Energy crisis? What energy crisis?

As winter deepens and darkens, the debate about the impending energy crisis rumbles on. It?s very easy for idealists to rail against the ?big bad polluters? such as fossil fuels and nuclear power, but in a society which uses ever more energy we know that it has to come from somewhere. The options are limited.

The UK government commissioned an energy review just a few years ago to assess those options, and it reported in 2003 that nuclear power remained ?economically unattractive?. Now Downing Street appears to have decided that this was the wrong answer, and it has announced another review to come up with ?the right answer?.

Though it talks about climate change to justify this, it?s clear that nuclear is not a carbon-free technology and would offset only around 7% of CO2 emissions. It?s unreliable too, given the amount of downtime over the years, and then there?s the issue of waste. The bottom line is that nuclear is unreliable, polluting, wildly expensive, and not the answer to climate change.

Another generation of nuclear power stations is a prospect which appals many people, myself included, and it throws up issues in the context of devolution.

New nukes would require planning permission, and the planning system is devolved. Could we block them? Should we block them? If we did block them, could we keep the lights burning?

Partly it depends on how much energy we decide to use. There is a huge amount of waste going on, and if we all agree that an energy crisis is coming it seems reasonable to make every effort to reduce demand. However the Scottish Executive has just voted down an attempt to introduce the kind of statutory targets on energy efficiency which have been put in place down south, and demand from industry continues to rise also. It would be a disgrace if we allowed demand to be controlled only by the rising cost of fuel, which would push ever more people into fuel poverty.

That brings us to newer methods of generating the power we need. Most politicians support in principle the need to expand the renewables sector ? wind power both onshore and offshore, wave and tidal power, and solar. But even some of those politicians who support renewables in principle are in practice opposing the infrastructure developments which are needed to make green energy a reality. The unfortunate fact is that almost all developments associated with energy production are unpopular with somebody, and become controversial.

But one solution being proposed at Holyrood has the potential to make a contribution to renewable energy generation, and to tackle fuel poverty, and at the same time to encourage a sense of ownership and participation by individuals.

Shiona Baird?s proposal for legislation on micro-renewables could do all these. Giving householders and businesses rebates from their council tax and business rates in return for installing devices such as mini-wind turbines and solar roof panels would mean that energy is generated where it?s needed ? which is more efficient ? and would also lead to a discount from their electricity bills. Although this sort of kit wouldn?t generate power all the time, what it did generate could be used on-site or sold back to the national grid. It would also give people a sense of meaningful connection with the energy they use, and hopefully a greater motivation to use it responsibly.

If an energy crisis is coming, no single solution will get us out of it. But the proposals in this Micropower Bill could be a vitally important piece of the puzzle. You can read more at www.scottish.parliament.uk

Interesting days for the Tories

Although I?ve so far avoided writing about the Conservative leadership contest in this column, I have certainly been interested in the process. Initially criticised by commentators, Michael Howard?s decision to announce his retirement well in advance of the election has paid off. For months the Tories have been on the front foot, highlighting their more able MPs and talking positively about the future, instead of allowing themselves to drift into despondency following another general election defeat.

Now that David Cameron has been elected, and appears to be off to a decent start, it might be time to consider whether they are actually going to become a serious opposition again, and what implications this has for Scotland in the coming years.

The first thing to acknowledge is the fact that Cameron and his inner circle appear to understand just how bad things have been for the Tories of late. They understand that the reason for their decline is not just a handful of unattractive policies. They understand that ?it?s the Tory Party, stupid?. Moreover it?s the Tory Party itself that they are aiming to change.

To win the next general election they still have a huge mountain to climb. But 2009 is some way off yet, and stranger things have happened. If he chooses his team well he can make the Tory Party look like a younger entity than Labour for the first time since Michael Foot. Although that single factor shouldn?t be decisive, I suspect that in these image-obsessed times it will be.

Will this spark a Tory revival in Scotland? It seems more likely that they will creep up in the polls by the odd few points, rather than experience any dramatic leap forward. But the implications for devolution go well beyond the share of votes or seats.

Since before the Scottish Act was drafted, it has been clear that Labour?s plans for devolution would need to be robust enough to cope with different parties running the show north and south of the border. At some point this situation will come about, and we will find out whether the institutions of devolution and the relationships they have with the UK are strong enough to survive. But there are two other events which must also come about, and we may see them sooner rather than later.

