The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2402, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on an anti-racism strategy, and three amendments to the motion. Demand to speak in the debate is high, so I ask members to adhere to the indicative timings.

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this important debate and to send out a clear message that there is no place for racism in contemporary Scotland.

Scotland is diverse and multi-ethnic—it has been shaped by the ebb and flow of migrants over centuries. People have come to our shores from many parts of the world to live and work, and Scots have left to set up home abroad, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes forced by circumstances. The richness of our culture and tradition, our architecture and music, and our art and education is testimony to those influences. Scotland in the 21^st century continues to change; the country is growing in confidence and is becoming more dynamic, more forward thinking and more energetic. Contemporary Scotland has a varied complexion. It is rich in the diversity of its culture and communities and it has all the ingredients to be innovative, smart and successful.

However, there are real challenges. First, we have an ageing and declining population, although innovative approaches such as the fresh talent initiative can transform that challenge into an opportunity. Secondly prejudice, bigotry, racism and discrimination too often shackle opportunities and our nation's potential. Scotland has a reputation for being open, friendly and internationalist in outlook, but that is not the reality for some people for whom racism, harassment and discrimination are still too often the experience. That is totally unacceptable. Neither is it acceptable that a climate of fear is generated around asylum seekers and refugees or that heightened international tensions are exploited to foster anti-Islamic sentiments.

We want Scotland to be at ease with its diversity. We want Scotland to be a place of innovation and creativity; a place to which people want to come and where they are welcome. We are clear that action has to be taken and we are clear about the central underpinning message, which is: One Scotland—no place for racism.

Will the minister join me in condemning the invitation that the University of St Andrews union debating society issued to Nick Griffin of the British National Party? Is he, like me, grateful that Fife police were convinced that there would be a public order issue and forced cancellation of the debate?

There are many issues around the matter. I share Tricia Marwick's sentiments and pay tribute to the police and the many other organisations—led by Positive Action in Housing—who campaigned on the issue.

The creation of the climate for change and shifting of attitudes are critical parts of the work to combat racism and promote race equality. Our one Scotland, many cultures campaign sets aspirations about the sort of Scotland that we want to live in. It raises public awareness of racist attitudes and behaviour and highlights the negative impact that they have on individuals and society in general. The campaign also celebrates the positive aspects of Scotland's multicultural society.

Race equality and tackling racism are not only critical to achieving the kind of society we want to live in; they are fundamental to delivery of accessible quality services that are responsive and capable of meeting the diverse needs of the population. Tackling racism and promoting equality are also necessary for successful outcomes in flagship policies such as the fresh talent initiative. We must create a climate in which people want to stay once they are here.

Today, I launched the third phase of the one Scotland campaign. On Monday, we will begin screening three new television advertisements that will run for six weeks and which will be complemented by cinema, radio and bus advertising. The television advertisements will highlight three different aspects of the issue. The first is the importance of in-migration, which will be linked to the migration of Scots to other parts of the world. The second is that of racism as a destructive element in society and a virus that should not be spread. The third is that Scotland is a diverse and dynamic country where there is no place for racism.

The media campaign is only part of the Executive's work to promote race equality and tackle racism. It would be somewhat cosmetic to focus on advertising and media work without concrete activity to substantiate it. A range of measures are being taken throughout Executive departments. Of course, it is impossible to mention all that is happening, so I suggest that if members want more details they read last year's report on the recommendations of the race equality action forum and the Executive's race equality scheme action plans. However, I will highlight some key measures.

The first measure is the Health Department's fair for all approach, which I was pleased to drive forward in my previous ministerial post. That initiative seeks to create a national health service in which staff are professionally and culturally equipped to meet the distinctive needs of black and ethnic minority communities and in which employment practices are fair for all and reflect the communities that are served. The initiative was supported by the creation of a national resource centre for ethnic minority health.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has made significant changes to the way in which it is organised and operates to ensure the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of race equality. Asylum seekers and refugees are another major issue. The 57 actions of the Scottish refugee integration forum's action plan are being implemented throughout departments and a progress report will be published in the spring. Since 2001, the Scottish Executive has invested more than £7 million in projects that help refugees and their host communities to integrate, including additional funding for English classes.

We will continue to work with the Commission for Racial Equality Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and others in considering the recommendations of the Whitehall strategy unit's "Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market: Final Report" of March 2003 to ensure that key principles are implemented in Scotland. The Executive also collaborates with the CRE to support the independent review of police in Scotland.

We have produced a range of educational materials for schools, including the new holocaust memorial day education resource—which was launched on 27 January—and the Kiddiesville FC website, which was launched in November last year. We have supported various pieces of work with young people, including Show Racism the Red Card, Heartstone and Young Scot and we have funded the Scottish Trades Union Congress's one workplace, equal rights campaign, which aims to tackle racism and promote equal opportunities in workplaces.

Last, but by no means least, we are implementing the Executive's race equality scheme to ensure that we eliminate discrimination and promote race equality in all that we do. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 shifted the nature of race legislation from compliance to proactivity, particularly through the introduction of a duty on public bodies to promote race equality. Although the impact of that change is only now beginning to be felt, its significance cannot be underestimated. It provides for mainstreaming of race equality in all activities, which is a critical element in challenging institutional racism and discrimination.

We know from work that the Prime Minister's strategy unit has undertaken—reinforced by subsequent work in Scotland—that there is an ethnic penalty in earnings. Even when class and qualifications are taken into account, most members of minority ethnic communities fare worse than those in the majority population do and, in Scotland, those whose heritage is Pakistani or Bangladeshi earn less in employment and are less likely to be employed.

People from minority ethnic communities will account for half of the growth in the working population in Great Britain in the next 10 years, so failure to improve the labour-market achievement of minority ethnic groups in Scotland will have serious consequences. More than that, there would be a tremendous waste of talent. Grappling with the issues will require our being more sophisticated in our analyses and solutions.

We know that there is systemic racism and bias—better known as institutional racism—and that it accounts for the significant proportion of racial inequality in Britain today. The way institutions and organisations do business can often unwittingly lead to racial bias and inequality, so getting organisations to change and address equality issues in all that they do is at the heart of the race relations changes and of combating the institutional racism that was highlighted in the Macpherson report following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. That underpins the Executive's equality strategy and is part of the one Scotland, many cultures campaign.

The Executive is seeking to address the problem in its role as policy maker and employer. In the latter role, the Executive has improved the diversity of its workforce and has positively encouraged people from minority ethnic communities to work in the Executive.

Significant international and domestic changes are taking place that are influencing our communities and providing a different context for race relations in Scotland. In response, we have undertaken a review of delivery of race equality work. We are anxious to see how best to use our resources and to ensure that we focus on the right priorities. The review builds on the work that has been undertaken by the Executive in the past three years. We are deeply indebted to the many people and organisations that have provided evidence and information to us, and to the individuals who have given time to provide us with advice. We received the final report this week and are now considering the evidence and the way forward. I intend to respond shortly with details of the actions that we will take.

In conclusion, much has been done in recent years to advance the race equality agenda. We benefit enormously from collaboration with communities and with key organisations that work in the field. That collaboration has enabled us to see and understand more clearly what needs to be done. We should not underestimate the challenges that we face or the complexity of the issues, but neither should we be deterred from addressing those challenges and issues. We want a Scotland to be proud of, which means one Scotland that has no place for racism.

I move,

That the Parliament fully welcomes the Scottish Executive's continued commitment to tackling racism and promoting race equality; welcomes the high profile One Scotland Many Cultures campaign and flagship Fresh Talent initiative; supports the continuing need to raise awareness of, and tackle, racism in Scotland and to celebrate our diversity; supports the range of Executive activities and actions to promote race equality including work in health, the police and education, and is committed to eradicating racism in Scotland in whatever form it takes to ensure that we create an inclusive and prosperous Scotland.

I welcome the minister's speech and will touch on some of the issues that he raised.

We all agree that racism is abhorrent. As such, it cannot and should not be tolerated in any way, shape or form in this or any other country. We welcome the Executive's on-going commitment to anti-racism and particularly its continuing strategies, which the Scottish National Party whole-heartedly supports. We acknowledge the good work that is being done, especially in the one Scotland, many cultures campaign, which the minister mentioned. However, concerns still exist about the increase in racist crimes, which increased from 2,705 in 2001-02 to 3,787 in 2003-04. That increase might be due to more people reporting such crimes; if it is, we should welcome people recognising that racism is a crime that they should report. However, a University of Strathclyde report suggests that the figure could be five times higher than the figure of almost 4,000, which is worrying and must be examined. We must consider doing more research into aspects of the problem. The report clearly shows that, unfortunately, we have much more work to do in Scotland to eradicate racism.

The minister mentioned the race equality annual report. Keeping that report fully updated and monitored is important in ensuring that we can see the statistics for racist crimes that are committed. It is also important to consider mainstreaming—which the minister also mentioned—in the health service and in posts elsewhere. We should consider mainstreaming of equality and ensure that it is fully implemented at all levels.

Parliament is committed to eradicating racism in Scotland, but I have grave concerns about some aspects of the media, which it is important to discuss. We have concerns about how some sections of the media and some politicians portray immigration and asylum. We must recognise that democracy and freedom of speech are paramount, but we must also tell the media that with freedoms come responsibilities and that they should be responsible in their reporting.

The fresh talent initiative has been mentioned a lot. I note that the Conservative amendment would remove the reference to the initiative from the motion; it will be interesting to hear why when Mary Scanlon speaks to her amendment. I think that it is a bold initiative, although given the First Minister's remarks in answer to earlier questions, clarification is needed. I fully support the initiative and intend to continue doing so, but perhaps the minister will give us some clarification during his summing-up.

