Scottish Parliament, 14 March 2002

454 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Introduction

Nuclear Power Stations

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2883, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on nuclear power stations, and two amendments to that motion. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Let me make it clear at the outset of the debate that the motion in my name was drawn up in the hope that it would attract support from across the political spectrum in the Parliament. There has been much comment of late from various political personalities on whether the final decision on the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive or with the UK Government. The purpose of the SNP motion is to provide the Parliament with the opportunity to state unequivocally that it believes that the final decision on the construction—or otherwise—of new power stations in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive, which is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. I sincerely hope that we will be unanimous in that view at decision time.

Until recently, there seemed to exist an accepted consensus that the final decision lay with the Executive. That was certainly the view of the former First Minister when, in a letter to John Swinney of 23 August 2001, he said:

"The fact is that, under executively devolved powers, any application for a new power station in Scotland, whether nuclear or not, must be made to Scottish ministers; they have the power to call a public inquiry into the application if that is appropriate, and they have the power to grant consent or otherwise."

Lewis Macdonald recently confirmed that view to me in an answer to a written parliamentary question on 7 March 2002, in which he said:

"powers conferred by section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 have been executively devolved to Scottish ministers.

Any application to build an electricity generating station in Scotland therefore requires the consent of the Scottish ministers".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 7 March 2002; p 27.]

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In the spirit of co-operation for which the member calls, I take it that he will accept the Executive amendment to his motion, which leaves out consent for all non-nuclear power stations.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I recognise the development of the Executive's position in amendment S1M-2883.2, which is a technical amendment. I will make my mind up after I have listened with interest to the minister's speech.

The position that is outlined in the SNP motion reflects the views of both the former First Minister and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning—everything seems to be clear from the Executive's perspective. Therefore, there must have been real regret over the intervention of the Scotland Office Minister of State, George Foulkes, when, during an interview with the BBC on 26 February, he said:

"it wouldn't be for a legislature which has powers devolved from Westminster to then thwart the policy of a UK Government".

On which Government would make the final decision on the construction of new power stations, he said that the decision might ultimately lie with Westminster. The cat was out of the bag.

There are two schools of thought on George Foulkes's intervention: either he committed a careless blunder in the interview or, as he conceded during a debate on the issue in Westminster last week, it was all part of a "cunning plan".

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is the Minister of State at the Scotland Office not incompetent and arrogant? Has he not failed to understand what he voted for when he supported the spirit of devolution?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That may be Phil Gallie's view, but I find it difficult to put the concepts of cunning and George Foulkes together.

George Foulkes's comment certainly elicited a swift response from his mate Brian Wilson—I am not sure whether Brian Wilson is his best mate—in a BBC interview the next morning. What is it about the Executive and the BBC? Brian Wilson said:

"The position is unambiguous. If anyone wants to build a power station of any kind in Scotland, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."

Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story. The confusion at the heart of the UK Labour Government was there for all to see—people have been fighting like ferrets in a sack and introducing a great deal of mud into previously pretty clear waters.

Last week, the SNP attempted to clear up that confusion during the debate at Westminster. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in her usual crabbit style, made the waters even muddier. She refused eight times to answer the question, "Who will ultimately have the final decision on the construction of power stations in Scotland?" The Liberal spokesperson, John Thurso, who supported last week's SNP motion at Westminster, said that Helen Liddell's contribution

"amounts to the longest 'don't know' in history."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 March 2002; Vol 381, c 241.]

There should be no impediment to Liberal support for the SNP motion today, given that the party voted with the SNP at Westminster last week.

The Tories abstained during last week's vote. Jacqui Lait said:

"the Scottish Executive would have the authority under the current planning structure to make a decision on a nuclear power station entirely on planning grounds."

The crabbit one responded immediately:

"There is a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of what the hon. Lady is saying."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 March 2002; Vol 381, c 234.]

As clear as mud or what?

Today, the job of the Parliament is to send a loud and clear message to those in the UK Labour Government who want to bend their own rules. The final decision rests with Scottish ministers, who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. If we choose to say no to nuclear power by using the powers that are available to us, that should be the end of the matter. I invite anyone who disagrees with me to rise from their seat now and tell me that the final decision should be taken elsewhere.

The motion is about the powers of the Parliament, but we all know that the underlying argument is about whether new nuclear power stations should be built in Scotland. It is well known that the SNP has a long history of opposition to and active campaigning against nuclear power—to be fair, so do the Liberals. The Labour party went into the 1997 general election with a policy position that was similar to that of the SNP and the Liberals. However, the most recent Labour manifesto made no mention of nuclear power. Perhaps the 1997 policy is still accepted by the majority of MSPs, but who knows what Labour's policy is now? Perhaps the minister will tell us what Labour's policy is, but I somehow doubt that.

I have no doubt that the Tories will tell us about the virtues of nuclear power. The news for them is that, if the Romans had invented nuclear power, we would still be living with the deadly radioactive consequences.

I want to achieve something else today. I want to bury the lie that Scotland is somehow nuclear dependent. It is true that nuclear power makes up 50 per cent of Scotland's market share of about 5,000 megawatts. That is only a small part of the picture because, at 2,500 megawatts capacity, nuclear power accounts for only 26 per cent of our overall generating capacity of 9,600 megawatts. Even without nuclear power, we could continue our existing level of exports with room to spare.

Scotland's future is inextricably linked with the massive potential for green, renewable power, mainly in the forms of wind, wave and tidal power. A recent report that was produced for the Executive described how Scotland could produce 75 per cent of the UK's electricity needs from renewable sources. The report said that, if we were to use every possible source of power, we could have a capacity of about 75,000 megawatts. Even if we took up only a tenth of that capacity, the opportunities would be massive. Ross Finnie said of that report:

"The scale of this potential is illustrated by one stunning statistic: there is enough potential energy from onshore wind power alone to meet Scotland's peak winter demand for electricity twice over."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I recognise the potential of wind power in the Western Isles. Can the member advise me of the costs involved in moving that power from the Western Isles to, say, the midlands of England?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Brian Wilson recently gave a figure for the Celtic grid of about £400 million. However, that is a minimal sum in comparison with the amount of money that the Tories and the Labour party have put into subsidising nuclear power. That is the real problem that faces renewables in Scotland.

Scotland's future must lie in the massive potential of renewable energy, not in nuclear power, which discriminates against Scots customers. Because of the nuclear energy agreement, whereby Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric must buy all the output from Torness and Hunterston C, Scots have to pay way over the odds for their electricity. That is the result of privatisation, which is the fault of the Conservative party.

The Parliament has no real say on energy policy. Therefore, there is no cohesion or even a realistic hope of a strategic energy policy that is designed to best suit Scotland's specific needs. As everyone knows, the only way to ensure that is through independence. It is inevitable that we will not arrive at a common view on who should have control over energy policy.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Bruce Crawford will put the lights out.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The lights have been out in your head for a long time, sunshine.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not think that that is an appropriate way to refer to the minister. The member is in his last minute, so I will not allow another intervention.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hope that a majority in the Parliament accept that there should be no new power stations in Scotland. I hope that we can agree that, as the motion states, the final decision about consent for nuclear power stations, now and in the future, must remain with the Scottish ministers who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. Bluntly, it is time for Liddell and Foulkes to get bloody noses.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that consent for nuclear and other electricity power stations over 50 megawatts, under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, is a responsibility devolved to Scottish Executive Ministers and believes that the final decision over consent for nuclear power stations, now and in the future, must remain with Scottish Executive Ministers accountable to the Parliament.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to Professor Bert Whittington, who died tragically in a road accident this week. Bert Whittington was a distinguished scholar at the University of Edinburgh. Over the years he contributed greatly to the Scottish Executive's work on energy and the environment by making available to us his considerable knowledge of both subjects. He will be greatly missed by everybody who knew and worked with him.

On Bruce Crawford's motion, the position is, in most respects, a simple one. Brian Wilson, the Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment at the Department of Trade and Industry made that clear, as Bruce Crawford knows. Consents for new power stations in Scotland are not an issue. Consent powers are devolved to the Executive. Scottish Ministers are responsible for decisions on applications in Scotland to build new power stations of any kind, provided that the power stations in question would have a capacity that is greater than 50 megawatts or, in the case of hydro-electric power stations, a capacity that is greater than one megawatt. That is the case and it will remain the case—full stop.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Although I accept that, at face value, giving consent is within the powers of the Scotland Act 1998, that act also allows Westminster to overrule, even on devolved matters. Will the minister give a guarantee that no such override will be exercised by Westminster ministers?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Let us be absolutely clear about the position. In a moment, I will turn to Bruce Crawford's request for clarification on the purpose of our amendment. I have stated clearly that it remains the position that devolution applies in such cases. Before the position on that could be altered, approval from both Parliaments would be required. That remains the case for matters that are reserved or—as in the present case—matters that are devolved under an order in council. I will say more about that in a moment.

I will complete my clarification on the position on power station consents. Power stations that do not reach the level of capacity that I outlined are subject to determination under our land use planning system. Land use planning powers are a devolved matter. As a former planning minister, I have every confidence that our planning system is adequate to cope with the responsibility for taking those decisions. There is no reason to anticipate any change on that.

As Mike Rumbles pointed out, the motion would have the effect of committing us to accepting that only consents for nuclear power stations—as distinct from consents for other power stations, such as wind farms, wave power stations or coal-fired power stations—should be in the hands of the Scottish ministers. We do not accept that view. We take the clear view that all power station consents that are devolved under the existing provisions should remain devolved. We have lodged an amendment to clarify that position and to make clear our view that all those consents should remain in the hands of Scottish ministers. I do not expect Bruce Crawford to disagree with that. In the amendment, we also make clear that the basis for devolution of power on this matter is an order in council, which we refer to specifically. That helps to remove doubt about, and to clarify the nature of, devolution in relation to power station consents.

I will set the discussion on consents for electricity power stations in the context of our wider energy policy. As Bruce Crawford mentioned, we stand at a critical point in the development of our energy industries. The Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2002 will soon implement a new mechanism that will give Scotland's renewables their greatest fillip ever.