Proportional representation makes single-party rule unlikely, and gives strong incentives for the political parties to co-operate in coalition. I see this as a healthy thing, but it isn?t always going to be easy. At some point we will see a period of minority government in Scotland, and there is a strong chance that this will happen in 2007. Labour may emerge as the biggest party once again but be unable to strike a deal with the Liberal Democrats, perhaps divided by an issue like nuclear power. Or they may be able to work together but fall short of a majority.

There?s an outside chance of a dramatic shift in the SNP?s direction, leaving it the biggest party and in need of partners. Either way, minority government is a possibility.

All of which throws up some interesting scenarios. Minority government, if made to work, might be better able to cope with the transition to politically discordant rule between the Parliaments.

Then there is the Scotland Act itself, and with more parties including the Conservatives coming round to the view that greater powers are needed for Holyrood, even if only on fiscal policy, that debate may begin again. A UK government wouldn?t be keen on this in the run-up to a general election, so it might need to wait till after 2009.

Curiouser and curiouser, could we even see Cameron?s Tories themselves pushing ahead with the next phase of devolution? As I say, stranger things have happened?

Still no progress from the Executive on ‘dawn raids’

It has been three months now since Parliament debated the issue of dawn raids, in which asylum seeker families are taken from their homes early in the morning, with children often being treated in a brutal and intolerable manner.

At the time the First Minister accepted that the practice was not acceptable, and that change was needed. He committed himself to negotiate with the Home Office to acheive that change.

Today I asked the minister responsible why there appeared to be a complete lack of progress.

Patrick Harvie: To ask the Scottish Executive what policy changes at United Kingdom level it would be satisfied would ensure that the sensitive and humane treatment of children is reflected in policies on the removal of failed asylum seeker families.

The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People (Robert Brown): We have made clear on many occasions our commitment to work with the Home Office to help ensure that any removals involving asylum seeker families with children are handled sensitively and humanely. The improvements that are made will benefit families throughout the UK. Discussions are positive and on-going. It would be wrong to comment on the detail of those discussions before they are concluded.

Patrick Harvie: That is disappointing. Three months ago, we were told that a protocol was necessary to ensure the sensitive and humane treatment of children but that we would have to wait for the detail. Two months ago, we were told that meetings were taking place and constructive work was happening but that we would have to wait for the detail. One month ago, we were told that a protocol was not the appropriate way forward but that UK-level policy changes were imminent and we would not have to wait much longer. This is our last meeting before the Christmas recess; is there nothing concrete that the Executive feels that it ought to tell us?

Robert Brown: I understand Mr Harvie’s impatience on this important matter, but the end result is what counts. Discussions with the Home Office are progressing well. Senior officials met again on 16 December and it is clear that there are many areas of potential agreement. The whole exercise has had considerable benefits in getting the Home Office to understand the sensitivity of the issues, particularly in Scotland and on early morning removals. The Executive will continue to discuss and agree a way forward with the Home Office and we will report back to the Parliament as soon as we have anything positive to say.

Speech from debate on Family Law Bill

Patrick Harvie: Various members have reflected on their own family relationships. The only such reflection that I can make as a single man is that the long succession of civil partnership receptions that I hope to attend over the coming year will provide excellent opportunities for a little harmless self-indulgence and perhaps even opportunities not to be single for much longer.

The issue that Brian Adam has addressed, and to which Margaret Mitchell has referred, is the perceived primacy of marriage. The view was expressed by representatives of the Christian Institute, at a briefing here, that marriage is simply superior and more effective at providing a family home and a relationship within which children can thrive. I reject that view fundamentally. The love, the commitment and the emotional investment that parents make are about the people, not their legal status.

Even if I accepted the Christian Institute’s position, I would say to people who believe that marriage is just better – superior because of its legal status – that the policy response from the state should be the same for people in my position as for married people. If it is not, it would be like an employer who, considering that the people who work in their office have a range of different abilities – some of them being good at their jobs and some of them being less good – starts to take away annual leave from the less good employees, give them inferior equipment to work with and make them sit on seats that give them back pain. We should be asking our employees how we can best support them to do the best job that they can do. That support will be different for different people, based on their various skills, abilities and qualities. Similarly, as we design family law for the 21st century, Government should be asking people in family relationships how it can best support them – on their terms – to be the best families that they can be for each other’s benefit, for their own benefit and for their children’s benefit.