Like everyone else, I have read the report. The gist of it is that we need the initiative because we have a falling population. In the First Minister's statement to Parliament on 25 February 2004, he said:

"Our first target must be to avoid our population falling below 5 million. To do that, we need an additional 8,000 people living in Scotland each year between now and 2009."

He said that the way to do that was

"by retaining home-grown talent within Scotland; by encouraging Scots who have moved away to come back home; and by attracting some who are completely new to Scotland—from the rest of the United Kingdom, from the European Union and from further afield."—[Official Report, 25 February 2004; c 5941.]

I take it that that is why the fresh talent initiative has been mentioned in the motion.

We must remind ourselves that if we want to attract people from overseas who have never been to Scotland before, it is essential that when they come here, either as visitors or to settle, they do not experience racism and discrimination. Unfortunately, the figures show that they do experience those things. I welcome the fact that the initiative is mentioned in the motion because the matter is important.

I have asked the minister various questions about facts and figures on the fresh talent initiative, but unfortunately I have not had any reply other than to say that the figures are not held centrally. My questions were mostly about expatriates because that was my starting point. I ask the minister to look into that: If we do not have accurate information, how can we possibly monitor what is going on?

I said earlier that we seek clarification, and Kenny MacAskill raised the matter during First Minister's question time. What exactly is happening with the fresh talent initiative? In a letter to The Herald today, Professor Anthony Cohen, the principal of Queen Margaret University College in Edinburgh, writes:

"I am writing from India while on a trip which has taken me to Singapore, Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi, to nurture Queen Margaret University College's relationships" with its collaborators in the university sectors in those places, who are

"greatly enthusiastic about the Fresh Talent initiative."

He continues:

"Imagine my dismay on learning from the British Council representatives in these various centres that they have been instructed not to advertise Fresh Talent further, not least because they have been unable to elicit any further guidance about it from the Scottish Executive."

We need clarification on that.

Given the importance that the member attaches, quite rightly, to the fresh talent initiative, I wonder whether on reflection she might consider that it would be better for a unified statement to go out from the Parliament today in support of the Executive's motion. We are getting into the fringe, itty-bitty issues on the edge of the matter rather than the substance of the anti-racism message, which is what we are trying to put across.

You have one more minute.

I cannot agree with Robert Brown on that. This is a debate; we have reservations about the Executive's motion and are entitled to suggest amendments to it. We will support the motion anyway, but we ask the Executive to examine the immigration policies of the Westminster Government. I will move on to address those, but it was important to mention the fresh talent initiative. We need fresh talent, but when people come from overseas we must ensure that they are not subjected to racism. I merely point out that that is why the initiative is mentioned in the motion. We will support the motion, but we also encourage members to support our amendment.

The immigration policies of the Westminster Government are punitive, as are the policies of the Tories. The minister mentioned asylum seekers, Islamophobia and so on. His comments are welcome and I know that they come from the heart, but the policies of both the Tories and Labour at Westminster are totally different from what he says.

We will support the Scottish Socialist Party's amendment, and I ask all members to support our amendment. However, we will support the motion.

I move amendment S2M-2402.3, to insert at end:

", and expresses concern that Labour and Conservative immigration proposals do not reflect Scotland's population requirements or multicultural ethos."

I certainly welcome the debate on the anti-racism strategy in Scotland. Scottish Conservatives are vehemently opposed to racism in all forms, both direct and indirect, and we will always be willing to participate in any initiatives that we believe will eradicate the problem.

The positive features of the many diverse cultures in our one Scotland with many cultures must be the focus of any campaign. It is that attitude that could be celebrated and admired as the trait of a maturing and confident small nation. However, we need to be clear about the messages that go out from Parliament and we need to be equally clear about the strategy for tackling problems in Scotland.

At the outset, I want to mention school bullying. It may not always be racist in nature, but it can breed behaviour—and the acceptability of a culture of behaviour—that is unacceptable when directed at any person. I think that more needs to be done to address bullying in schools.

The Executive motion acknowledges the

"commitment to tackling racism and promoting race equality".

We certainly should not lose sight of that commitment, particularly given that 56 per cent of Scots feel that there is a great deal, or quite a lot, of prejudice towards minority ethnic communities in Scotland. Also, 46 per cent of people said that they would prefer to live in an area where most people are similar to themselves.

As others have said, the number of racist incidents that are recorded by Scottish police forces continues to rise annually and stands currently at 3,801 for 2003-04. Of course, that could be attributed to more incidents of racism, to more recording of incidents or to a combination of the two. It would be interesting to have a breakdown of the figures, both geographical and numerical. For example, it would be interesting to know how many incidents related to people from New Zealand, Australia, Canada or America, how many to people from other European Union countries and how many to people from Africa, India, the Middle East and the Far East. I note in that respect the minister's point about people from Bangladesh and India earning less than other immigrants in Scotland.

We believe that a fair system of immigration control is necessary to promote good race relations—not the chaotic system over which the Labour Government has presided in the past eight years.

Will Mary Scanlon give way?

Stewart Stevenson should just give me a second.

As Michael Howard said yesterday:

"Instead of offering a haven to those most in need, our asylum system has created a twilight world in which people-smuggling flourishes. The vast majority even of genuine refugees are forced to enter our country by deception, often at the hands of criminal gangs."

In Scotland—

Will Mary Scanlon give way?

I am not forgetting about Stewart Stevenson—he need not worry.

Scotland has a proud tradition of giving refuge to those who flee persecution, and we are a stronger country because we have offered a home to families who want to come here, to work hard and to make a positive contribution to our society.

The Conservative amendment states that

"immigration control is necessary in order to promote good race relations."

Can Mary Scanlon tell us what the link is between immigration and race? She started—I respect what she said in that regard—from a position of being anti-racist, so how does linking those two things help?

If Stewart Stevenson did not bother wasting my time by intervening, which means that I have to cut short my speech, and if he gave me a chance to work the argument through, the answer would be as clear as crystal.

Conservatives were the first to propose a rational points-based system for economic migrants, so that we could maximise the benefit to our country from new workers. We were also the first to propose a 24-hour security watch on points of entry. We view control of our borders as a grave responsibility: Tony Blair sees it as a hot polling issue. Michael Howard wrote that even the Labour Government's own community cohesion panel has pointed out—Stewart Stevenson should listen to this—that

"when it comes to securing public assent for new migration, 'the pace of change is simply too great'".

The panel also pointed out that

"The pressure on resources in those [disadvantaged] areas is often intense and local services are often insufficient to meet the needs of existing community, let alone newcomers."

One minute.

The amendment in my name would remove the reference in the Executive motion to the fresh talent initiative because the fresh talent document makes no reference to race, racism or ethnic minorities. As the First Minister states in the foreword to the document:

"The single biggest challenge facing Scotland ... is our falling population".

Sadly, time constraints mean that I will have to cut back on the quote.

We are experiencing a net loss of young people to the rest of the United Kingdom. Given that people can afford to buy their first home only at the average age of 37, and that there has been an 18 per cent drop in the number of first-time buyers in the past year, that is hardly surprising.

Many people even have to travel to England to get a dentist and, in Scotland, waiting lists and waiting times are rising, as are infertility rates. Indeed, infertility treatment is an area that we need to prioritise within the national health service in Scotland. Apart from making people feel welcome, we need to ensure that incoming workers are given the proper support that they need. For example, when doctors are recruited to posts in the national health service, they should be given appropriate and adequate support in administrative procedures and NHS protocols.

My final statement is—

Quickly.

A fair and just system of immigration control is essential in order to promote good race relations and an entrepreneurial low-tax nation with value for money high-quality public services—

The member must close now.

That is what will bring in fresh talent. It will also encourage people who were raised in Scotland and graduates of Scottish institutions to stay in Scotland.

I move amendment S2M-2402.2, to leave out from "and flagship" to end and insert:

"supports the continuing need to raise awareness of, and tackle, racism in Scotland and to celebrate our diversity; supports the range of Executive activities and actions to promote race equality including work in health, the police and education; is committed to eradicating racism in Scotland in whatever form it takes to ensure that we create an inclusive and prosperous Scotland, and believes that a fair system of immigration control is necessary in order to promote good race relations."

I, too, welcome the minister's speech. I know that he means what he says.

In Scotland, we have a reputation for our warmth, friendship, sense of humour and so on. Our reputation is one that we enjoy. We celebrate and welcome diversity—or, rather, I hope that we do. It is not too wide of the mark to say so, because I see much evidence of that up and down the country from people in power, in organisations and, of course, among everyday folk as they go about their everyday business and help out other folk.

However, no member would deny that there is a problem or that it is growing. Members of the Scottish Parliament received a briefing from the Commission for Racial Equality. Sandra White talked a little about the fact that, in the years between 2001 and 2004, the number of reported racist incidents rose by over 40 per cent to 3,787. Some might say—or might imply—that the figures show that folk are receiving better support to come forward or that they now have the confidence to report. However, given that one in five incidents still goes unreported, we cannot hide behind that notion.

Sandra White also mentioned the fact that the number of reported racist incidents is far greater today. No one in the chamber would deny that the numbers are worrying for politicians, damaging for society and terrifying for those who are on the receiving end. The Commission for Racial Equality warns us that we should not be complacent; that warning is one that we in Parliament must heed. We must also condemn racism. The Scottish Executive's one Scotland, many cultures campaign does that. However, I am sure that the Executive would be among the first to admit that we have some way to go. Sadly, the figures show that our journey towards a racism-free Scotland is now being made up a steep incline.

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has a goal to eradicate racial discrimination from the labour market in Scotland by 2013. I have to say that 2013 is a long way off and that the policies of his Government stand in the way of that reported goal—indeed, they also stand in the way of the Executive's initiatives. Changing minds, hearts and attitudes requires deeds as well as words. The Executive can offer both, but if its masters at Westminster continue to push policies that marginalise, exclude, stigmatise and imprison those who seek refuge in this country, we will continue that uphill climb.