Our policy is to look to the future. We welcome the recommendations of the energy review—in particular, the priority that it gives to renewables and energy efficiency. We will also address some of the wider, related issues that face the people of Scotland. We have already proposed the stretching of targets on fuel poverty and practical steps to implement that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I take the minister back to his remarks in response to the point that was made by Alex Neil. If I understood the minister correctly, he said that for the powers of the Scottish Parliament to be overridden by a decision at Westminster, the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government would have to give consent. Under what circumstances would that happen and what stance would the Executive take in any such discussions?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We do not anticipate such circumstances. I regard that as a hypothetical question, just as I regarded Alex Neil's question as such. In my view, there is no prospect of Westminster seeking to reclaim competence from the Scottish Parliament without our agreement. Any order to that effect would have to be placed in draft form before the Scottish Parliament as well as the Westminster Parliament. The position on our competence is very clear.

The point that George Foulkes was keen to make—and on which he was absolutely correct—is that legislative competence on power station consents remains at Westminster. As part of the Scotland Act 1998 and the devolution settlement, Westminster has chosen to devolve to Scottish ministers the executive power to grant consents under the Electricity Act 1989. That position is correct and it is not likely to change.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am conscious that I am in my last minute, but with the Presiding Officer's indulgence—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will allow the intervention.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If Westminster sought such agreement, would the Executive say yes or no?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Bruce Crawford is trying to create an imaginary constitutional conflict about an event that has not occurred. I will not encourage him to go down that line any further. There is no such question on the table.

With our renewables obligation, we are looking towards the development of many other sources of electrical power. We are continuing to invest in that. Rather than dancing on the head of a pin and discussing obscure constitutional issues that are unlikely to arise, it is far more useful and important for the Parliament to give its attention to how we develop our energy policy in the future.

The opening of the Vestas Wind Systems factory in Campbeltown is a significant symbol of the opportunities in renewable energy that lie ahead for Scotland. We must recognise that our mix of energy sources will carry us forward. Bruce Crawford described nuclear energy's 50 per cent contribution to our overall output as a small part of the picture. If 50 per cent is a small part of the picture, I wonder what a large part might be.

However, this is not the appropriate time to discuss the broad principles of nuclear energy policy. It is clear that we will consider developments in that area only once we are satisfied that an acceptable solution for nuclear waste has been found. At that stage, we will examine our long-term options. Whatever we do, the decision will be taken in the Scottish Parliament. The market will no doubt bring forward proposals for new power stations that use various forms of generation. It will be for the Parliament and for Scottish ministers to decide on such proposals.

I move amendment S1M-2833.2, to leave out from "and believes" to "nuclear" and insert:

"under the Transfer of Functions Order 1999 (SI 1999/1750), and believes that the final decision over consent under the Electricity Act 1989 for such".

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The Conservative party welcomes the fact that the SNP has lodged today's motion for debate. Although we do not agree with the motion, it is helpful in that it seeks to clarify an anomalous position. Indeed, the position is no clearer after the debate thus far. In speaking to the Executive amendment, the minister asserted that the position is clear under the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 1999. If the matter was that simple, why was that argument not cited in the House of Commons debate by Helen Liddell, the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

She was badly briefed.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Perhaps.

As things stand, it is clear that the power that is given under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to decide on planning consents for nuclear and other electricity power stations rests with the Scottish Executive. That is what the minister has said. It is also clear that control of energy policy is a reserved matter, which rests with Her Majesty's Government in London. The position needs to be clarified. After the debate in the House of Commons, the position was far from clear. Today's debate follows on logically from that debate in Westminster.

To demonstrate my point, let me outline a scenario. I know that this is an unlikely possibility but if, after the next election, the SNP were to form a Government in Scotland—which God forbid—the SNP would bring with it a strongly anti-nuclear policy. If Her Majesty's Government embarked on a programme of building new nuclear power stations in the UK—which seems likely—and decided that one or two new nuclear power stations should be built in Scotland, the situation would arise in which an SNP Government in Scotland could refuse to implement UK energy policy by refusing planning permission for such projects. Indeed, Alex Salmond and Bruce Crawford are apparently on record as saying that they would support a campaign of civil disobedience on that. A constitutional crisis could occur and could even be provoked by the SNP in such a scenario.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If Westminster said yes to nuclear power and this Parliament said no, would John Scott participate in a peaceful civil disobedience campaign?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I would not. If Bruce Crawford would, that is up to him.

Our view is that such a scenario might need to be resolved in court and that our devolved Parliament would ultimately be required to implement UK energy policy, as defined by Westminster. Members may not agree with that, but that is the position as we see it. I find myself surprised to be in agreement with George Foulkes, who said that the Scottish Executive must implement Westminster energy policy. However, Brian Wilson has stated:

"The position is unambiguous. If anyone wants to build a power station of any kind in Scotland, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."

That is simply not the end of the story. As it appears that the Scottish Executive has no power to decide on UK energy policy but has power to grant or withhold planning consent, the question must be resolved as soon as possible, so that we avoid a constitutional crisis.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Can John Scott quote for us which planning acts back up his case? Individual planning applications are decided on their merits. There is nothing in statute that bears out what he has alleged.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I understand that UK energy policy is superior to the position of this Parliament.

It is unreasonable for Governments to expect energy providers to resolve constitutional problems in advance of, or during, the planning process. At the very least, such constitutional problems are a deterrent to any company that might want to make planning proposals for the building of a new nuclear power station in Scotland. Indeed, that may be the SNP's intention in flagging up the issue. The SNP's tactic will discourage such investment, but the losers will be Scotland's nuclear work force of almost 4,000.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No thanks, because I think that I am well into my last minute.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

You are over your last minute.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Our view is that Scotland must continue to create electricity for its own consumption and for export. We need to take sensible decisions as soon as possible.

If we are to achieve a balanced and sustainable energy policy, we must first acknowledge the existence of global warming and our obligations under Kyoto. In seeking balanced energy provision, we must also acknowledge that we must use all the sources of energy that are available to us. We must be realistic. In four years' time, we will need to start importing gas. Unless we want to be dependent on imported gas for up to 70 per cent of our energy needs by 2025, we need to nurture other market-driven, secure, low-cost energy providers. No one disputes that renewables have a great future and I would seek to encourage their development in every way possible. Coal and gas have an important role to play.

Our view is that nuclear energy must also be part of that mix, so that we can deliver a balanced and sustainable energy policy. To achieve that balanced mix, which would support employment throughout Scotland, decisions must be taken now because the planning and building times for nuclear power stations are so long. The planning procedures need to be reviewed to allow more consultation, but they must also be speeded up. The whole planning process needs to be addressed urgently, but that is a matter for another day. Today, we seek clarification from the Executive of an ambiguous situation. For that reason, I commend our amendment to the Parliament.

I move amendment S1M-2883.1, to leave out from first "consent" to end and insert:

"planning consent for nuclear and other electricity power stations over 50 megawatts under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, is a responsibility devolved to Scottish Executive Ministers, but further notes that responsibility for UK energy policy is a matter for Westminster to decide and calls on Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Executive to clarify unresolved issues in relation to the division of responsibilities in pursuit of a balanced sustainable energy policy."

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

The Liberal Democrats support the motion as intended. The unamended version of the motion could be read to mean that the Parliament intends to hand back to Westminster final decision-making powers on non-nuclear power stations. We will support the motion if it is amended to clarify what is, I am sure, its original intent.

Recently, the question whether nuclear power is devolved seems to have confused elected members in another place. I hope that the situation is now clear. The UK Government has overall control of energy policy, but planning decisions on new power stations are entirely a devolved matter. There is no reason to believe that anyone wishes to undevolve power over planning decisions, so the matter is closed.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Does one power not contradict the other?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I think that Sarah Boyack answered that question.

Although the matter is closed, I still want to use the rest of my allotted time, as it would be a shame to waste it. A more interesting debate concerns what Scotland's energy mix should be in the future. We need to look at what is desirable, what is possible and how that can be achieved.

At present, the breakdown of Scotland's electricity generation is that about 55 per cent comes from nuclear energy, roughly 30 per cent from coal and gas, 11 to 13 per cent from hydro energy, and 2 to 3 per cent from renewables and waste.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Nora Radcliffe accept that she has given the figures for market share? The figures for capacity are entirely different.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

That is fair enough but, if we are to talk about what we should do in the future, we need to look at where things stand at present.

Our maximum domestic demand is 60 per cent of installed capacity, so Scotland is a net exporter of electricity. However, we cannot be complacent. On current expectations, all five of our major power stations—which are gas, coal and nuclear—will reach the end of their planned lifetimes in the next five to 30 years. Although it is not unlikely that it will be possible to extend the lifetimes of some stations, we need to think about and plan for the replacements that will be needed in the near to medium future.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I want to ask a simple question. Do the Liberal Democrats think that energy policy in Scotland should be determined by Scotland's needs or do they think that it should be determined by the needs of the UK? In other words, should we continue to be the fall guy in terms of our share of nuclear power? Should we not start to base our energy decisions on what is good for Scotland, rather than on what is needed by England?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I do not believe that the interests of Scotland and England are necessarily different.

If a significant proportion of replacement capacity is to come from renewable energy sources, a lot of planning will be required. We have much to do. First, renewables tend to be energy sources rather than fuels, which means that security of supply is a bit more difficult. One can depend on a fuel because it is available at any time of the day or season of the year. Wind, which is an energy source, will not generate electricity unless the wind is blowing.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Do the Liberal Democrats agree with the treaties that we signed up to at Rio de Janeiro and Kyoto? Do they identify with the UK targets for reducing gas emissions and so on?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

There is no question but that we do.

Let me get back to where I left off. Time and tide wait for no man, so tidal energy is more dependable. However, the technology is still at the prototype stage. Investment in research and development is essential and we must be realistic about the time that will be necessary to allow us to develop the new technology. Wave energy in the north and in the Pentland and Moray firths has great potential—but it is still just potential. Those locations are a long way from the main concentrations of population.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No—the member is in her last minute and she has been very generous.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Our renewable energy sources are nowhere near either the customer or the infrastructure. Demography has set the pattern of power stations and power lines and the electricity network has constraints and bottlenecks even now. If we plan to have major generation in wild and remote parts of Scotland, and if we want to build lots of smaller generators to harness wind or to develop biomass opportunities, there will have to be a radical redesign of the network. If we want to continue to export electricity, the interconnectors to England and elsewhere will have to be upgraded. Those problems can all be solved, but they will not solve themselves. We have to tackle them and we have to begin now.

