Trunk Road Order 2010 be approved.—[Bruce Crawford.]

16:54
... ... ...
16:57

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

The Aberdeen western peripheral route is of course somewhat more than simply a strategic road for the north-east of Scotland: it is important for the whole of Scotland and substantial economic benefits will accrue from it. I will turn my attention to a number of points that Patrick Harvie raised.

The Aarhus convention and the habitats directive are of course under active consideration elsewhere, and I am inhibited in what I can say specifically about them, apart from making the obvious point that this Government would take no action in such matters if we believed that it was not legal.

Costs will be included in the discussions that I will have with the chief executives of Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council and the leader of the latter council in about nine days' time, as part of a regular programme of meetings. They have been content with our approach thus far.

One of Patrick Harvie's key suggestions is that every project that has a carbon impact should simply not be proceeded with. Were that to be the argument, it would mean that we would not spend on costs to insulate houses to improve their energy efficiency, because there is a carbon cost to that. We have always said that, across our programme as a whole, we will seek to deliver on the targets that we as a Government and a Parliament committed to when we passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill last June.

It is appropriate to draw members' attention to another motion on which we will shortly vote, on the carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme. That scheme, which was debated at the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee in the form in which we will decide on it at decision time, will lead at United Kingdom level to the reduction of 4 million tonnes of CO2 per annum. The Scottish share of that is around a third of a million tonnes. I concede that the effect of the Aberdeen western peripheral route will be an addition of 10,000 tonnes. The decisions that we make at five o'clock will therefore have the effect of reducing the carbon emissions that we in totality are responsible for by some 320,000 tonnes. The totality of the programme is the important point. The Aberdeen western peripheral route is a vital link for the north-east of Scotland that is, I think, broadly supported—we shall see at decision time—by members across the chamber. I am happy to endorse the motions that my colleague moved, and I commend them to the Parliament.

17:00