In Scotland, we have the space, time and heart to welcome people from around the world. However, it turns out that population decline and a skills shortage mean that we need to welcome people from around the world. We are fully aware of our population decline and of the need to plan for the future. We are also aware that we have a skills shortage. The two issues are different and although they might overlap and interlink, they require separate approaches.

Fresh talent may well be helpful in assisting people to come to work and stay in Scotland but, as many of us know, working hard to get by and choosing to have a family are seldom compatible choices. The solution to our population decline is that we require families to come to Scotland; the solution requires women to have children and for their families and children to want to stay in Scotland. It also requires families to feel safe in Scotland—folk need to feel welcome.

What plans have we to support those choices? The good news is that the answer to our problems lies in high-rise blocks up and down the country—our asylum seekers. The bad news is that our Prime Minister refuses to look past the coming election. He panders to the middle-England vote and the right-wing media to secure his own position, and damn the rest of us.

Let me tell members what that means for the ordinary people who come to this country. It means that asylum-seeker families are swooped upon in the wee small hours of the morning. It means that they are forced into vans. It means that children watch their mothers being handcuffed, and are separated from them as they are taken on a harrowing journey to detention.

Last week, an asylum-seeking family from Sri Lanka was made homeless by the national asylum support service at the hand of the Home Office. That family have been in this country since 2001. They had the choice to live on the streets of Glasgow or return to Sri Lanka. After a struggle, we managed to secure section 4 support as they were able to prove that, because of the tsunami, they should be considered for hardship support. I know two men from southern Sudan—where a civil war has been raging for 17 years, and where we send food, medicine and shelter—who have also been made homeless and been given the same choice of sleeping on the streets or taking the next flight home. It is all about messages. The Home Office has made those men homeless and hungry, not in Sudan, but in Scotland. I could go on. It is harrowing and difficult for the people who are on the receiving end.

The Westminster Government's pursuit of popularity at the polls means danger and trauma for many. It sends out the message, "You're not welcome here," and makes a mockery of the Executive's anti-racism strategy. One day, I believe that this Parliament will have control over immigration, although it may be too late to deal sensibly with our skills shortage and population decline. Maybe the Westminster Government's inadequacies and lack of courage will bring that about sooner rather than later. However, until then, the best will in the world will not send out the message of one Scotland, many cultures.

We have no problem supporting the motion in the name of Malcolm Chisholm and the amendment in the name of Sandra White. I know that both mean what they say, so we can get behind the motion and the amendment without any difficulty. Initiatives of this Parliament to deal with the problem of racism are to be commended, supported and expanded upon. The amendment in my name recognises the fact that the message from Westminster is that we can have a wish list, but we cannot make our wishes come true, which is to the detriment of this Parliament and the people of Scotland and, sadly, threatens the future of this country.

I move amendment S2M-2402.1, to leave out from "to ensure" to end and insert:

", and believes that current immigration and asylum policy from Westminster undermines the Executive's attempts to eradicate racism in Scotland."

Along with Robert Brown, I am happy to re-emphasise the Liberal Democrats' strong support for the anti-racism strategy. We welcome the announcement this morning by Malcolm Chisholm and the widespread support for a further initiative.

I suggest to the Opposition parties that it is quite right that they put forward their views and argue their case, but they might consider not having votes that divide the Parliament. It would help if, so far as the Scottish Parliament's affairs are concerned, we could express a unanimous view. We obviously have differing views on what happens at Westminster, but we can deal with that on a separate occasion. I put that forward as a suggestion.

We delude ourselves if we think that we can remove people's prejudices. We all have prejudices. I remember a bus-load of friends going from my son's wedding in church to the reception. They were civilised and nice people, but when they heard that the English had just lost a rugby match there was a spontaneous cheer. People never get over that attitude. It does not mean that they do not treat English individuals quite correctly, but it is there. We have other prejudices, such as views on citizens of Glasgow or Edinburgh, or the Highlands or lowlands. I have a personal prejudice against white male youths with funny hair, but I have to get over that.

We have to accept that there are prejudices, but we should create a society in which we combat them. We should change attitudes so that we combat hate of the unknown and ignorance. We should make every pupil in every Scottish school recite "A Man's a Man for a' that" every day—then we might get somewhere. We have to educate people that foreigners and people who look slightly different are not peculiar, bad and untrustworthy. That is something in which we can all take part.

We also have to try to get the media on board. We all experience the most disgraceful consistent misrepresentation by the media of what we do. We can take it, because, unfortunately, it comes with the territory. However, it is not acceptable for the media consistently to tell lies and misrepresent ethnic groups who are in many ways vulnerable to pressures in the community. We really have to get the media to brace up and stop fomenting hatred. In my book, fomenting hatred is the worst crime. It is easy to do; anyone can stir up hatred against another political party, or against various groups, such as Gypsies, and all sorts of people of whom they disapprove. We have to treat hate crimes seriously and racial hatred is particularly bad.

The motion does not mention sport, which is an important area, although Malcolm Chisholm referred to it in his speech. Football is much more a religion than is Christianity or any other religion in Scotland and how the footballers behave is important. We have to have role models, whether in sport or the arts. Malcolm Chisholm appeared this morning with an Asian film actor. Such people can be useful as leading role models.

I turn to a point that I think some people get wrong. There is a sort of false political correctness whereby some people argue that in order to have an inclusive society we should not emphasise Christian festivals, because that might annoy people who are not Christian. That is absolute rubbish. As a Christian, I enjoy going to Hindu festivals, Chinese festivals, Muslim events in the mosques and so on. Diversity is important and we should emphasise our various beliefs and the festivals that arise from them. We can celebrate St Andrew's day and Bannockburn, which I think the incomers like. We do not want to adopt a bland approach and say, "Let's never celebrate anything. We can't have any culture because our culture might annoy somebody else." That is all total rubbish and we must combat the idea strongly.

A strength that some of the ethnic minorities have, especially the Muslims and the Chinese, is skill in developing small businesses. They are more entrepreneurial than are a lot of ethnic Scots. We can do more to help them use the system to develop their skills in small businesses. That is important and has potential.

We should also try to persuade Westminster to be more sensible and allow asylum seekers to work while they are going through the system. Unpleasant attitudes have been expressed at Westminster. I hope that the general election does not turn into a Dutch auction for stirring up hatred against ethnic minorities. Perhaps we could prevail upon our Scottish Westminster colleagues to ensure that in Scotland the election will be conducted in a more civilised way than it will be in England.

I, too, welcome the debate. If we take a long view, there can be little doubt that in the struggle against racism we have made tremendous strides over the years. There are many examples of attitude and language that were widely accepted and rarely questioned decades ago but which are now seen as clearly unacceptable by everyone but the far right. I ask members to think back to some of the television programmes that were broadcast in the 1960s and 1970s—the prejudices expressed in them make them look so dated.

There is now consensus among the main political parties about mainstreaming equality. The majority of the population believe that everything possible should be done to tackle racism. We have heard today that we are committed to anti-racism as an integral part of Government and society. There are websites devoted to the one Scotland, many cultures, educating for race equality and Show Racism the Red Card campaigns. I commend the Scottish Trades Union Congress for the work that it has done to fight racism and to keep it high up the agenda.

In my area, the Central Scotland Racial Equality Council has been active for more than 20 years. The history of the organisation is a testament to the progress that has been made. I would also like to highlight the recently launched black and ethnic minority programme that is run by an organisation in my constituency that I chair, the Linked Work and Training Trust, in partnership with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. This exciting programme of positive action delivers a three-year degree course in community development and community learning. The project aims to employ and train community activists from the black and ethnic minority communities across Scotland to work in the statutory, voluntary and community sectors.

However, despite all the good news, it is unfortunately still a case of two steps forward, one step back. Racism continues to fester. There are still too many bigots seeking to create racial strife by appealing to people's fears and prejudices. The circumstances surrounding terrorism and the Iraq war have provided a fertile breeding ground for Islamophobia. The issues of immigration and asylum seekers are too often treated as political footballs rather than as humanitarian issues. The far right works by making scapegoats of minorities and by making them a target for people's frustrations. It does not appear to matter whether the arguments that are used to do that reflect reality; the far right ignores the fact that we need new people to come to Scotland and to the rest of the UK. I welcome the Executive's effort through the fresh talent initiative. We should all do all that we can to support that initiative. I also believe that asylum seekers should be allowed to work and that they bring great talents to our country.

Gypsy Travellers should be recognised as an ethnic minority community. They are not currently afforded that status in law. The Equal Opportunities Committee has done some work on that issue and has made a number of recommendations to the Scottish Executive. We are now examining what difference those recommendations have made. The issues that were dealt with included provision of sites and young people's access to education. It is not good enough that a young Gypsy Traveller should opt out of education at the age of 12 or 13, as has been the case in the past.

We need tolerance in education. Girls must be allowed to wear hijabs as part of their culture. We should accept and celebrate diversity. Even when it is done with the best intentions, legislating against freedom of cultural expression is bound to cause adverse reactions. We must balance freedom of speech against the need to tackle incitement to racial hatred. Those who seek to take away people's rights cannot be allowed to do so without restriction.

Parliamentary debate is important—and we have had an interesting debate this afternoon—only if it is backed up with extra-parliamentary commitment to fighting racism. Everyone has a responsibility to fight racism, not just politicians. Everyone has a responsibility to welcome diversity and confront discrimination wherever and whenever it occurs.

I am delighted to support the motion.

I endorse much of what Rosie Kane said and what Donald Gorrie said towards the end of his speech. I share his concern that we are entering a Dutch auction on immigration proposals that has much to do with a phoney election and which will have implications for racial harmony throughout the UK and in Scotland. That is why we have lodged our amendment. Scotland has a distinctive voice and distinctive requirements and needs, as has been recognised by Charles Clarke with regard to the Labour Party's immigration proposals.