Incidentally, it should not be overlooked that the solution to the coming energy gap is not wholly on the supply side; we are hugely wasteful of energy and much of the gap could be closed by reducing demand.

I suppose I should finish by getting back to the topic of the debate—nuclear power stations. They may not emit carbon, but that is about all that I can find to say in favour of them. The current consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on managing radioactive waste safely invites public debate on nuclear waste storage. It cannot be sensible to create waste that remains dangerous for thousands of years, even if we think that we can store it safely. Any money to be spent on energy should be spent on new infrastructure, on reducing consumption and on developing renewables, and not on replacing nuclear power stations. For the price of a new nuclear power station we could buy an awful lot of much more sensible things.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We now move to the open debate. Time is very tight so I ask members to restrict their comments to a maximum of four minutes.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The debate so far has illustrated how tortuous it is and the level of mental gymnastics that is required to be a unionist. Unionists have to put all the impossibles together and, as Lewis Carroll said, believe them all at once.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Not yet, Nora—I am just recovering from the past few minutes.

In reality, this is a very simple question with a very simple answer. The very simple question is, does Scotland have the power to say no to nuclear power? Members will remember the old symbols that used to be on 2CVs throughout Scotland, with the slogan "Say no to nuclear power" usually repeated in many languages.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I used to have a 2CV.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I can certainly believe that, and it probably ran on cheese.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is that the SNP energy policy?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Phil Gallie certainly speaks with enough energy. We could power a whole station with Phil alone.

The question is, can we say no to nuclear power? The question is very easy, but the tortuous answers that we hear in the chamber are quite remarkable and illustrate the problem with the devolved settlement. They illustrate the fact that the only clear and sensible settlement is independence. John Home Robertson finds the idea of independence very amusing, but he has not thought about it. He has not thought about it because it terrifies him. He is too frightened to think about it, and he is quite used to taking orders from elsewhere.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Not just now, Rhona Brankin. No.

John Home Robertson is so used to taking orders from elsewhere, and so used to nodding all the time when he is told to do things, that he cannot think for himself. That is the problem in this debate.

We see clearly that the Tories want to wreck the Scottish Parliament. We saw that yesterday.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

rose—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will come to Rhona Brankin's role in wrecking the Parliament in a moment.

We saw yesterday that the Tories want to cut the size of the Parliament, limit its powers and forget that there has been a constitutional change in politics in Scotland.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Does Mr Russell not accept that we have committed ourselves totally to this Parliament? We have offered constructive solutions to make the Parliament more workable, to help the devolution settlement.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I do not accept that at all. There has been no evidence of that whatever—and, if Mr Scott doubts that, he should read his speech from this morning.

The position of the Liberals is, as usual, fascinating. It, too, is tortuous. When this issue was debated at Westminster, every Liberal MP who voted, voted for the SNP motion. It is clear that the Liberals simply must support our motion today, but they cannot do so and not support the Executive amendment, because to do that would be disloyal to their coalition colleagues.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will take an intervention in a second.

Coalition politics is destroying the clear thinking of the Liberal Democrats.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

In my opening sentence, I said that Liberal Democrats support the motion as intended. We do.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not know what "as intended" means. The motion is in the business bulletin—vote for it or do not vote for it.

The Labour position in the debate is the most interesting one. Labour members in Scotland must constantly look over their shoulders to ensure that they are allowed to say something and to ensure that we are allowed to implement the existing Scotland Act 1998. But there is no question about this: the power lies in Scotland. This Parliament has the power to say no to nuclear power.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No thank you, Mr McNulty—life is too short.

We can say no, and the powers of this Parliament are all that the debate is about. Anybody watching the debate would have to conclude that the simplest and clearest way to run Scotland is as an independent nation in which this chamber can make decisions for the people of Scotland. The debate has again illustrated that what we need is independence.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Mike Russell seems to have overlooked the fact that the Executive amendment actually strengthens the motion that his colleague moved.

Bruce Crawford has a bit of a reputation for generating hot air, but on this occasion he is generating only superfluous words. The nationalist motion takes 59 words to say what Brian Wilson said in half as many:

"If anyone wants to build a power station of any kind in Scotland, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry, Alex. I have only four minutes.

As the Presiding Officer knows, we have 2,500 megawatts of generating capacity at Torness and Cockenzie in East Lothian, plus some very useful wind turbines on our skyline in the Lammermuir hills. I want to stress the importance of the electricity supply industry to the Scottish economy—not only to generate power for Scottish industries and households but as a valuable export to other parts of the United Kingdom. Scottish electricity exports are worth £250 million a year. That is the equivalent of the capital cost of the Holyrood building being earned by exports down the wire through the UK national grid every year in life. Evidently, our little Scotlanders in the nationalist party would be content to scale down the electricity generating industry in Scotland so that it would not have the capacity to export electricity. That is the logic of their position and of what Alex Neil said a minute or two ago. The nationalists' position would have the effect of exporting hundreds of valuable jobs to other parts of the UK. East Lothian, with 650 jobs at Torness and Cockenzie, is a powerhouse for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I understand that the SNP wants to find ways to raise its core message of independence in general conversation and I can guarantee that this morning's particular manifestation of independence, which would destroy a lot of jobs in my constituency, will attract quite a lot of attention in the coming year.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry—I have only a couple of minutes and the matter is very important to my constituency.

I welcome the energy review that is being undertaken by my former colleagues at Westminster—not least because of the obvious need to begin the process of replacing power stations to provide secure supplies of electricity for future decades. A number of imperatives must be considered and delivered: we must increase energy efficiency and develop the use of renewables; we must control the depletion of fossil fuels; we must plan for adequate generating capacity for the whole of the United Kingdom; sooner or later we will have to construct a permanent repository for waste nuclear fuel—not for new waste but for waste that already exists; and we must minimise emissions of carbon dioxide in order to slow down the process of global warming. The last is the most important of all.

Those imperatives may lead to the conclusion that there is a strong environmental and economic case for replacing decommission capacity with new nuclear power stations. If there were proposals for a Hunterston C or a Torness B, I am sure that people in Ayrshire and East Lothian would judge them in the light of all relevant considerations, including their experience of the nuclear industry.

Let us have a rational debate about the serious white paper on energy when it is published later this year. I agree with what Lewis Macdonald said at the beginning of the debate: it is a tragedy that Professor Bert Whittington will not be with us to take part in that important debate. The issue is far too important to be trivialised by constitutional shenanigans, which is all that we have had from the Opposition today.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The fragmented way in which our nation is governed means that there are two distinct elements in any debate on nuclear power stations in Scotland: energy policy and planning consents. Devolution means that the Scottish people and those elected to the Scottish Parliament are deemed to be incapable of deciding for themselves what Scotland's energy policy should be. Scotland, an exporter of energy—primarily to England—is told that its energy policy must be determined by a Parliament in England. It is for the members of the unionist parties to reconcile that perverse reality.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

If Mrs Ullrich had read the recent energy review published by the UK Government, she would be aware that the UK Government welcomes and supports the input of Scottish ministers to the formation of energy policy and is encouraging us to play an ever greater role in that process in the future.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

What the minister needs to explain is why Scottish energy policy is formulated outwith Scotland. Until Scotland becomes a normal nation and retakes its political independence, the Scottish Parliament will not be allowed to decide how Scotland produces the energy that powers our nation.

I will address the subject on which London has decided that we can have a say: planning consents. As we have heard, under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, the power to grant or refuse planning consent in respect of an application to build a new nuclear power station in Scotland lies with the ministers in the devolved Parliament. There is no equivocation. That point is so clear that even that arch anti-devolutionist, the UK Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment, Brian Wilson, has confirmed that planning permission is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. That is the position and that should be the end of it. The unhelpful meddling and muddying of the waters by Helen Liddell and George Foulkes can serve only to increase the uncertainty over the whole direction and development of energy policy in Scotland.

As an MSP representing the West of Scotland, I have a special interest in the direction of our future energy policy. Hunterston B is the biggest private sector employer in North Ayrshire. As an elected representative of the people employed at Hunterston, my priority is to ensure that those jobs are secured. At present, about 400 people are employed at the Hunterston site. By taking the decision that no nuclear new build will be allowed in Scotland, but that the Hunterston site will be designated as a centre of excellence in the generation of energy from renewable sources, we could remove the uncertainty that hangs over the jobs of the Hunterston workers. Denmark already employs thousands of people producing energy from renewable sources. So, too, could Scotland. We can safeguard the Hunterston jobs and even increase employment in North Ayrshire—an area of high unemployment.

The uncertainty over the direction of energy policy in Scotland has come about only because the new Labour Government has been turning somersaults over the issue. Much of the uncertainty surrounding the jobs at Hunterston has come about because the Minister of State—the aforementioned Brian Wilson—has floated the idea of a new nuclear station at Hunterston. That is the same Brian Wilson who, when running for election in 1987, publicly supported a Labour party resolution calling for the immediate mothballing of all nuclear power stations, including Hunterston.

Let us end the uncertainty. Let us use the limited powers that we have in the Parliament and ensure that the Executive ministers stand up to what will be considerable pressure from Westminster. I urge members to support the motion.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It is unfortunate that when a similar debate took place in Westminster the UK Government did not take the opportunity to close the discussion down. In fact, the Government gave succour to the SNP in raising the issue. If one reads the Official Report of the debate, it is not clear where responsibilities lie. Indeed, during that debate, the Liberal Democrat MP Alan Reid made it quite clear that he does not know where the relevant powers lie.

It is important that the issue is resolved for people who are for nuclear energy in Scotland and who believe that the Executive and the UK Government should support further nuclear development. I have no problem with declaring myself to be one of those people. The arguments have not demonstrated that Scotland will not have a significant energy gap. Furthermore, we have not demonstrated the capacity for renewables to deliver in a climate where, although we have great provision for wind power for example, in large tracts of Scotland the Ministry of Defence will not allow it to be exploited. Until such issues are resolved, it is pie in the sky to talk about certain capacity.