The bill goes a long way towards achieving that and towards recognising the equal dignity of all types of families. I congratulate the Justice 1 Committee on its work and I congratulate the Executive on the bill.

Equal dignity for all in family law

Changes to family law can impact on people?s lives in the most powerful ways, and often provoke the most sincerely felt differences of opinion. Several very significant changes are in the pipeline, either because of legislation recently passed, or as part of proposals coming before Parliament soon.

For a start, hundreds of same sex couple began handing in their paperwork this week for their civil partnership ceremonies. That?s weddings to you and me.
Later this month MSPs will be asked to pass the Family Law Bill, which modernises the law in many overdue ways. The most controversial detail is a reduction in the separation period for divorce from five years to three, or from three years to one where both people consent.

This reduced waiting time has been consulted to death, and is overwhelmingly backed by organisations working to support families. However the bill?s Committee decided to challenge the move, and introduced their own compromise solution involving waiting times which appeared to have been plucked out of thin air.

It is difficult to see this as anything other than a concession to the socially conservative voices which have been lobbying on the bill. They include some, but by no means all, from the church hierarchies.

They also include lobbying groups like the Christian Institute. In my opinion this group is guilty of serious mis-selling. On their website you can check your MP against the “moral issues”, and see a little tick for a “morally right” vote, and a little cross for a “morally wrong” vote.
Quite apart from the bizarre idea that morality can be boiled down to such mindless simplicity, it is instructive to look at the issues they consider moral. Do you see anything about poverty? War and peace? Forgiveness? Treatment of the asylum seeker, the destitute, or the dispossessed?

Not a word.

They appear to have missed every one of the major themes of Christianity, yet they claim to be an organisation dedicated to promoting that religion.

The Institute were in Holyrood last week, to give a briefing on family law, and with the separation times issue uppermost in people?s minds it was no surprise that the value of marriage was a significant topic of conversation. The main speaker appeared to be convinced that marriage was not just a positive thing in many people?s lives, but that it was the only family structure which should be given any kind of support by society.

At one point comparing lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage to public service (and everything else to selfishness) he attributed violence, drug addiction, disease, public drunkenness and other social ills to the fact that boys are no longer brought up with a sense of duty to earn money to support a wife and family, and girls no longer brought up with the sole aim in life to be good mothers.

These kind of Victorian values are history, and we should be glad of it. But we should not underestimate the ability of groups like to Christian Institute to dress their message up in more palatable terms, and to usurp the name of a religion whose true values they seem not to prioritise.

Even if we accepted that their family model is just superior, the policy response ought to be to support different families on their own terms. But I believe that families are naturally diverse, and that there are single parents, remarried parents, same sex parents, and cohabiting parents who provide a loving and secure home for themselves and their children. Society should not only support them on their own terms, but respect their equal dignity as well.

Independence Convention

Politicians are often accused of falling into automatic opposition ? ?slamming? and ?blasting? each other over any minor point of disagreement, even when there?s more that unites them than divides them.
I always try to take a constructive approach, but it?s not always easy. Being in this job is like being at the centre of a show trial, seven days a week and with no verdict in sight.

But this week I?ll be joining with politicians of other parties, with whom I disagree on many issues, to unite over something we share. More than six years since devolution, the case for bringing more powers to Scotland is strong and getting stronger. So this week the three political parties which support the idea of an independent Scotland will be joining with business people, academics, campaigners, celebrities and citizens who share this view, to set out our reasons and help build a momentum for change.

Independence is a tricky concept in this globalised interconnected world. It means different things to different people. For some, to be independent of the UK means anti-Englishness, spurning our historical relationship with our neighbours. That?s not what it?s about for me. For others it is an expression of national identity, bound up with ideas of patriotism and nationalism. I have little time for this kind of thinking ? I feel a sense of individual identity which connects me with people regardless of national boundaries.