As has been stated, Scotland has the most rapidly declining population in Europe due to our low birth rates and net zero immigration rate. By the end of this decade, we will be down below the symbolic 5 million mark and, by 2041, there will have been a further drop of 10 per cent. We are the only component part of the United Kingdom that has a declining population. We need immigrants. Over the same period, the population of England and Wales is predicted to rise by 7 million.

The implications for Scotland's economy, both social and financial, are great. There will be a strain on services, with an increase in the number of elderly people being exacerbated by the lower number of people to support those services through work and tax. Much of the cost will be met through the Scottish budget, even if we remain devolved and not independent. That will have huge financial implications for health and housing.

In May 2004, it was calculated that only 17 per cent of our population was between 16 and 19. Our population environment is very different from that of the rest of the UK. For example, immigration into Scotland between 1992 and 2001 was 4.7 per cent, which is well below our share—it should be double that figure. We have a crisis that, as I said, puts us in a different position to that of the rest of the UK.

We in the SNP fully support the fresh talent initiative as a step in the right direction, but it is wholly inadequate. If I understand the minister's figures, the maximum number of people who can be brought in is about 8,000 per annum. Yet for Scotland's population to stand still at 5 million, we have to attract 10,000 people per annum.

I do not mean to suggest that devolution has trapped us in this position for ever. There are solutions, and devolved Governments elsewhere have taken control of immigration policy. We could have a Scottish green card and a targeted approach to immigration that is specifically tailored to meet the undeniable, specific needs of the Scottish economy and our demographics. If we had powers over asylum—if we were able to lift the ban on asylum seekers finding employment—we could do much to redress the balance.

I have some examples for the minister. Australia has state-specific migration mechanisms. That is not easy to say but I will explain what it means. It allows state Governments to issue visas to immigrants who fall marginally short of being accepted in an area of high population but who have skills that would be beneficial to that state's economy. There are conditions: an immigrant must be under 45 and live and work in the specified area, although they can go elsewhere on personal and business trips. The visa lasts for three years, but the immigrant can apply for permanent residency after two. It has been shown that those people are likely to stay in the area that accepted them.

The Canada-Quebec accord of 1991 lays out the roles of the federal and state Governments with regard to immigration into Quebec. Quebec sets its own criteria for immigrants based on their potential to integrate into and enhance Quebec's economy and society. When the federal Government sets the annual target for the number of immigrants that it wants to attract, it must take into account the number that the Quebec Government wants to receive. That number can be anything up to 5 per cent above Quebec's proportion of the Canadian population. Such a model could fit into a devolved Scotland. The result is that Quebec has had an extra 11,500 immigrants per year since 1991 in comparison with the 10 years before the accord was signed. Why cannot Scotland have such an accord with Westminster? That would allow us to take the immigrants who the south of England neither wants nor needs but who Scotland sorely needs.

Does the member agree with the Conservative's proposed points system, which is based on the Australian system? If the system were endorsed, it would address the shortage of workers and as a result many of our hospitals might not face downgrading and closure.

I have grave concerns about the Conservative proposals, one of which is to have asylum seekers and immigrants identified by the United Nations as "genuine". I do not really know what that means. I think that the term "genuine" has a rather sinister effect.

We want younger people to come here. The issue is open for debate and I have suggested models. It is not true that we cannot look elsewhere for systems that could operate for Scotland, such as accords between Westminster and Scotland. If we had an imaginative Government in Scotland, we could look at such ideas. We could have a Scottish green card system under which people could move around the UK, although they would have to live and work in Scotland. Such a system would require people, who might have to be below a certain age, to have certain skills that would benefit the Scottish economy. We could set targets for levels of immigration and we could allow asylum seekers—many of whom are highly talented professionals who are languishing in what are really prisons—to work in Scotland. It is a disgrace that Scotland has no control over that. I hope that those ideas can be chewed over and considered seriously by this Government.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this afternoon's debate on the anti-racism strategy that is being pursued by the Scottish Government. I applaud initiatives such as the one Scotland, many cultures campaign, the fresh talent initiative and the many other programmes that, with Executive support, are promoting the benefits of a culturally diverse, racially tolerant and welcoming Scotland.

The eradication of racism in our country is a worthy goal, and we must use all appropriate means to achieve that end. All sectors of Scottish society must be encouraged to employ their abilities and commitment to create a nation in which every individual's worth is valued, regardless of background or ethnic origin. The one Scotland, many cultures strategy is right to highlight the negative features and the impact of racist attitudes and behaviour and to stress the positive benefits that a diverse society can bring. Tackling racism is everyone's responsibility, and we must send out the message not only that racist violence is unacceptable, but that racist language and attitudes must be challenged and combated.

The reality of Scotland in 2005 is that we have a considerable way to go before we can say that racism has been eradicated. Racism remains a serious problem in Scottish society. The study that was recently carried out by the National Centre for Social Research, in tandem with several equalities organisations, discovered that, although the majority of people—68 per cent—think that Scotland should do all that it can to rid our nation of all forms of prejudice, 26 per cent believe that there is, on occasion, good reason to be prejudiced. The survey also revealed that 11 per cent of our fellow citizens would prefer a white MSP and not favour a candidate purely on the basis that they came from an ethnic minority background. I hope that the time is not long in coming when the membership of this legislature will reflect the diversity of people in Scotland and we will have non-white faces in the Parliament. I hope that that day comes soon.

The findings of the survey are disturbing. I know that they must be balanced against the more positive responses that were received in the same survey; nevertheless, such a mixed set of responses shows the extent of the challenge that we all face and counsels against complacency. It is my sincere belief that only a comprehensive and sustained programme of anti-racist initiatives can hope to combat racism and promote an inclusive Scotland. On that basis, I and many colleagues from all parties have, in previous debates, welcomed the positive influence that has been exerted by the Show Racism the Red Card campaign in pushing a positive message with the support of clubs at all levels of our national game. The promotion of that positive message in such an important area of our national life is to be commended, and the Executive's funding of the Scottish Football Association, which has allowed a full-time worker to be employed by the project, is a good initiative that I hope will be continued and built on.

In the time that remains to me, I will focus on another aspect of the campaign to tackle racism in another area that is central our national life: the workplace. The Scottish Trades Union Congress's one workplace equal rights campaign, which supports and complements the Executive's one Scotland, many cultures initiative, is supported by the Scottish Government to the tune of almost £110,000. The campaign reflects the STUC's long-held and laudable commitment to advancing equality issues and tackling racism in workplaces throughout the country.

At the workplace level, the campaign works with individual trade unions on building appropriate and effective programmes to tackle racism. It offers vital support and advice to trade union lay representatives and officials on the best method by which to implement equal opportunities best practice—for instance, through workplace bargaining and specific awareness raising or through learning programmes and initiatives in partnership with employers.

The essential work that is carried out by the campaign ranges from developing and disseminating one workplace equal rights campaigning and information material to raise awareness in the workplace, to assisting individual unions that want to create their own learning programmes in equality law and the spreading of best practice. Detailed programmes such as the STUC's provide components that are necessary to the formulation of an effective, coherent national strategy that can deliver a Scotland where racism and discrimination may be eradicated.

Racism is difficult to tackle. It can be conscious or unconscious; subtle or overt; intentional or unwitting. The STUC's campaign is to be commended, as it provides a multifaceted strategy that recognises the complexity of tackling racism in the workplace and, in doing so, seeks to address it effectively.

In the week when the University of St Andrews made the right decision not to give a platform to the racist and fascist BNP, continuing the proud tradition of the National Union of Students and the STUC of offering no platform to racists or fascists, all of us should remember that we still have an obligation to do all that we can to rid our country of the disease of racism. All of us—sportspeople, trade unionists, community activists, educationists and those in business—have a duty to work with the Scottish Government for a multicultural Scotland.

Progress is being made, but much remains to be done. Let us go to it and finish the job.

As an MSP for the Highlands and Islands, I am fortunate not to encounter many examples of racism, although taunts are sometimes heard about white settlers in the Highlands. Those taunts are often directed at people who have sold up in the south of England and moved into an area where their ideas may not initially fit in with those of the native population. That sometimes causes friction and jealousies, but Highland people are normally extraordinarily welcoming. They extend generous hospitality and accept new cultures into their midst with open arms. The attitude that there are no strangers here, only friends whom we have not yet met, is good.

Harris and Lewis have a large Pakistani community that has been there since the first world war and has adapted wonderfully well into local life. Italian communities all over Scotland make an enormous contribution to our society. Our ethnic minority population represents 2 per cent of Scotland's population. In the 10 years from 1991 to 2001, the total population increased by just 1.3 per cent, but the ethnic population increased by 62 per cent. That shows that people want to make their homes in Scotland.

However, the situation could be much better. If we had a better infrastructure for living and a lower-tax infrastructure, which would really encourage people to start new businesses, Scotland would be a far more popular destination for incomers and a place where more of our young people stayed. The figures that I quoted, which show that the increase in immigrants dwarfed the increase in the native population, demonstrate that many Scots are leaving Scotland because it is too difficult to make ends meet and bring up a family with hope for a future.

As the member's colleague at Westminster, the shadow Attorney-General, has not apologised to the people of Scotland for saying that Scotland is not a place to which people want to come—I paraphrase—will the member take the opportunity to apologise on his behalf?

I will certainly not apologise for remarks that the First Minister made about my colleague in Westminster.

That is not what I asked about.

The First Minister should apologise to my colleague.