I condemn unreservedly the SNP and the despicable way in which Bruce Crawford—smiling as he is—has taken every opportunity to denigrate the Chapelcross nuclear power station. He has spoken out for cheap headlines time and again, yet his colleague Mr Russell visited the plant and soft-soaped the workers. Mr Russell did not give the speech that he gave today. He also did not turn up to back Chapelcross workers when the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets issued a ruling that puts the plant in danger of immediate closure—Mr Russell was absolutely invisible.

The SNP councillors on Dumfries and Galloway Council, who are not bound by SNP policy on anything—they are pro-stock transfer and pro-nuclear—unanimously passed a motion backing the plant.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No, I have heard all the drivel before.

One of the SNP councillors has constituents all the way down to the Solway. That councillor never mentions any of the issues on which Bruce Crawford comments in the Sunday papers. No wonder people have no confidence in the SNP's energy policy. We could not have any confidence that an independent Scotland run by you would even deliver any energy. Someone said that if the SNP were in power in Scotland, the last person out would have to turn off the lights—there would not be any lights with your policy on nuclear power.

I would prefer the Parliament to debate the nuclear industry positively. I want the Executive to use the devolved powers that it has to support new development and tell us what it will do to help people who want to advance job-creating proposals.

The Chapelcross nuclear power station employs 450 people and is a key economic player in lower Annandale. The issues are the same as those that John Home Roberston mentioned. In her speech about North Ayrshire, Kay Ullrich did not mention that she is not standing in the next election—perhaps that is what gave her so much to say. The one thing that we did not hear about from the SNP today was Finland. That is because Finland is pro-nuclear and is implementing new nuclear energy policies.

Let us not hear any more rubbish. Let us concentrate on the real issues of developing new nuclear stations in Scotland.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I remind members that, in the chamber, the word "you" refers to the Presiding Officer. I ask members to direct their remarks through the chair.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Here we are once again. Last week, the Tories debated an issue that is reserved to Westminster. This week, the SNP is cynically using the Scottish Parliament to unpick the edges of the Scotland Act 1998 as it has done so many times before.

The SNP is the party which, along with the Tories, did not participate in drawing up the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament in the Scottish Constitutional Convention and is now deliberately using the Parliament to put a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is a sad old song.

Despite the position being made crystal clear last week in the House of Commons, the SNP is raising the same issue again in a desperate attempt to get publicity. Frankly, the debate is a complete waste of taxpayers' money.

Last week, Brian Wilson, the Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment, said:

"The position is unambiguous. If anyone wants to build a power station of any kind in Scotland, it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive to determine. End of story."

Of course, it is not the end of the story for the SNP. It gives them what they regard as another opportunity to unpick the Scotland Act 1998.

Let us consider the facts instead of the myths that have been peddled by the SNP. The Scottish Executive has responsibility for planning in Scotland, including powers of consent for all new power stations and overhead electricity lines. It also has responsibility for the environment and the promotion of renewable energy and for energy efficiency. Therefore, the Executive has to take a close interest in the environmental and wider sustainable development dimensions of energy policy.

The Executive has contributed significantly to the UK review of energy. In Scotland, we have devolved environmental obligations under European Union legislation, under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—the OSPAR convention—and under the Executive's commitment to sustainable development. All of those have an important bearing on sustainable energy production.

Instead of bringing to the chamber a silly non-debate about some mythical new nuclear power station that is not being proposed, we should be talking about some of the crucial issues that are facing us. We should be talking about, for example, the long-term management of radioactive waste and spent fuel from existing nuclear power stations. More than 4,500 cu m of high and intermediate-level radioactive waste is currently stored in Scotland, some of which will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.

The issue is massive and, despite years of discussions and examination of the options, we are no nearer a solution to the problem, which is based on public acceptance, environmental protection and safety. That is why a vital consultation process has been in process with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the other devolved Administrations. We cannot make any decisions about nuclear power until we have resolved the issue of radioactive waste management. That is the Executive's position. In its submission to the UK energy review, the Executive said:

"no decisions on policy about the future of nuclear, and its necessary regulatory framework, can be taken before the results of that consultation process are available."

We must work in partnership with the UK Parliament to develop energy policy. It is my firm belief that Scotland's devolved responsibilities for energy efficiency and the promotion of renewable energy will be critical in filling the gap left by the possible retiral of nuclear power stations. Scotland's potential for further renewable energy development will be vital in the context of the 50-year horizon for the UK energy review.

We cannot afford to ignore the results of the research on renewable energy that was commissioned by the Executive. Scotland has the capacity to be self-sufficient in electricity from renewable energy and have plenty left over for the rest of the UK. There is enough potential energy from onshore wind power alone to meet Scotland's peak winter demand for electricity twice over. It is a huge challenge for Scotland and the UK, with implications for commercialisation and the Scottish economy.

I finish by saying to the SNP to get real. Let us not waste time. Let us behave like a grown-up Parliament. Let us have real debates about the management of radioactive waste, energy efficiency and Scotland's massive potential for renewable energy. Those are areas where we have an opportunity and a responsibility to make a contribution to the development of a sustainable energy policy for the 21st century and beyond. I support the Executive's amendment.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is interesting to see the usual unity in the new Labour party when one ex-minister is anti-nuclear and the other ex-minister is pro-nuclear. Maybe that explains why they are ex-ministers.

Because the debate is on energy, I will take a minute to comment on this morning's news about BP and the salary increases awarded to senior executives. The chief executive receives £7 million a year while he makes 700 people redundant at Grangemouth. It is an utter disgrace. The top six directors pay themselves a total of £20 million a year and I do not think that that is a defensible position.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will you address the motion?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am going to speak to the motion now.

The critical issue relates to the Scotland Act 1998. That is where the powers of the Parliament and the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood are defined. It does not matter what Brian Wilson or George Foulkes says on a particular day. The reality is that the powers are defined in statute, not in a press release from Government ministers.

The Scotland Act 1998 is absolutely clear. Schedule 5 to the act lists all the reserved matters, which include energy. Under section D1 of schedule 5, the

"Generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity"

including

"The subject-matter of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989"

are matters reserved to Westminster. Only

"The subject-matter of Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990"

is a devolved matter.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, I am sorry. Rhona Brankin would not take an intervention so I am not taking hers—fair is fair.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will take an intervention from Lewis Macdonald.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Alex Neil has quoted from schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. I am sure that, having seen the Executive's amendment, he will also have checked the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 1999. Will he accept that that order makes it clear that the functions to which he referred are now by statute

"exercisable by the Scottish Ministers instead of by the Minister of the Crown"?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

They are indeed, but I refer the minister to sections 28 and 30 of the Scotland Act 1998, which totally negate the point that he has just made. Section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998, which defines the legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament, has a sting in the tail. Section 28(7) states:

"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament ... to make laws for Scotland."

That underlines my earlier points. No matter what Westminster says, it can override the decisions and powers of the Scottish Parliament at any time, and it is easily done.

Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 shows that it is not a speech from Brian Wilson or George Foulkes that is needed; it is an order in council. A simple order in council does not require primary legislation or a vote in the House of Commons; it requires only that four privy councillors see the Queen and then they can sweep away the powers of the Parliament in one go.

New Labour has come to the Parliament and promised that we will make the decision. I remember new Labour's pledge that there would be no referendum before the legislation on the Parliament, but we did have not just one referendum; in effect, we had two. We cannot believe a word that new Labour says. The reality is that if the interests of England are primary, new Labour will do what is necessary and, in one swipe, take away the power of the Parliament to stop the proliferation of civil nuclear power in Scotland.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I congratulate David Mundell and Mike Russell on two highly entertaining speeches, which I enjoyed a great deal.

The Scottish Parliament information centre prepared for us an excellent document on Dounreay. It is a pity that nobody has mentioned Dounreay yet, so I shall. As members are aware, Dounreay is being decommissioned, which will be a bonanza for Caithness for generations to come. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent. In connection with that, I wish to make some points.

Mention was made of a centre of excellence. That is precisely what we should be thinking about as we decommission the reactors at Dounreay. Money is being poured in, and by taking young people and training them by working with colleges, universities and the Scottish Executive, we can create a skills pool for many years to come. We could have a dedicated skilled work force that could go to other parts of the world to decommission nuclear reactors. We should steal a lead in Scotland. We are going that way, and we should be proud of it and blow our trumpet loudly. I hope that Lewis Macdonald will take that message to Wendy Alexander.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Does Jamie Stone agree that the £4 billion that it will cost to decommission Dounreay will be paid by the taxpayer? Does he agree that SNP members have in no way even begun to explain where, in an independent Scotland, they would get that money?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Rhona Brankin raises an interesting subject. It is a nice tradition in Highland politics that the SNP candidate for the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency generally says something different from the rest of the SNP. We have seen that again and again. I am interested to hear what my good friend Rob Gibson will say on this matter in the forthcoming election. Rhona Brankin puts her finger on it. I am glad to hear the "independence" word being raised. That is great, because it shovels votes away from the SNP in Caithness and Sutherland.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Jamie Stone has made an allegation that the SNP candidate in the constituency that he represents would change party policy and say something different. Could I have chapter and verse, please? I want quotes: when they were said, who said them and what the issue was.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I certainly will provide them. The remarks of Mr Sandy MacKenzie—who was a candidate in 1997—which I heard repeated, were dramatically different from what the SNP was saying in the rest of Scotland.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Give us the remarks.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Stone is sitting down, Mr Russell.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Why are we discussing this issue today? Nuclear power stations clearly are an issue for us, but this debate is a chance for the SNP to raise the constitution in this chamber once again, to cast doubt over the constitution, to cast doubt over the powers of this Parliament and to cast doubt over our abilities to set out our long-term future in Scotland. The debate has been a complete waste of time from that perspective, because it is absolutely clear that decisions on nuclear power stations, and on all other power stations, are matters for Scottish Executive ministers, who are accountable to us in this chamber. Members would not think that if they listened to SNP speeches today.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No thank you.

Alex Neil's speech in particular represented a fantasy world inhabited by nationalists that is divorced from the reality of politics today. It is absolutely clear that in this chamber, and with our colleagues at UK level, we take our environmental responsibilities seriously. We also take seriously the responsibility of thinking about not the next two minutes of an SNP soundbite, but the next 10, 20 and 50 years and getting our energy, renewables and environmental policies right. Michael Meacher's review of nuclear waste is critical and is about the long term: it is a seven-year consultation. That might seem like a long time in electoral politics, but it is not when we are dealing with an issue of the magnitude of nuclear waste.