Then there are people whose support for independence comes from a rejection of aspects of UK politics, whether the historical hangovers of empire and monarchy or New Labour and Blairism. Again, this is far too negative a reason for me. As part of the UK or as an independent country we might end up with a political culture that?s better, worse or the same as what exists down south. We won?t know until we?ve tried it, and we shouldn?t assume that independence would offer more solutions than problems ? indeed it?s really about facing up to difficult problems for ourselves.

For me, and I think for many others, the idea of independence does offer the best chance for the kind of society I want to live in. Not because we?re smarter, or more inventive, or in any way better than any other group of people. It?s because I believe that in the coming decades human beings will need to adapt to a different way of living, as the unsustainable lifestyles we?ve been pursuing become untenable. A small country will, I think, be better able to handle that transition than a country on the size of the UK, where economies of scale will always seem more tempting than the localisation which will need to become the norm.

Take energy for example. It doesn?t matter whether the UK government is run by Labour or Conservatives, it?s instinct will always be to understand energy problems as an ?energy gap? which must be solved by building big shiny new nuclear power plants. But I believe that an independent Scottish government would see things from closer to the ground, and there would be more chance of promoting the Greener solutions like energy efficiency and micro-generation.

I know that my specific reasons for supporting independence put me at odds with some other supporters. My lack of patience with questions of national identity in particular will be difficult for some of them. But it?s easy to cooperate with people when you agree about everything. The more difficult, but more rewarding thing is to see past other differences and work together on areas of common ground.

The Independence Convention, bringing together voices for independence from across civic Scotland, can be found at www.independenceconvention.org

Protocol promises evaporate

For the last two months, Jack McConnell and his fellow Ministers have been repeatedly assuring us that they share the widespread concerns about the practice known as ?dawn raids? ? the way in which asylum seekers are arrested and detained before being removed from the country.

Many community groups, campaigners and friends of asylum seekers in Scotland have long been trying to raise this issue. One important figure to speak out was Kathleen Marshall, the Commissioner for Children and Young People. She argued that it was the ?quiet, wee families? who were suffering most from the operation of the family removal policy, and she called for public outcry at the practice.

When the debate came to the Scottish Parliament, MSPs from across the political spectrum united to agree that heavy-handed tactics were not acceptable. The different parties have different views about how the asylum system ought to operate, of course. But there was widespread agreement that children were a special case, and that their welfare must have priority.

When Parliament passed a motion calling for change, and the First Minister threw his weight behind the idea of a ?protocol? which would respect the rights of children, it seemed that there was a glimmer of hope.

As the weeks went on, patience grew thin. With every new commitment that progress was being made, or that meetings were being held, or that negotiations were under way, we would hear another dawn raid horror story, each more shocking than the last. Last week it was reported that the Home Office had removed and deported a family while leaving a 16 year old child behind, and impatience gave way to outrage.

This week, it appears that the Home Office has been briefing journalists to the effect that no protocol will be agreed, and that there will be no arrangement of any kind with the Scottish Executive.

It should come as no surprise that Jack McConnell is without influence at Westminster, but it does come as a surprise to me that he would allow himself to look so foolish. He has made commitment after commitment about his protocol, claiming to have reached an agreement in principle with the Home Secretary and making it clear that changes would be introduced to ensure that the asylum system operated humanely. Yet it appears that he was making these promises on little more than a whim ? the Home Office has scotched any notion of a protocol and by so doing has not only belittled the status of Mr McConnell, but also shown utter disregard for the devolution settlement.

When the UK Immigration Minister tells the First Minister that different arrangements cannot be made for Scotland, he is choosing to ignore the fact that in Scotland, unlike in other parts of the UK, issues like child protection are devolved to our own Parliament. It stands to reason that there must be different arrangements, even if it?s only to tie in the unique child protection mechanisms which exist here.

Naturally, I would want the very highest standards of care and protection for asylum seekers? children whatever part of the UK they live in. But the Scottish Executive?s job here is to fulfil its responsibilities for the protection of children in Scotland, and as an MSP I take very seriously any attempt by Scottish Ministers to mislead me about their progress on that work.

By the time you read this column, we will have found a way to crow-bar this into the business programme at Holyrood. But whatever happens in the Chamber this week, we have no appetite for further horror stories. It?s time for Mr McConnell to come through, or come clean.