The Scottish Conservatives want to attract more people to Scotland and we want our own talent to stay. The only way to do that is to create a climate of economic opportunity and growth, rather than waste resources on gimmicks such as the fresh talent initiative. That means reforming our public services, freeing up our economy and liberating entrepreneurs to become smart and successful again. Those are fundamental points that the Government will not address. Scotland could be the best small country in the world if it had a decent Government that allowed that to come about.

The Scottish Conservatives oppose racism in all forms. We will always try hard to eradicate any racist problem in Scotland. A well-organised and controlled immigration system is vital, rather than the chaos that we have witnessed lately south of the border.

Will the member take a small intervention?

No.

Labour's policies have led people to think that as long as they can reach British soil by whatever means, they will be looked after. The lack of a properly organised policy may have inadvertently led to such terrible tragedies as the deaths of the Chinese people who were suffocated in a container and the deaths of the Chinese cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe bay.

Will the member take a small intervention?

Not at the moment.

It is a bit much for the Executive to bring its fresh talent initiative into an anti-racism debate. All that it is doing is trying to make political points. Home Office minister Des Browne has made it clear that the fresh talent initiative was not designed to remedy Scotland's population problem and is in fact a Home Office pilot scheme, which, if it succeeds in Scotland, will be extended throughout the UK. In other words, Scotland is being used as a guinea pig by Tony Blair.

Will the member give way?

I do not have time to take an intervention.

Conservatives believe that defence of the nation's borders is a prime responsibility of government, but the Government has failed in its duty to police our borders. We believe in immigration and that modern Britain has benefited greatly from the social diversity, economic vibrancy and cultural richness that immigration has brought. The energy and zeal of the young people from the European countries that were recently liberated from the communist yoke are a wonder to behold. Equally, they think that our democracy and freedom are a prize worth chasing.

However, if the benefits of immigration are to continue, we need to ensure that immigration is managed effectively, in the interests of all Britons, old and new. If we are to maintain good community relations, the number of new citizens whom we can welcome must be well planned in advance and well controlled. That will help to make certain that those who arrive on our shores get the starter support that they need. Conservatives certainly believe that Britain should take her fair share of genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution, because we all have a moral obligation to help people in those circumstances.

I speak as race reporter for the Equal Opportunities Committee. I welcome the Scottish Executive's continued commitment to tackling racism and promoting race equality. That is an integral part of the on-going work to provide equal opportunities for all, and I am pleased to make a small contribution to it.

I would like to concentrate on how the continued commitment to race equality relates to young people, in particular. Early intervention is recognised in educational circles as one of the most effective strategies, and that is where we need to focus attention. Racist attitudes are learned behaviour, so if we can discourage racism in schools, society in future will be much more equitable and tolerant.

I would like to mention the one Scotland, many cultures website and, in particular, the new Kiddiesville FC website that the minister launched in November. The website celebrates difference, using games and stories to get across messages of equality, diversity, inclusiveness and empowerment. All of that is done with humour and fun. I welcome the refreshingly light approach that the website takes to tackling this most serious problem. That approach is most likely to work with the younger age group.

It was heartening to read in a newspaper today of the dramatic drop in the incidence of bullying and racism in schools in Edinburgh. I trust that education departments in Scotland are not just writing their own race equality schemes and policies, but introducing best practice in their schools and monitoring the effects of those policies.

Last month in Dundee the Bharatiya Ashram organised its annual celebration of diversity, which involved many different nations—including India, Bangladesh, China and Scotland—in a fascinating display of music and dance called fusion. I congratulate the organisers of the event on their work. In particular, I congratulate the children who fused together traditional Scottish country dancing and Indian traditional dance. This is a wonderful example of the many projects throughout Scotland in which people work together to promote harmony in our communities.

Unfortunately, as we have heard, discriminatory attitudes are still at large in Scotland. We must keep up the constant struggle to eliminate those attitudes. As has been said, the chamber does not yet reflect the full diversity of Scottish society, but ethnic minority communities have a real desire to be active in the political arena. It is the duty of each of our political parties to be open and inclusive. However, I am sure that everyone in the chamber will acknowledge that we have a long way to go. The research that Bill Butler cited shows that some people still openly express a general preference for able-bodied, heterosexual, white, male politicians.

There are still too many people who show their prejudice through their actions. Commission for Racial Equality statistics show that 40 racial incidents occur every day. Worryingly, that is not the full picture, as the CRE estimates that only one in five racial incidents is reported. However, each incident can have an extremely damaging effect on the individual involved and on their friends and family.

We now have plans to reduce equality gaps, but to achieve that efficiently we must have robust data collection on ethnic minorities, so that any progress that is made in housing, health and education can be monitored. I would welcome comments from the minister about how such robust data collection systems can be put in place.

The Bromley and Curtice research for the Scottish Executive, entitled "Attitudes to Discrimination in Scotland", suggests three possible explanations for discriminatory attitudes—psychological, economic and sociological. Professor Curtice presented the results of the research to the Equal Opportunities Committee last year. The work concludes that psychological factors are the most important in explaining why people hold discriminatory attitudes. The psychological explanation argues that the reason for such attitudes lies in people's identities and in the images that they have of those whom they perceive to be different from them. In order to influence those attitudes, people need to be encouraged to enjoy a diverse society and be persuaded to see for themselves that other people are just like them.

This debate is part of ensuring that the work towards achieving social cohesion and good race relations continues as an important and visible part of the work of the Scottish Executive. The one Scotland, many cultures campaign follows that research advice and I look forward to its continuing success.

I start by addressing a few remarks to Jamie McGrigor. He suggests—and I do not wholly disagree with him—that economic growth in Scotland is the key attractor that will ensure that we retain our existing talent and bring more here. However, that sits ill with the policies of his party, and indeed with those of the Executive and its colleagues. We have talent that is currently locked up. We have people who are fleeing as refugees from oppression around the world. They have tremendous qualifications to contribute to our economy. Would the politicians I referred to see those people economically active, or would they keep them locked up? We know the answer.

The Executive has done a great deal in this area on which I commend it. We welcomed the launch of the one Scotland, many cultures campaign in September 2002. The annual report on race equality that was published in February 2004 showed progress and the many useful steps that are being taken. I assume that we will shortly see the annual update.

On the launch of the fresh talent website, Jack McConnell said:

"The biggest single challenge facing Scotland is our falling population, and if we are to succeed in the global economy, we need a constant flow of fresh talent to flourish alongside our home-grown talent."

We agree with many of the principles and policies. If we criticise the Government, it is on its commitment to delivering on the steps that it is taking. The First Minister and the rest of his team have the opportunity to prove that our pessimism about the Government's current progress is misplaced—and I hope that I am being pessimistic beyond what is reasonable.

I turn to history now because we must draw from the past some very dark and important lessons and apply them to the present. I first confronted racial intolerance during the 1950s and 1960s when we went camping at Achmelvich in west Sutherland every summer holiday. One of the people who went there was a doctor—a very talented surgeon who lived in Glasgow. He had spent much of the war in a concentration camp because he was a Jew. He could not sleep at night without a slice of bread on the table beside his bed. He would wake up in the night tormented by his experience, but if he could feel that piece of bread beside his bed, he knew that he was free at last from the scourge of fascism. However, that fear and that experience were with him for the rest of his life. We must never return to the conditions that were generated in the 1930s.

My father spent a period of time in Brussels, where he helped Jews escape from the Nazis before the war, but let me quote what some Conservative politicians said in the 1930s. In the Daily Mirror of 22 January 1934, Lord Rothermere wrote:

"Timid alarmists all this week have been whimpering that the rapid growth in numbers of the British Blackshirts is preparing the way for a system of rulership by means of steel whips and concentration camps ... Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London".

Further, in the Daily Mail in 1933, he wrote:

"The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war."

We saw the fascists of the British National Party win 100,000 votes in the 1999 European elections; the 1930s continue to haunt modern society. The BNP hyenas—if I may use that word, Presiding Officer—are feeding on the carcase of emotion that has been stirred up by the Tories, who are promoting racist policies because they are becalmed in the polls down south and are desperate to trade principle for votes. No members of this Parliament—apart from the Tories—will let the BNP and its fellow travellers succeed on that matter.

On 24 September 2002, Jim Wallace said:

"The diverse ethnic make-up of Scotland's population is something of which we should rightly feel proud. However the only way in which this diversity can be safeguarded and encouraged to flourish is if we all take a stand against racism and discrimination in any form."

I agree with Jim Wallace. The way in which the Tory amendment links immigration and race relations does democracy no service of any kind.

In closing, I quote unusually the first law of epigenetics, which states that the more highly optimised an organism is for one environment, the more adversely it is affected by a change in that environment. Diversity is strength; monoculture is a risk to our very futures.

I welcome the Scottish Executive's commitment to eradicate racism in Scotland. That commitment is based on the belief that a just society is one that is free from prejudice and discrimination.

People are not born racists; such attitudes grow as children's views and beliefs develop. They are influenced by those around them, including friends, society and the media. Like Marlyn Glen, I believe that educating children about racism is vital. The websites for young people that the Scottish Executive has developed are excellent resources for assisting that education. The website for 12 to 26-year-olds gives background to and understanding of what racism is and why it is wrong. It encourages young people to speak out against racist behaviour and language, as we all should. Educating children to ensure that they do not develop racially prejudiced mindsets must be a major part of the strategy to tackle racism.

However, we also need to examine whether there are any anomalies in the language that we use in society and the messages that that gives that might adversely affect the Executive's work. On asylum seekers, I believe that we have seen mixed messages and unacceptable use of language that can pander to and foster racist attitudes within our country. As we have heard, the leader of the BNP was due to participate in a debate at the University of St Andrews yesterday, but the invitation was withdrawn after a concerted effort by the Labour and trade union movement, by Positive Action in Housing and others.