The nationalists did not comment on, congratulate us on or even acknowledge the fact that action is taking place now and we are going in the right direction. The key issue of energy efficiency, for example, was not mentioned at all by Bruce Crawford. If we are to have a rational debate on energy and the environment, we need to discuss energy efficiency, on which the Executive has done a huge amount since we were all elected in 1999. There is also the issue of supply. Rhona Brankin talked authoritatively about renewables. Those are the priorities of the Labour-Lib Dem Administration in Scotland, and they are absolutely right. We have seen a turnaround away from the approach taken by the Tories, which does not take into account our long-term commitments and our long-term responsibility to the environment.

The submission by the Executive to the UK energy review was a reasoned, considered and radical document. It considered the huge potential of renewable energy and the importance to Scotland of our energy industries. That was not reflected in Bruce Crawford's speech, and it certainly was not reflected in Mike Russell's speech. We need to take seriously our environmental responsibilities, and we have to acknowledge that we have a lot of nuclear generation. What did the SNP have to say about decommissioning? Absolutely nothing. Who will pay the bill for dealing with our nuclear waste legacy? There was not a word on that from the nationalists. The reason we did not hear a word is that separation would bring a massive cost. We need to work together on those issues, and not dismiss them.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No thank you. I am in my last minute.

The Labour party is clear about the long term. In this Parliament in the past couple of years we have focused on the expansion of wind energy. There is a long-term agenda of wave energy and photovoltaics, which are being pursued in Germany to huge effect. Those are the real challenges. The Labour party's targets in Scotland are to produce 30 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020 and 50 per cent by 2040. That is a massive agenda and a great opportunity. Let us focus on that, not on the constitutional wrangling that the SNP wants to raise in this chamber in the coming year and a half. It is a waste of their time. We will take the opportunity on every occasion to tell the SNP what we are doing in Government. We have a good record and we will defend it.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I say to Sarah Boyack that the doubts have been raised not by us, but by Labour MPs at Westminster. The Minister of State for Industry, Energy and the Environment says one thing and the Minister of State at the Scotland Office says another. We have received no clarification today other than an acknowledgement from the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning that Westminster will have the final say.

We have not heard from any Labour member how the Executive will deal with any future applications for new nuclear power stations. The continuing energy review clearly indicates that we are likely to get some. The people of Scotland deserve to know how the Executive will deal with those applications. They want to know who will make the final decision. Will it be made here or will it be made at Westminster, according to the wishes of someone else?

David Mundell's concluding remarks summed up the Conservative position. He talked about rubbish. It is a fact that nuclear power is not safe. We have not solved the problem of how to deal with nuclear waste.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No thank you.

That is precisely why it is not safe for us to proceed any further with nuclear power.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No thank you.

That is why the only sensible course of action in terms of the environment is to do nothing further. And how does nuclear waste relate to renewables? We cannot get rid of it; it will be here for generations. That is precisely why we need an answer now as to who will make the decision on planning matters and whether there will be an override. As Alex Neil indicated clearly, the potential for an override exists because of the Scotland Act 1998. There could be an override without any primary legislation. It would simply require an order in council.

We want to know where the Executive parties stand on the issue of new nuclear power stations and whether they will exercise their power. We want them to tell people now, in the run-up to the next election, whether they will agree to more nuclear power stations.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We move to wind-up speeches. Speakers should stick to the time allocated. Mike Rumbles has four minutes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The SNP has chosen the same topic for debate today that it chose for a debate in Westminster last week. That is the SNP's choice, but SNP members seem to want to exploit for their own political purposes the ridiculous spat between Brian Wilson and George Foulkes about who will make the final decision on the construction of any proposed new nuclear power stations.

The hypothetical situation—and it is a hypothetical situation—that the SNP is getting at is whether Westminster can force the Executive to give planning approval for new nuclear power stations. Not satisfied with wasting Westminster debating time, the SNP is now wasting the Scottish Parliament's time too. Bruce Crawford was in the last minute of his speech before he mentioned what the debate was all about—independence. Lewis Macdonald made it clear that the final decision on planning consent for power stations remains with the Scottish Executive.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In a moment.

I was amazed by the Tories' speeches. John Scott said that the Tories were content with and had accepted devolution, but he still could not and would not accept the consequences of devolution. He is uninterested in devolution. His deference to London was plain to see.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

rose—

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In a moment. I was amused by John Scott's mischievous reference to a possible future Liberal Democrat-SNP coalition. Even his fantasies did not stretch to Tory participation in Government.

Mike Russell was even more entertaining.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Does Mike Russell accept that he has misquoted me?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mike Russell might accept that, but I do not.

Mike Russell asked whether the Liberal Democrats would support the SNP's motion, and Nora Radcliffe made it clear that we would. The Liberal Democrats ask the SNP to support the Executive's technical amendment, which would strengthen the motion, as the deputy minister said.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member answer a question that was asked by Mr Alan Reid, a Liberal colleague of his, in a House of Commons debate? The member seems to want to have his cake and eat it. Mr Reid said:

"If an application to build a nuclear power station in Scotland was turned down by the Scottish Executive, but the Government promoted legislation in this House to overturn that decision"—

the Alex Neil point—

"and grant planning permission, would the hon. Gentleman support that legislation?"—[Official Report, House of Commons, 5 March 2002; Vol 381, c 239.]

Alan Reid asked that question of Mr Bill Tynan, who, as usual, had no answer. What is the Liberal answer in Scotland to that key point? On Alex Neil's question, do the Liberals support the Scottish Parliament or Westminster?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That was a long intervention. I will deal with it in my conclusion.

Alex Neil said that he discovered that the Scottish Parliament is not a sovereign Parliament. What a surprise. What a discovery Alex has bumped into. I will deal with Mike Russell's point now. For practical purposes, the UK Government dare not overrule us on devolved matters. Alex Neil and Mike Russell know that—it is clear.

Neither the SNP nor the Tories can live with home rule, which is why, for different reasons, both try to muddy the water. The debate has been a ridiculous waste of time. Energy policy is reserved; planning is devolved. The motion, as amended by the Executive's technical amendment, again makes that clear.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will break with the traditions of the debate by congratulating the nationalists, whose motion addresses two of their pet issues. The first is doing anything to wreck the Parliament's constitutional position and the second is spreading ridiculous ideas against nuclear energy. It is shameful that Scottish nationalists should take such a stand against nuclear power. Scotland has a proud record of generation. Almost 50 per cent of our generation is nuclear. That is safe and clean generation, and the SNP should take that on board.

The nationalists ask questions on constitutional issues. They should consider what we can achieve in the United Kingdom to meet their aims. The UK has signed up to Kyoto and to Rio. The SNP recognises the environmental advantages of working together. On that basis, it is natural that our energy policy should match that of the rest of the UK.

John Scott was right to draw attention to some confusion. He did that because ministers failed in their responsibility. It was irresponsible of Scotland Office minister George Foulkes to make such comments and induce a hurried statement from Brian Wilson. Ministers should stick together on such issues. I go along with Brian Wilson's interpretation.

Mr Neil's comments about the reality of the Scotland Act 1998 underline a factor that was built into the act. Ultimately, Westminster can take action, but it would be foolish of any Government, whether socialist, Tory, Liberal—God help us—or whatever, to override the wishes of people in Scotland on such issues. The siting of nuclear power stations is a planning issue that must be decided here.

The situation at Hunterston raises nuclear energy policy issues. John Home Robertson referred to Torness, which is not set to decommission before 2023. The situation at Hunterston is much more urgent, as it is to decommission in 2010 or 2011. We must consider energy requirements in 10 to 15 years. I support the move towards renewables, but to ensure that our economy and jobs stand firm and that we can develop in a modern world, we must have the required energy resources.

We must consider Hunterston and take relatively early decisions, as Brian Wilson suggested, on whether a rebuild programme is adopted, perhaps for a Hunterston C. It takes 10 years to design, develop and produce a nuclear power station. We do not have time on our hands. The need is urgent. I wish that the nationalists' motion had addressed that important issue and allowed us to discuss it rationally.

I recognise everybody's right to express reservations, but we should not mask the issues. Kay Ullrich suggested that Hunterston could be used for another purpose. As a supporter of the nuclear industry, I accept that the Hunterston site will be contaminated for many years. Decommissioning of the very successful and safe Hunterston A station is under way. Jamie Stone was right to say that we can gain from our expertise in and knowledge of nuclear energy. They can and must be put to good use.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I welcome the opportunity to restate unequivocally the Parliament's competence to make decisions on proposals for new power stations that will generate more than 50 megawatts in Scotland. It is remarkable that although Brian Adam was present during my opening speech, he did not hear what I said.

I repeat that the Scottish Executive is the competent authority to grant consent to construct and operate a power station and to grant deemed planning consent for all power stations that will generate more than 50 megawatts in Scotland. That power cannot be revoked without an order in council. Contrary to Alex Neil's contention, such an order in council would require to be approved in draft by this Parliament and the House of Commons.

The consent powers are not a new development.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

In a moment.

Decisions on consent for new power stations have always been taken in Scotland. The powers are executively devolved under the order that is mentioned in the Executive's amendment and are safeguarded by the Sewel convention. There is no question of Westminster's reclaiming those powers without this Parliament's consent.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister confirm that this Parliament has a right of veto in a disagreement over an order in council to override a decision of this Parliament?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

It is not a matter of a veto power. That is the language of the United Nations. The Parliament has the power to grant or not to grant consent for such developments. Such decisions will not be taken in isolation. Before proposals reach Scottish ministers, they will go through a wide-ranging consultation process. We will hear from planning authorities on the planning implications of any such development; we will hear from Scottish Natural Heritage about the implications for the environment; we will hear from Historic Scotland about the areas that are of interest to it; and we will hear from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the issues that are of interest to it. That is not an exhaustive list. We take seriously the comments that we receive from members of the public on such matters. Those representations remind us that, in exercising our powers of consent, we are directly accountable to the people of Scotland.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

If a planning application for a nuclear power station were turned down not for specific reasons relating to that application but on the general presumption that the Scottish Executive is against nuclear power stations even though the UK Government has a presumption in favour of nuclear power, would that refusal of consent be open to challenge in the courts?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Consent to construct and operate a power station, as with planning consent, will be judged on a case-by-case basis. That has always been the case and it will continue to be the case. It is not a matter that is directly under the authority of energy policy, at UK level or any other level. The issues are distinct and I hope that that is now clear to all concerned.

The recent energy review outlined the options for meeting the demand for energy while safeguarding the environment. It recommended that priority be given to energy efficiency and renewable energy. There is no doubt that there is a tremendous untapped renewable resource in Scotland which will help Scotland to meet our Kyoto commitment.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

No, I am conscious of my time.

The energy review also recommended that the nuclear option be kept open and that it should be debated widely. We agree with that. We will support energy efficiency and renewable energy but we must deal with the issue of how we manage radioactive waste in the long term as well. It goes without saying that decisions on how we do that must have widespread public support. We have already started to involve the public by issuing a consultation paper, "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely", which was produced jointly with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the other devolved administrations. In Scotland, we are undertaking research into how best we can involve our people in making those decisions.

Coming to conclusions on our nuclear waste strategy will be a lengthy process. There will be difficult decisions to make, but it is vital that we openly engage with people and involve them in making those decisions. As Nora Radcliffe pointed out, it is also important that we continue to work with industry, the regulator and the Department of Trade and Industry on matters such as grid and network issues that affect energy in Scotland.

What we can say today is that all applications for new power stations of over 50 megawatts in Scotland will continue to come to Scottish ministers for consent. We will continue to exercise those powers in the full knowledge that we are accountable to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish people for the decisions that we make. That degree of accountability will also apply to decisions that we make about nuclear power, following the nuclear waste strategy conclusions.

In closing, I might do worse than echo the words of Brian Wilson on the matter:

"The position is unambiguous. End of story".

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I want to talk about the reason why we are having this debate today. Energy policy is crucial to everyone in Scotland, as are the Government's powers in that area. At the end of today, the Scottish people have to be clear about who has the power to decide the future of nuclear build in Scotland and who is going to exercise that power. Even more important, we have to be sure about how they intend to exercise that power. That is the purpose of today's debate.

A non-nuclear future is demanded by the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland. Why? Because nuclear energy is inefficient. If not for the nuclear energy arrangement, Torness and Hunterston would be providing uneconomic power to Scotland. Nuclear energy is deadly. It produces waste that we will have to live with for tens of thousands of generations. That is not a sustainable situation for us to pass on to a future Scotland.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Fiona McLeod referred to the subsidies to the nuclear industry. Would she accept that, without subsidies, wind farming, wave power and other forms of renewable energy would not be sustainable?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I was talking about the nuclear energy agreement whereby Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy have to take non-economic energy from Torness and Hunterston. That is not the same as a subsidy. Producing nuclear energy costs Scottish consumers money.

Nuclear energy, as even Mr Gallie must know, is unnecessary. Scotland exports 26 per cent of the energy that we produce and we produce 26 per cent of our energy by nuclear power. Therefore, we do not need nuclear power. If we want to maintain an export market, which we do, we should keep in mind the Garrad Hassan report that showed that Scotland has the potential, through renewable energy, to provide for not only our own needs but 75 per cent of the UK's needs. If we do away with nuclear power and invest in renewable energy, we will make even more of a profit.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod have both said that Scotland can survive happily without nuclear output due to the excess in the current capacity and the potential of renewable energy. Perhaps they would care to explain how they would resolve the issues of grid stability that the current base load capacity provides.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

My understanding, from a meeting at Scottish Power's grid control centre two weeks ago in Kirkintilloch, is that that problem is not impossible to work out. We already have back-up in Cruachan, for example, that will ensure the stability of the grid. In 1990, the Government in Denmark secured grid stability by giving leadership and support to the upgrading of the grid. If Denmark can do that, so can we. Does not the minister wish that he had the power that the Danish Government has to ensure that we have a secure, renewable and sustainable future?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I am short of time.

Nora Radcliffe talked about upgrading the grid. That issue will be resolved when the Government gives leadership and gets the power to do that. In 1990, Denmark—a small country like Scotland—upgraded its grid and is reaping the benefits of that now.

John Home Robertson gave us Labour's old scare stories, saying that, if people vote for the SNP and independence, 600 jobs will be lost in Torness. However, in Denmark, 14,000 jobs have been created in the renewable energy market, which completely dwarfs the 600 jobs that John Home Robertson talked about.

Phil Gallie said that, when the 1,200 megawatts from Hunterston disappear in 10 years' time, the lights will go out. I am sorry, but that is not the case. Scottish Power is already looking at producing 450 megawatts from a wind farm in Eaglesham and others are looking at producing 600 megawatts from wind farms in the Western Isles. That amount of energy almost meets the amount that Hunterston produces.

We have to get away from the continual scare stories. We are talking about a Scotland that can invest in and promote renewable energy. We are also talking about the powers of the Government. At the moment, the Scottish Government does not have the power to do more than promote renewable energy. I am delighted that the minister has confirmed that he has the power to say no to nuclear new build in Scotland. Will he confirm now that he will use that power and say no to nuclear new build in Scotland? The minister said that Westminster could overrule the Scottish Executive but that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament would have to approve any overrule of that derogation. Will the minister make it clear that, if Westminster makes such a move, the Scottish Government will refuse to allow that power to be taken away from the Scottish people?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I would be happy to confirm what Fiona McLeod would have heard had she listened to my contribution, which is that those powers lie with Scottish ministers and there is no expectation that that position will change.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The minister should just say no. He should stand up for Scotland and say that those powers are ours and that we are keeping them, no matter what.

The other MSPs in the chamber have until 5 o'clock tonight to consider the motion and the amendment and to reach the conclusion that, if the minister cannot say that he will stand up for the Scottish people's rights on energy and non-nuclear build, they will stand up for them instead by voting for the SNP motion.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That concludes the debate on nuclear power stations.

National Health Service

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2882, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the national health service, and two amendments to that motion.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The purpose of the debate is not to criticise the Government's health record purely for the sake of it. My criticisms have a purpose. The debate stems from a belief that the problems in the health service will never be put right while we have a Government that sticks its head firmly in the sand or witters on about a patient-centred health service at a time when more than 100,000 people languish on waiting lists, unable to receive treatment. The Government seems to think that, as its amendment says, investing

"substantial real-term increases in ... resources"

makes everything fine, notwithstanding the fact that the resources are not delivering substantial improvements in patient care and seem destined to be lost forever in the bureaucracy that stifles our NHS.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I ask Bill Butler to wait a few minutes.

The problems in the NHS will not be put right until their principal underlying cause is acknowledged and addressed. That cause is declining capacity. No matter how much money goes into the NHS nor how much effort goes into redesigning services around the needs of patients, we will get out of the NHS only what it has the capacity to deliver.

On the evidence of the past three years, the NHS is delivering less. That is happening in spite of the very best efforts of the men and women who work in the service. They do a sterling job; however, they are not miracle workers. They cannot be expected constantly to do more with less, and to treat more patients more quickly when they have fewer staff and beds at their disposal.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Bill Butler is obviously keen this morning.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will Ms Sturgeon be good enough to tell us what additional moneys or resources an SNP Administration would direct to the NHS? From which other budget would those moneys be taken, or would the money be found through a combination of that and raising tax?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is always comforting to find out that Labour members have their briefing papers out in time for a debate. If Mr Butler will be patient, I will come to resources in a moment, because the Labour lot is completely incompetent on that issue.

In spite of the best efforts of those who work in the service, the NHS is not delivering because it cannot. There are now more than 100 fewer whole-time equivalent nurses in our NHS than there were in 1999, and 250 fewer than there were in 1997. Scotland is the only part of the UK where nurse numbers are declining. In England, nurse numbers have increased by almost 30,000, while in Scotland they are down by more than 100. Furthermore, since 1999, when the Lib-Lab coalition came to power, there has been a reduction of nearly 700 staffed beds in the acute sector.

The result of those cuts in beds and nurse numbers is that fewer patients are being treated on the NHS. Five thousand fewer elective in-patients were treated in the last three months of last year than were treated in the first three months of 1999.

Of course, the Government will argue that that does not mean that patients were not being treated, but that it means simply that more were treated without having to stay overnight in hospitals and that the redesign of services meant that more patients were treated as day cases and as out-patients. Although that argument is persuasive, it has one major flaw: it is not true. Nearly 9,000 fewer patients were treated as day cases in the last quarter of 2001 than were treated in the first quarter of 1999. I repeat; the number of day cases is down by 9,000. I suppose, then, that all those people must have been treated as out-patients. Well, no. When we compare the same two periods, we find that the number of outpatients has fallen by 64,000. It is not that more patients are being treated in a more appropriate setting, but that more patients are not being treated at all. No amount of spin will disguise the fact that, under Labour, the NHS is treating nearly 80,000 fewer patients.

We have had much wringing of hands from the Government about waiting lists and waiting times; even the First Minister said last month that the figures remain "stubbornly high". Of course they are and there is really no mystery about it. If the service treats fewer patients, more patients will be waiting for treatment. Indeed, 16,000 more patients are waiting for treatment now than when the Government took office, and that is before we take account of its various fiddles to keep lists artificially low.

Nor is the increase in waiting times a mystery. They are now 10 days longer than they were in 1999 and fewer patients are being treated within the Government's target times. However, if there are fewer beds and nurses, it is no surprise that people wait for longer to be seen. This is not rocket science, but it seems to have outwitted the Scottish Executive.

However, to be fair—as I always am—one part of the NHS is expanding and treating more patients. It seems that more patients are being treated as emergency cases, which means that there has been expansion in the one part of the system that no Government can control—the number of patients who go through the doors of accident and emergency departments. I wonder how many of the extra patients who end up in accident and emergency do so only because they cannot get treatment in the parts of the system that the Government controls.