According to one point of view, preventing the BNP speaking publicly threatens free speech. However, like Bill Butler, I believe that giving racist, fascist thugs a platform can serve only to legitimise their vile messages. In any case, human rights law places the rights of personal safety, liberty and security above the right to free speech when such free expression is used to incite racial hatred.

Unfortunately, the BNP has won council seats in England. I believe that some of the language that is used about asylum seekers has served to aid that. Insidious terms such as "bogus asylum seeker", which by the way was this week attributed to a spokesperson for the First Minister, and "illegal immigrant" are repeated so often and dominate public discussion of asylum issues to such an extent that the adjectives have almost become ingrained in the psyche as automatic prefixes. As a Parliament we have a responsibility to question the widespread acceptance of such language, which has emanated from right-wing rhetoric.

Outrageous, unsubstantiated and untrue newspaper stories such as "Swan Bake", with the strapline "Asylum seekers steal the Queen's Birds for BBQ" and the more subtle and sinister "Halt the Asylum Tide now" headline, which called asylum "Britain's biggest crisis", are commonplace. If the public are fed a daily diet of anti-asylum-seeker rhetoric it is little wonder that many people mistakenly believe that asylum seekers are milking the system, taking houses, spreading disease, causing antisocial behaviour and generally creating a drain on our resources.

I have to say, anecdotally, that I noticed that some constituents used such rhetoric at the time of the European election campaign when the BNP was given increased media coverage and a leaflet drop.

Draconian asylum legislation, aside from being ethically wrong, panders to right-wing racism: talking tough about asylum only serves to foster a racist attitude. Ultimately, the only party that can win from an obscene competition to see who can get toughest on asylum seekers is the BNP.

The point is made on the Executive's website that the prevalence of racism tends to be related to particular economic and social circumstances; it tends to have been most prevalent when migrants have been perceived by the resident population to represent an economic or social threat. The irony is that in Scotland, which has a declining population, we need immigrants. That is evidenced by the fresh talent initiative, which the Scottish Executive has introduced. For that reason, and for reasons of humanity and compassion, we should welcome asylum seekers and allow them to work rather than lock them up in Dungavel or evict them from their homes. That approach to those who are fleeing poverty, oppression, violence and war sends out entirely the wrong message to society and acts as a barrier to achieving one Scotland, many cultures.

On a positive note, research commissioned by Oxfam found that more than 83 per cent of people who were surveyed agreed that individuals seeking asylum in Scotland should be given the opportunity to work, 64 per cent maintained that Scotland should be a safe haven for those fleeing persecution and 60 per cent believed that children should not be held in detention centres. Those findings serve to illustrate some of the good will that exists towards refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland. I believe that the Scottish Executive has a responsibility to recognise, promote and encourage such attitudes as part of the anti-racism strategy. I ask the minister to comment on whether asylum seekers in Scotland will be allowed to use their skills and abilities to work while they await immigration decisions.

The Parliament should speak out for humane immigration rules, fair and just decisions, careful use of language and effective responses that recognise Scotland's distinctive needs. I commend the Scottish Executive's strategy and its commitment to tackling racism. I also recognise the work that it has already done. However, I believe that more attention must be paid to promoting respect for asylum seekers and to challenging right-wing rhetoric. Then we may see the combating of the far right, better community cohesion and further tangible steps being taken towards eradicating racism in Scotland.

I add the support of the Green party to the words of condemnation that many members have spoken about the invitation to Nick Griffin of the British National Party to speak in Scotland. Given that the students involved had the wisdom to admit that they were wrong and change their decision, I think that we should acknowledge our support for their making that reversal and cancelling the invitation.

Elaine Smith was right to dismiss the free speech argument. It is important to acknowledge that Nick Griffin's free speech has not been impaired or restricted in any way because we say that we will not speak with him. It would be wrong for any of us, in a misguided attempt to debate with fascist or racist parties, to give them the respectable platforms that democrats are entitled to occupy.

I will address the points that members have made regretting that the amendments mean that we will not unite behind a single motion. When events beyond the Parliament's remit impact on our work—including that of the Executive on anti-racism, which we all support—it is important that we acknowledge and debate the problems. If we disagree about something, we should have nothing to hide and we should disagree openly. If we agree about something, we should do that openly, too. I assume that the arithmetic of the chamber has not changed since yesterday's decision time, so the amendments are unlikely to be agreed to and members will unite behind the Executive motion.

The conflict between United Kingdom and Scottish policy and practice has an impact on work in Scotland. Information campaigns are all very well and have an important part to play, but when politicians court tabloid headlines that give the opposite message, they give legitimacy to the racist motives of the extreme right, as members argued. Both major parties at Westminster court tabloid headlines about who we want to keep out of the country, rather than about who we want to welcome and how we should support such people. That impacts on our ability to work for a racism-free Scotland.

We should acknowledge other events at Westminster, one of which was mentioned at question time by Cathy Peattie. She asked about work on the proposal to set up a single equality body—the proposed commission for equality and human rights—which is likely to be established by a UK equality bill. The Commission for Racial Equality expressed severe concerns about the proposal. I do not share all those concerns, but they should be heard. The CRE said:

"Though we are open to discussion of the best way to achieve ... progress, we unequivocally reject the proposals".

It went on to say that the proposals

"would weaken the cause of equality overall, and racial equality specifically, and offer so little to the so-called 'new strands' that the relevant groups would receive second-class protection."

I do not support everything that the CRE says about the proposals, but it is important that we consider the CRE's position.

Many members welcomed the poster and media information campaigns, which have an important role. However, as the minister acknowledged, such campaigns represent only one piece in the puzzle. It is important to remember that equality is not soap powder or car insurance. Although we can use some of the tools that sell such products, that approach on its own is not enough. Campaigns can vary in their impact and effectiveness. I regretfully cite the limitations of the recent campaign by Glasgow City Council. Many people felt that the campaign used images that represented racial stereotypes and stereotypes to do with sexuality and sexual identity. That was regrettable, because people's concerns had been discussed with the council in advance of the campaign. Campaigns play an important but limited role; they are just one part of the picture.

Education from the earliest age is the most important thing to get right. There are sometimes conflicts between a young person's right to education and a parent's right to have their child educated in a manner that is consistent with the parent's beliefs. I am glad—and I think that all members will be proud to say—that we live in a society that places the emphasis on the former right, for the most part. None of us would find it acceptable for children to be taught in schools, for example, that mixed-race relationships are wrong, or that a minority ethnic group is morally inferior. I hope that we can all work towards the day on which we can make a similar statement in relation not just to racial equality, but to all strands of equality.

I welcome the minister's comments. Green MSPs will support the motion, although we also hope to support the amendments that were lodged by Sandra White and Rosie Kane.

We move to wind-up speeches.

Although I welcome the Executive's continued commitment to tackling racism and promoting race equality and policies to stamp out racism, prejudice and discrimination, we as Scots need to examine and resolve a number of issues, because we are sending out mixed messages.

How can we regard ourselves as a country that shows racism the red card if we lock up asylum seekers in detention centres? A few weeks ago, I spoke at a rally at Dungavel, an annual event that takes place around Burns day. Note that I said "annual"—it is sad that the event is annual and I and friends of the refugees Ayrshire wish that that was not the case. In the years since Dungavel opened, the fences have grown higher and deeper; it is nothing less than a prison into which we place children and we do not even give them the human right of attending school. I agree with every word that Elaine Smith said about Dungavel, which is Scotland's shame.

As previous speakers have said, Scotland has thrived on its cultural diversity. Historically, we have welcomed people from all over the world to settle in Scotland. Many members will be descendants of economic refugees who came to Scotland to make a better life for their families. The Executive's fresh talent policy is to be welcomed, given Scotland's shrinking population. By 2009, Scotland's population will fall below 5 million and, by 2027, there could be 0.25 million fewer people of working age in Scotland. However, Charles Clarke's announced new approach to immigration will not allow the Executive to encourage migrants to settle in Scotland and flies in the face of the Executive's fresh talent policy. The Scottish Parliament needs the power to deal with asylum and immigration issues so that we can make Scotland a truly welcoming place for those who wish to make their lives here.

Donald Gorrie, Cathy Peattie and others talked about allowing asylum seekers to work. Elaine Smith asked for answers from the deputy minister on that, which I hope we get. However, under existing Westminster policies, I wonder whether that is possible. I would like to hear what the deputy minister has to say on that. I have two friends in Irvine who are Roma Gypsies and who were given leave to stay after a long battle. They had been deported back to their country of origin, but we finally got them back to Scotland last year, with a lot of help from Campbell Martin. He is not in the chamber, but I thank him for that help. They are now working and contributing to the economy, as well as attending the language classes to which the minister referred. That is a positive example of how Scotland can welcome people, but, given Charles Clarke's announcements, I fear that we will not be able to move on and build on that example.

It is our responsibility to ensure that racism, prejudice and discrimination are wiped out in Scotland. Therefore, we welcome the Executive motion and will support it, along with the SNP amendment. I ask members to support the Scottish Socialist Party amendment, in the name of Rosie Kane, which would send a clear message from the Parliament that Scotland wants no truck with the Westminster policy.

I hope that we will not open up a can of worms during the Westminster election campaign. I fear that we will send out a negative message to those to whom we have talked about giving positive messages on anti-racist behaviour. I hope and pray that we will not end up with a debacle of media coverage that encourages racism to flourish in this country. It was extremely worrying that in the recent reality TV programme to choose a candidate for Westminster, the public voted for the racist. That tells us something about our country. We must consider whether the problem arises because we are giving the wrong messages.

I agree with the member's comments. Does she share my delight at how "Newsnight" exposed brilliantly the direct comparison between the policies of that person and any system of immigration that is based on quotas for asylum?

Yes. We need to keep exposing that and keep the education going, as a number of members have mentioned.