No matter what measure is used, we reach the same stark and simple conclusion: the NHS is shrinking under Labour. We know that the Tories are happy with that situation, because a smaller NHS will leave more room for the private sector in the delivery of health care. The Tory amendment reaffirms that they want to expand the private sector at the expense of the NHS. Indeed, they want to privatise the health service.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Ben Wallace should just listen. Before he and the other Tories rise and start talking about bed reductions in the health service, they should reflect on a parliamentary answer that was given yesterday to one of Mary Scanlon's questions. The answer revealed that, in the last six years of the previous Tory Government, bed numbers in Scotland fell by 10,000. Labour is simply continuing the decline that the Tories began.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will Nicola Sturgeon also compare the figures from that time with the rise in the number of patients and in-patients who were treated, the increase in the number of procedures that were carried out in the NHS and the reduction in waiting times that all happened under the Tories?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will leave to Mary Scanlon the impossible task of defending the Tory record on the issue.

We know the Tories' agenda; however, what is Labour's excuse? Is it simply following the Tory agenda—as it certainly is south of the border—of shrinking the NHS to make more room for the private sector, or is it just incompetent? Bill Butler should listen carefully to the point that I am going to make about resources. A Government that invests

"substantial real-term increases in health resources"

and yet gets fewer beds and nurses and treats fewer patients for its money is not a Government that is managing the country's health service well. Patients want to know where the money goes in the health service.

I hope that we can all agree that, whatever the reasons for the shrinking NHS, it cannot be allowed to continue. There must be a determination to halt and reverse the decline in capacity in the health service, and such a process should start with the number of acute beds in the system.

The decline in acute bed numbers has gone too far. Any room for reduction as a result of shorter stays in hospital has already been used up. On the figures that I mentioned earlier, there is no evidence of a shift from in-patients to day cases and out-patients that would justify the reduction. That is my firm view. I dare say that Malcolm Chisholm will stand up in a few moments and argue the opposite, although—given the statistics I have just cited—he will struggle. It is Labour's policy to oppose anything that is suggested by the Scottish National Party. If we said that free fruit for children was a good idea, Labour would say that it was not; in fact, it did so last year.

That is why I am calling for an end to the polarised debate between the SNP—which says that there are too few beds in the health service—and the Government, which says that there are too many. It is time for an independent assessment of how many beds will be needed in the health service in the medium to long term, taking account of all the developments and redesign of health care delivery that the Scottish Executive talks about.

We need a national beds review. That has already happened down south, when Alan Milburn recognised that

"the trend of the last decade or more of reductions in hospital beds cannot keep pace with changing"

needs.

The outcome of that national beds review south of the border was a commitment to 7,000 extra beds in the national health service—7,000 extra beds in England, while bed numbers in Scotland continue to fall, and fall further with every private finance initiative contract that is signed by the Government. The NHS cannot go on like that. We need that independent process here in Scotland because only when we have an educated assessment of how many beds patients in Scotland need can other resources be properly planned.

There is no doubt that the NHS is shrinking. The Minister for Health and Community Care should acknowledge that, halt it and plan to reverse it. It is not—and should not—be beyond us to design a health service that works for a population of only 5 million. However, to begin doing so we need less rhetoric and more honest action.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that there are fewer nurses and fewer acute beds in the NHS now than in 1999, that the NHS is treating fewer out-patients, in-patients and day case patients now than in 1999, that fewer patients are being seen within the Scottish Executive's target times than was the case in 1999, that there are 16,000 more people on NHS waiting lists now than in 1999 and that median waiting times are 10 days longer than in 1999; is concerned that the NHS is shrinking, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to pursue policies that will reverse this reduction in capacity and deliver an NHS of the standard that patients in Scotland are entitled to expect.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Like Nicola Sturgeon, I like debates that have a purpose and would like an end to polarisation. However, for that to happen, we require a sophisticated and balanced analysis of the situation. We must acknowledge that there is complexity and we must recognise problems and progress.

For the 15 weeks during which I have been Minister for Health and Community Care, I have been prepared to be up-front about the difficulties that we face, whether in relation to unacceptable delays, staff recruitment and morale or any other issue. I am not, however, prepared to pretend that everything is bad and that no progress is being made. Such a pretence is insulting and demoralising for staff. It is contrary to the experience of patients and it is contradicted every week as I go around the country and see the superb service that is provided by staff, and the many different ways in which they are leading the redesign of services around the needs of patients.

I could mention many recent visits. For example, in Ayrshire this week I saw at Ayr hospital many redesigned services involving urology, cataracts and nurse endoscopy services. The previous week, I saw information technology services in Fort William, where services for patients are being improved and time is being freed up for front-line staff. The week before that, I was in Dundee, where I saw the improved quality of care that has been brought about by a new linear accelerator. I also saw work with patients throughout the hospital to develop patient information and use patient feedback to improve the quality of care.

Quality and patient focus are words that are absent from today's motion, but which are crucial for patients and are at the heart of our health agenda.

The motion talks of nurses, beds, waiting, activity and, most of all, 1999. On activity, I remind members that until now only consultant activity has been counted. The work of the nurse endoscopist to whom I spoke on Monday has not hitherto been recorded. Work is now in hand to develop recording systems that will capture the full range of NHS activity. I also remind members of the many advances that might reduce headline activity figures. They include quality improvements, which might involve spending more time with patients or in preparing treatment; reductions in junior doctor hours, which is good for quality but also has an effect on activity; and the working time directive, which has benefited other staff groups.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If all the figures can be explained away by improvements in the way in which patients are cared for, why do we have rising waiting lists and rising waiting times in Scotland?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

We actually have falling waiting lists and falling in-patient waiting times. However, I acknowledge that we have a problem with out-patient waiting times. We are the first Administration to focus on that and will take action on it.

Notwithstanding the issues that I mentioned before the intervention, I will select a few figures—it is important that Mary Scanlon should hear this. Compared with 1997, the NHS is treating 25,000 more emergency in-patients and 58,300 more day cases each year. It is dealing with 50,300 more in-patients and day-case episodes, 11,000 more first out-patient appointments and 60,000 more accident and emergency attendances each year. Compared with 1997, the NHS has 17 more adult intensive care unit beds, 220 more one-stop clinics, 450 more qualified nurses and 230 more consultants.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister is guilty of misleading the chamber. He says that there are 200 one-stop clinics more than in 1997, but a ministerial answer to me listed renamed departments in hospitals that had seen no change or reconfiguration. To claim that those 200 one-stop clinics are extra is to mislead the chamber.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have seen the list. I have visited quite a few of the clinics and hope to visit more. I have seen the excellent work that they do, and what the member has indicated is certainly not what they are telling me.

Similar and corresponding staff increases since 1999 can be recorded, although there are two issues in that. First, there is a very short time scale because the latest staff figures are for 2000. Secondly, the other fact that we must take into account is that, during the winter of 1998-99, there was a waiting list initiative that cleared a backlog of people who had been waiting for a long time for surgical procedures. That was an unrepresentative blip in activity rates—we must bear that in mind when we make comparisons with 1999.

The other thing to bear in mind in relation to the trend since then is that, in many cases—if I had time I could quote figures to show it—the number of qualified acute nurses is increasing and the number of qualified nurses in the community is increasing. However, the number of learning disability nurses in hospitals is decreasing. That is quite right because we want people who have learning disabilities to be cared for in the community. Many of those nurses go on with their caring role as council employees and are no longer recorded in the nurse statistics.

I have only two minutes left, so I will not quote the array of statistics from 1999 until now that show that progress is being made in relation to staff numbers, intensive care beds, waiting times for heart bypass surgery—which have been halved—and so on. I do that not out of complacency, but in the interests of balance. The NHS is not shrinking, but it is rightly and most certainly changing.

More people are being treated closer to home in local primary care practices and health centres, with procedures that were previously performed only in hospitals. The number of local fast-track clinics in Scotland has increased since 1999. Given that nine out of 10 patient contacts with the NHS come through primary care teams, it is astonishing that primary care is not mentioned in the motion.

I have addressed waiting and I have only a short time left, so I will not say more about that. I have said how we are increasing the number of doctors and nurses—that will continue, not only because we want to do more to tackle waiting, but because we want to improve the quality of patient care.

Scotland has led the way in improving outcomes for patients in the NHS. The experience of the Bristol inquiry has made improving the quality, and not just the quantity, of care all the more critical. That is why we have provided funding for nearly 500 more junior doctors in Scotland, to reduce their hours and improve the quality of the care that they can provide to patients.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have no time, I am afraid.

More progress has been made in improving junior doctors' hours and conditions since 1999 than was made in the previous decade—in quality and not just quantity. We are building up our nursing work force, so that it can spend more quality time with patients in aiding their recovery and rehabilitation. More qualified nurses are working in our hospitals compared with 1999 and earlier this month I announced new initiatives to get more nurses into training, to get nurses back in the NHS through the return-to-practice courses, and to guarantee nurses a year's employment as soon as they qualify. There is a series of other initiatives, with £5 million attached to them, that are being driven forward by the implementation of the recruitment and retention of nurses policy. I am chairing the group that is doing that.

Many initiatives are under way to deal with some of the problems, which I acknowledge. I repeat that today's debate should be not only about quantity, but about quality. I have not had time to mention the work of the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland, whose important report on cancer services will be published next week. We are determined to improve the quality of care as well as the quantity of care. Both objectives are now being driven forward with determination.

I move amendment S1M-2882.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"congratulates the staff of the NHS in Scotland on their commitment and dedication; welcomes their leadership role in redesigning services around the needs of patients; notes that this often leads to a different configuration of services and to some new activities that have not traditionally been counted; applauds the on-going and varied work to improve quality in health services, and acknowledges the substantial real-term increases in health resources since 1999, which are supporting the programme of patient-centred reform."

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Another week, another health debate. Last week we debated the shrinking provision of community care and this week we debate the shrinking provision of the NHS.

I challenge Nicola Sturgeon, because she concentrates far too much on the number of beds rather than on the number of procedures. Cataract surgery, for example, is now done in hours instead of five days. With advanced technology and shorter stays in hospital, we would expect lower waiting lists, but that is not happening.