I hope that we send a clear message from Scotland that the Parliament does not want any truck with a Westminster policy that undermines the Executive's attempts to eradicate racism in Scotland. I hope that members will support the SNP and SSP amendments and send that clear message.

I add my voice to those of members who have spoken in support of there being one Scotland with no place for racism. I also support what Cathy Peattie and other members said about it being everyone's job to fight racism. Success in that regard will come at community level, around which the structures and support of the Executive are important.

How language changes and moulds social attitudes over time is strange—I think that Cathy Peattie touched on that. At one time, the word that was in vogue was "racialist" rather than "racist" and people who held unpleasant views and attitudes were called "racialists" rather than "racists", which they are called now. I am not clear about why there was a change, but the change in cultural attitudes and attitudes in general is important. Perhaps there was something minor to be said for George Orwell's Newspeak, whereby it was impossible to think unsuitable thoughts. That might have something to contribute to the debate.

A more important issue is that we live in a much more diverse society in respect of people's colour, ethnic or racial origins, religious beliefs and social attitudes than people did in days gone by. Most people—particularly younger people—are more inclusive in their language and attitudes than people were a generation or two ago, although I accept the point that a lot of work has still to be done.

Bill Butler said that tackling racism is not easy. Indeed, diversity is not an easy concept, particularly when it is set against a backdrop of international terror, atrocities by extremists, immoral acts by major states and increasingly repressive laws, such as house arrest and detention without trial, which were once associated with South Africa's apartheid regime or the most brutal communist dictatorships, but which are now mooted as being reasonable and needing to be introduced in our country. In the current climate, such things bear hardest on certain ethnic groups and, in turn, colour—if that is not the wrong word to use—their attitudes to our society.

At various times, acts of barbarism in various countries throughout the world have been committed by Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and people from Europe, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Barbarism and fanatical extremism know no boundaries—they are not the monopoly of any one group of humanity. However, such happenings in far-off countries—which Neville Chamberlain once talked about in a different context—affect and infect attitudes in this country. Therefore, resolving and reducing enmities in other countries, such as in Iraq or between Israel and Palestine, is for that reason among others, very much in our national interest. That is the backdrop to the work that is being done in Scotland by the Scottish Executive and many voluntary and statutory groups.

I am delighted to endorse the upbeat tone of the motion and am in no doubt that a much greater understanding of diverse cultural perspectives now exists, and that we have a more diverse community than ever. Last night, I had the pleasure of being a guest at the Chinese new year festivities in Glasgow; members may be interested to know that the festivities welcomed the year of the rooster. The Chinese community in Scotland is relatively small and self-effacing but it is tolerant, optimistic and outward looking. It has a lot to contribute directly to Scotland and in acting as a bridge for Scotland to Chinese communities throughout the world and in the far east in particular, in cities such as Shanghai, Glasgow's twin city of Dalian, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taipei. During question time, the Deputy First Minister spoke about being in China, where he sought to establish links at Scottish Executive level.

Our aim of having a diverse and inclusive national community faces a number of challenges that are worth touching on, as my colleague Donald Gorrie did. The first and possibly most significant challenge concerns the relationship between religion and public policy. Most of us believe that religion is primarily a private matter that is not the state's business. However, private attitudes influence public policy most notably on issues relating to family law, attitudes to women, education, health and crime, which—according to opinion pollsters—happen to be the central issues in election campaigns. Some of those attitudes and beliefs clash with more dominant views in modern society. The meeting point raises various complex issues to do with human rights and social policy; we must ensure that all points of view are included in policy development and practice and that there is genuine participation and engagement. I am talking about a robust process that should produce better outcomes all round.

The second challenge is in education. People are not born racist, as Elaine Smith rightly said. The education system has proved to be adaptable and able to accommodate a range of traditions. It must do so not through fudge but, as Donald Gorrie said, through recognition of and support for different cultural and religious perspectives in all their varieties. I am not a supporter of the establishment of faith schools, but the corollary is that people of all backgrounds must have a sense of belonging in schools. There must be adequate provision in schools for religious and dietary needs and other issues to do with minority communities.

The third challenge is on equalities, not least with reference to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which the minister mentioned. We need to have role models in Chinese and Muslim MSPs, in African and Asian civil servants, and in police officers, chief executives and senior people from ethnic minorities in proportion—or more than that—to their numbers. Donald Gorrie also touched on the need for role models in sport and the arts.

We in Parliament look forward to a diverse, prosperous and interesting Scotland that has family and business links to many countries throughout the world, and to a Scotland where citizens from many backgrounds contribute in full measure to our society. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion this afternoon.

This has been one of those debates in which, although there might be some disagreement, we recognise the sincerity of one another's viewpoints. To that extent, it has been constructive.

What is the basis for any race relations strategy? First, there has to be, in total and absolute terms, condemnation of racism in all its manifestations. I think that we would all agree with that. Secondly, it must be fair to everyone. It must be fair to people of ethnic origin, fair to the indigenous population, fair to newcomers and fair to those whose families have been established here for generations. That is not always an easy balance to strike.

I regret rising to make what some might regard as a trivial point of semantics, but can the member name anyone who has no ethnic origins?

As Mr Harvie acknowledged, that is a fairly trivial point, so I will carry on. I make the point that a balance has to be achieved and it is very necessary for us to do that.

I would like to accentuate the positive. I think that the vast majority of people in Scotland rejoice in diversity. Donald Gorrie was correct to point out that he and many other members have enjoyed festivals at which people of different religions and races open up their doors to let us see exactly what goes on. We learn a lot and we enjoy them a lot.

When we consider people who have come to Scotland over the past couple of generations, is there anyone here who would not say that we have been fortunate? Those who have come have almost invariably been hard working and law abiding. If there is anything to be learned from the absolutely awful murder that took place in Glasgow a few months ago—a murder that was carried out by youths of Pakistani origin—it is the fact that there was no reaction from the local population, largely because they recognise that the Pakistani population in Glasgow would not normally behave in such a manner and was totally outspoken about those who committed that awful crime. That was the case despite the corrosive and malign attempts at intervention by the BNP. We should look at the positive side of that issue—it is, I suggest, very positive.

A number of other issues have arisen on which there is, perhaps, a difference in viewpoint. Bill Butler said that racism is a serious problem. It is always a problem, but I do not accept that it is as serious as he made out, or as serious as reports make out. Marlyn Glen, in a similar speech, pointed out that we have no ethnic MSPs. That is perhaps a matter for genuine regret.

We are all ethnic MSPs.

I am not taking that again, Patrick.

We must consider other issues, such as the fresh talent initiative. I am a little concerned that that initiative is mentioned in the Administration's motion, because I think that it should stand on its own. In speeches on it by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, no mention whatever was made of ethnicity.

The Executive is addressing the problem under the wrong heading. There is a problem of depopulation—as a number of members, including Sandra White, said—which must be addressed. However, as I have told the First Minister, the main problem is the appalling haemorrhaging of useful young people, many of whom are graduates, who are no longer prepared to stay in Scotland. I happen to agree with Christine Grahame that Scotland is an attractive place to live despite the best efforts of the Executive, with its high taxation and low public-service performance, which are an incitement to people to leave.

There have been many useful contributions to the debate, although we do not agree with all of them. I have to say that I was very disappointed with Stewart Stevenson's speech, which is unusual; I normally like what he has to say, and although I frequently disagree with him I can always see some sense in it. This afternoon, he was totally over the top and the embarrassed silence with which his peroration was received was eloquent testimony to that.

I shall withdraw the remark that I made when I compared the British National Party to hyenas—but I do so only to apologise to hyenas.

I think that we should simply move on.

No debate on the question of racism and race relations can be totally detached from the problem that could be caused by wholesale immigration to this country, under whatever heading. That is something that the Westminster Government itself has been forced to recognise. As I have said in the chamber previously, we cannot really blame someone who seeks to come to another country to improve their lifestyle and that of their family; that is human nature. However, we cannot simply cope with immigration of uncontrolled numbers, which is why we must look at the issue.

Will Bill Aitken give way?

I would, but I do not have time. I am in the last minute of my speech.

We have to look at immigration. We cannot accept everyone, and I think that the proposals that were outlined by Michael Howard last week highlight what needs to be done.

I welcome the minister's remarks about the negative portrayal of asylum seekers and the associated fanning of anti-Islamic sentiment, but I suggest that the rhetoric around the UK Government's national security plans encourages the phenomena that Marlyn Glen talked about—fear of those who are not like us and fear of the unknown. As others have said, I am absolutely certain that locking up asylum seekers, throwing them on to the streets of our cities and referring to them as bogus or illegal immigrants or as economic migrants contribute to that negativity.

Rosie Kane, Elaine Smith, Patrick Harvie, Christine Grahame, Cathy Peattie and other members have all spoken of the fresh talent that we already have here in Scotland. There are a great many skilled professionals awaiting Home Office decisions on their asylum applications. Why are we not allowing those people the dignity of working and taking advantage of the contribution that they can make to our services? I hope that, under the fresh talent initiative, the First Minister is lobbying hard at Westminster—perhaps on the quiet, without our knowing—to allow the Government here in Scotland to make such decisions, to the benefit of us all.

The Executive has done well with its racism strategy, over which it has power. The Scottish refugee integration action plan is an example of that. Another example is the push to combat institutional racism. We still have a long way to go, but even the Parliament's recognition of the fact that institutional racism exists in our society is a big step forward compared with where we were a few years ago.

However, I have concerns about the results of a report that the Commission for Racial Equality published in 2003, but which I looked at only lately. The report monitors the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. In March 2002, the Scottish Parliament approved new duties that were designed to help authorities better to meet their general duty under the act. Public authorities were asked to publish a race equality scheme by 30 November 2002. Education authorities were asked to publish a race equality policy by the same date.

The report covered 77 Scottish public authorities: the 32 local authorities; 32 education authorities; five central Government and related agencies; and eight police forces. Albeit that it was published a year ago, I found some of its findings worrying, including the finding that 89 per cent of public authorities said that they had difficulty in meeting the duty. They reported substantial difficulties in allocating resources and prioritising the work.

Only one education authority sent in an REP that largely met the requirements of the duty. The majority of local authority schemes only partly met the duty—all of them required more work. Only one public authority had a fully developed plan of action to improve access to information and services. Will the minister give the chamber a further update—if not today, fairly soon after the debate—on the current status of public bodies in meeting their statutory general duty under the act?

I will address the amendments to the motion. I defend the right of Opposition parties to lodge amendments to any subject for debate. We have far too many subject debates—the sort of debate that does not allow us to get into the meat of the thing. Members' views do not really get heard in those debates; we are unable to put forward our party or group point of view.

As Sandra White said earlier, the SNP will accept—I say "accept"; I wish that we were in a position to accept amendments. The SNP will support the amendment in Rosie Kane's name. The SSP amendment says many of the things that the SNP group in the Parliament has been saying for some time. Right at the beginning of my speech, I said that current immigration and asylum policy undermines the Government in Scotland. I am happy to support the SSP amendment.

I turn to the Tory amendment. If I picked up correctly what the Conservatives were saying, they lodged the amendment because the fresh talent document does not mention racism or immigration policy. The Conservatives might have a point, but we cannot support them, because the last lines of their amendment say:

"a fair system of immigration control is necessary in order to promote good race relations."

There is something very strange about that wording. It echoes some of the comments that the Tories' UK leader has made about control, quotas and tearing up United Nations conventions. Members on the Tory benches might think that it is acceptable to tear up United Nations conventions, but SNP members cannot go along with that.

It is a bit rich for Jamie McGrigor to moan about a political party using Scotland as a pilot project. Talk about rewriting history.

One minute.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you. Mr McGrigor did not allow any interventions during his speech.

He did.

Oh, did he? Go on then.

You are in your last minute, Ms Fabiani. I am sorry, Mr McGrigor, but the member is in her last minute. Will you please sit down?

I am terribly sorry, Mr McGrigor. If I am in my last minute, I will quickly move on.

I welcome the fact that we are to have more one Scotland, many cultures television adverts next week. Back in 2002, the then Minister for Social Justice had John Swinney, our party leader at the time, and me along to discuss the adverts and to show us the content. The view at the time was that everyone should move forward on the issue with the same agenda. This issue, above all others, crosses all party divides. A similar initiative would be welcome today.

I started talking about language and its effect. I will indulge myself—

You will need to indulge yourself extremely quickly.

A word that I have issues with—which was not used much today—is "tolerance". This should not be about tolerating people; it should be about total acceptance of other people. I would not like anybody to be tolerating me—

I have been very tolerant, thank you very much.

I will do my best to be as well behaved as possible, Presiding Officer, because from this angle you are even scarier than when you are close up.

I welcome the opportunity to sum up in this debate. Although there are divergences and differences in what we say, I have been struck by the extent to which we agree.

We are currently recognising the 60^th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Earlier in the week, I happened upon a programme on the BBC in which those who lived through the experience of Auschwitz gave moving testimony of their experience of calculated barbarity and of the hostility of Nazism rationally delivered. I was struck by how fresh it was in their minds even now and by the fact that that Nazism was underpinned and driven by racial hatred and racial superiority. I recognise that in this chamber, whatever our differences, we all understand the danger and power of racism to destroy the lives of individuals and communities.

In this country, we are a mix of cultures. We come from different places and we go to different places. Sometimes when we have travelled, we have not travelled well. Often, we took prejudice with us. Donald Gorrie talked about the need to challenge prejudice. I do not often say this about the SNP, but we are fortunate in Scotland that the mainstream nationalist party does not draw racist conclusions from its particular commitment to Scotland. However, there are those who do, and we must challenge that prejudice in whatever form it is expressed.

Understandably, some of the debate has related to immigration. We must take our immigration policy seriously. Perhaps we need to have a debate about whether there should be an immigration policy at all. It is my view—I will spend a moment on this, because I want to spend the greater part of my speech on what can be done inside the Parliament—that the essential element of any immigration policy should be that the experience of all those who come into contact with it is the same, regardless of their race, creed or beliefs. However, that is only part of the debate, and only part of understanding racism and how it operates and is experienced.

As I have said before in this chamber, as a child of Gaelic-speaking Hebrideans brought up in the centre of Glasgow, I was brought up alongside people who had moved from Pakistan to live in Glasgow. As they arrived in Glasgow, our parents believed in the same things, but I know that my contemporaries then have had a lifetime of experiencing being Scottish in a very different way from me, because it will have been a lifetime with experience of racism.

Racism expresses itself in many ways, such as in racist bullying and intimidation in our local communities. I know as a constituency MSP that the same young people who express their antisocial behaviour in one way towards a white family often target it in an expressly racist way against a black family. We know that in this debate we should reflect the reality of Scotland.

There are grounds for concern. Bobo Balde and Jean-Alain Boumsong are at the height of their powers and the peak of their profession. They are young, talented, wealthy and powerful men, but they are still victims of racist abuse from football supporters simply because of the colour of their skin. However, there are grounds for optimism in that area. We remember the young Dundee football supporter—a young boy—who spoke up courageously about the racists who were standing roundabout him and shouting racist abuse. That was a small, still voice, but it gives us hope for a real change in attitudes, particularly among our young people.

Of course, we know that there are too many fearful families and isolated individuals within our communities. Too many people from all sorts of backgrounds experience a lack of respect and the abuse of their basic rights, which is totally unacceptable. That is what our commitment to our campaign today is about.

Marlyn Glen raised the issue of data collection and Linda Fabiani talked about the capacity of public bodies. The points that they made were made frequently during the review of local race equality work and we will consider how to address both issues.

We have discussed many aspects of anti-racism today, but it is worth remembering why we are having the debate. We know that in Scotland employment rates among people from minority ethnic communities are lower than those in white communities, yet we know that the level of entrepreneurship among some minority ethnic communities is high. We know, too, that people from minority ethnic communities are under-represented in most occupations—certainly in the occupation of being a politician—and continue to experience racism in work. The issues of institutional racism and racial harassment are still far too prevalent in Scottish working life and act as a barrier to individuals and organisations fulfilling their potential. We also know that there are real issues about equal access to secure and good quality housing for minority ethnic communities.

We know, as members have said, that although the number of racist incidents might be increasing, because people have more confidence to report them, they are still a reproach to our idea of Scotland as one nation in which everyone can be safe. Mary Scanlon asked whether the figures could be broken down and I will certainly explore that to see whether it is possible.

We know from research that people in Scotland say that they want to live in a country that is welcoming and friendly and where all have equal opportunities to prosper and succeed. Their aspirations for Scotland—both for its nature and for its place on the global stage—are incredibly high. However, at the same time, they reveal entrenched prejudice and attitudes that cut across that—attitudes that result in the exclusion and the relative and, in some cases, absolute deprivation to which I have referred.

The research has also shown us that people acknowledge that racism is a problem in contemporary Scotland, but see it as something for which others are responsible. I agree that we must confront it in ourselves and take responsibility for ourselves. The reality is that racism is a problem at all levels of society and across all geographical areas.

Scotland has a history of welcoming strangers and that tradition has never been more important than it is now. I was struck by the fact that, in my community and others throughout Glasgow, people had anxieties about the experience of asylum seekers. It was often in the poorest communities and among the most vulnerable and deprived people that the hand of friendship, support and compassion was stretched out. I hear what Patrick Harvie said about Glasgow. The fact is that Glasgow City Council had the courage to welcome asylum seekers and to support them in their experiences.

The debate has focused on the challenges that Scotland faces in the 21^st century because of its falling population. Sandra White asked about the fresh talent initiative. I should say that the report from Westminster acknowledges the fact that Scotland faces a demographic challenge and is different from the rest of the UK and emphasises the importance of regional solutions such as the fresh talent initiative. It is clear that much work remains to be done to refine the detail of the five-year plan and its implementation, but it presents Scotland with the opportunity to ensure that our unique needs are reflected. We will engage actively with the Home Office on that.

Mary Scanlon asked, "What is the connection? Why are we having a debate about anti-racism that mentions fresh talent?" The reality is that we must create the climate for people to be welcomed here. If people come here and are racially abused or find Scotland to be a place where it is legitimate to abuse other people from minority ethnic communities, others will not want to come. That is why we focused so much on promoting race equality and why the one Scotland, many cultures campaign is so important. It sets out aspirations for the sort of Scotland in which we want to live.

We do that not only because we want to attract and retain people from abroad, but because we need to do so for the kind of Scotland that we want and for the people who are already here. All of us, from whatever background, are lessened and diminished by racism and racial inequality that goes unchallenged or is tolerated, as Linda Fabiani said.

Scotland has produced great thinkers and its people have demonstrated enterprise and innovation and have contributed to the world in many significant ways. Scotland has also benefited from the contribution of the many people who have visited and settled here over the centuries. We continue to do so today and we must not be complacent about a comfortable Scotland, because we know that the statistics challenge that idea. The Scotland of the 21^st century needs innovation, interchange, energy and dynamism to continue. There is no place for small-minded prejudice and narrowness of vision if we are to be successful. Racism detracts from that vision; if we do not tackle it, we let ourselves and Scotland down.

Everyone can help to create a climate in which racism in unacceptable. Those are not trite remarks and I recognise the genuine commitment across the chamber to understanding the issues. We understand the seriousness and complexity of the challenges that confront us. We believe passionately in seeking resolution and we are determined—as I am sure the Parliament is—to secure the change that we all want and that our communities deserve.

I urge members to support the motion.