Anyone who pledged their troth to Labour in 1999, given the promise of support in sickness and in health, would now have serious grounds for divorce on the basis of promises that were made but not kept. If we could have an open, honest and transparent debate, in which issues were addressed in an accountable manner, people would have the right to feel reassured about our national health service. Instead, despite all the failings over five years by Labour, and then by the Labour-Liberal coalition, we get an amendment from the health ministers that fails to acknowledge, let alone address, the problem. We would all congratulate NHS staff on their commitment and sheer hard work and their provision of quality care against all the odds. At least the ministers are honest enough not to congratulate themselves; surely that is progress.

I hope that the ministers realise that the consultations, reviews, strategies and glossy brochures of the past are not translating themselves into improved levels of patient care. After three years of devolution and the ability to manage the health service in Scotland, instead of the progress that we expected, we are being left behind England in creating a modern, forward looking and patient-centred NHS that utilises all the health care resources in Scotland. The dogma against the independent and voluntary sectors is insulting to patients who want simply the best standards of treatment. We owe it to them to provide that service.

It is worth reminding the Labour party at the outset that it has now been in Government for five years. After five years, it is striving to cut waiting times to a maximum of nine months. Nine months was the maximum waiting time under the Conservatives; that was branded as scandalous by Malcolm Chisholm. In Labour's 1997 and 1999 manifestos, we saw promises to raise spending and to spend the money on patients and not on bureaucracy. We had no idea that that would mean an increase in the staff who are in charge of that bureaucracy. Yesterday, I received a written answer from the minister, which confirmed that there has been an increase of seven administrative staff per 100 NHS beds during Labour's five years in office. In this age of advancing technology, we now have two administration staff per NHS bed. If similar investment were to be made in infection control, we could save lives, reduce suffering and free up hospital beds.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

If Mary Scanlon revisits the question that I answered last week, she will see that the number of administrative staff rose to a peak at the height of the internal market in 1995, has reduced by more than 1,000 since then and will continue to reduce.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It has not reduced in line with the number of hospital beds. That is what the question was about.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

It was a daft question.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It was not a daft question. It was a daft answer, because the minister confirmed that there are now two admin staff per NHS bed, according to his own figures.

The increase in administrative staff has come on the back of the abolition of the internal market, which was hailed by previous health ministers as the cause of so much bureaucracy; however, the abolition of the internal market has created even more bureaucracy. The figures not only confirm the reduced capacity and longer waiting lists and waiting times, but behind those figures are closed waiting lists and reclassification of figures. At a recent meeting of MSPs from all parties and Highland NHS Board, we were told that 300 names could instantly be wiped from the waiting list of 3,000 for Raigmore hospital through a reclassification process that has been recommended by the Executive. A cut of 10 per cent throughout Scotland would enable the Executive to claim a cut in waiting lists, but not one more patient would be treated.

The waiting times co-ordination unit is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but the Executive is—with its action on delayed discharge—admitting its failure to improve the health care system. Scotland's independent hospitals have claimed that they can help to cut NHS waiting lists by up to 10,000. With the situation deteriorating to such a level, will the minister now take a leaf out of Alan Milburn's book and fully utilise that capacity by signing a concordat for a permanent agreement in Scotland to put patients first?

I move amendment S1M-2882.1, to insert at end:

"by signing a 'concordat' with the independent and voluntary sector in similar terms to that already established in England, and further calls upon the Executive to initiate a debate in Scotland about how to improve the delivery of health care to standards similar to the best European countries, whilst ensuring that access to high quality care is guaranteed for all."

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Health remains the No 1 issue for the people of Scotland and the key spending priority for the Scottish Executive, with a third of the Executive budget being spent on it. We are committed to record levels of investment in the NHS and in Scotland's health generally, and we are making that investment against a background of growing demand, which was highlighted by the minister. There are 58,000 more day cases, 50,000 more in-patient cases and 60,000 more accident and emergency cases. In comparison to England, we have 20 per cent more spend per head of population and greater numbers of doctors, nurses and beds. While Mr Blair and Mr Brown may slug it out over whether or not to raise general taxation to bring England to a European average health spend, Scotland is already there.

The minister has made it clear in statements, today and in the past few weeks, that he appreciates the challenges that lie ahead and that there remains a mixed picture of problems and of progress in the NHS. For any health debate to be credible, it must acknowledge both sides of that picture. The No 1 concern for all our constituents remains that of waiting times. The Liberal Democrats certainly welcome the Executive's recent shift to focusing on waiting times rather than on waiting lists, which was our policy prior to the 1999 election. That is what the people whom we represent are interested in.

We also welcome the minister's recent announcement of £20 million to tackle NHS waiting times. That much-needed investment includes £15 million for local NHS boards to make progress towards the Executive's 2003 target of reducing the maximum waiting time for an operation to nine months. Crucially, it also sets up a £5 million national flexible fund to allow the national waiting times unit to clear, from April onwards, certain bottlenecks, including tonsillectomies and angioplasty. That will allow targeted use of nurses and other staff in endoscopy and other tasks that have previously been done by doctors. Such approaches have already been developed in Fife and the Forth Valley area. In Fife, nurses undertaking endoscopies on patients with gastric problems has reduced the waiting time for the procedure from 16 weeks to four weeks and has freed up a significant amount of consultant time.

The major flaw in a very flawed SNP motion is that it does not highlight the fact that a major shift in service delivery is under way in our health service. Major changes are happening. If we look at selective activity figures and indicators, we may sometimes see evidence of a fall in the numbers of patients. If we look at other selective figures, we may see completely the opposite. However, such figures fail to show that, in many cases, a fall in numbers is due to advances in clinical practice and changes in service delivery. The fall in numbers began from a high point in 1999, when a major waiting list initiative got under way. That may also distort the figures.

Unfortunately, many innovative changes on the ground have not been recorded so far, because many of the data collected centrally reflect only consultant-led activity.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I agree that there are many innovative ways of treating patients in the NHS, and we all welcome that. However, if those innovations are delivering what the member claims, why are people waiting longer?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

We are delivering more against growing demand. More people are making demands on the NHS and many procedures that are delivered at community level are not recorded and set against the figures that the SNP quotes from previous years.

I welcome the fact that the chief executive of the NHS in Scotland, Trevor Jones, has asked the information and statistics division to put in place new recording procedures to capture the work that is undertaken outwith the acute hospital setting, whether in local health centres or in Scotland's 300 one-stop clinics, which have trebled in the past two years.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No. The fall in the number of in-patients reflects advances in practice and a shift from the acute sector to primary care—again, that is not mentioned in the motion—with more patients now being treated as day cases, out-patients or in the community. The percentage of elective admissions treated as day cases, for example, has risen from 25 per cent in 1986 to 62 per cent now.

That is good news for patients, as they are treated closer to home, and it is due to the hard work and flexibility of the 130,000 people who work in our health service. It is important that we treat patients in the best possible location for them and it is essential that we listen to what they want. The shift from long-stay institutional care for those with mental illness, learning disabilities and geriatric needs is continuing and is to be applauded.

I am sure that all MSPs know of examples from their own areas, but I would like to highlight the work that is being done in Edinburgh by assertive outreach mental health teams. Yesterday, with colleagues from other parties, I met and talked to staff to learn how their multidisciplinary, hands-on and holistic approach is keeping people out of the wards of the Royal Edinburgh hospital and in their own communities. Patients who would once upon a time have been seen as candidates for prolonged hospitalisation or institutionalisation can now remain in their own homes.

I am talking about trends.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

No, I am sorry.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member is in her final minute.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

One trend is clear. For three years, we have had to sit and listen to SNP health motions and all we hear is criticism of the Executive and the people who deliver the health service in Scotland. Not once in three years have we heard anything positive, constructive or radical from the SNP—independence is all that it offers to the people of Scotland. We have yet to hear one positive suggestion as to how we can improve the health service in Scotland.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We now move to open debate. If speeches are restricted to four minutes, all members who want to speak will be let in.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I want to begin by telling the chamber about Dr Donald Bissett, who is a cancer specialist in north-east Scotland. Nine months ago, he was involved in a tragic hill-climbing accident and was paralysed from the neck downwards. Only a few weeks ago, he returned to work in the north-east as a cancer specialist and now sees 50 patients a week with the help of full-time personal nurses and carers. We all associate bravery, determination, courage, dedication and professionalism with Donald Bissett and pay tribute to him.

We also associate dedication and professionalism with our NHS staff. The difficulty is that our professional and dedicated NHS staff are being undermined by the Executive's policies. NHS services in Grampian are in danger of shrinking—that is one reason why we are having this debate. In Grampian, the local trust carries out 10 per cent of NHS activity in Scotland with only 9 per cent of funding. As a result, hospitals in Grampian have cut their services to the bone in recent years. In fact, they are probably the most efficient hospitals in Scotland. Indeed, Alec Cumming, who gave evidence to the Audit Committee in February, said:

"Our cost-base—the average cost per patient—is very low. It is 10.6 per cent below the Scottish average. That is a major issue. In any speciality area, our costs of keeping patients in hospital are well below the Scottish average."—[Official Report, Audit Committee, 5 February 2002; c 985.]

Against that backdrop, Grampian NHS Board has brought forward reviews to make further cuts, as it faces a £6 million deficit. The first review proposed cutting £1.9 million of services as a result of duplication with the creation of Grampian NHS Board. I do not think that many members could argue with cutting some jobs and services; however, as a result of the deficit and the funding difficulties, it has brought forward a second review, which proposes cutting £4.3 million of non-clinical services. It would be a disaster for the NHS in Grampian if that proposal were implemented. It would mean that the non-clinical functions would be transferred to the front-line staff. That would have a tremendous impact on patient care.

Nicola Sturgeon and I visited a hospital in Grampian a couple of weeks ago.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Richard Lochhead's colleague Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP's spokesperson, mentioned waiting until there is a national bed review. For the sake of argument, let us say that a national bed review concluded that we need more beds. I want to ask about resources. If there was an SNP Administration, where would extra moneys come from? Would they come from additional tax, from another budget or by a combination?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I get the point. Perhaps the member could make different interventions in future debates and contribute something positive.

A couple of weeks ago, Nicola Sturgeon and I visited a hospital in Grampian. We discovered a service that is underfunded, overstretched and understaffed. It cannot handle any more cuts. We met the staff—nurses, management and consultants. The situation in Grampian is serious. Some 12 per cent of beds are blocked and there are nursing vacancies—the area is short of 17 paediatric nurses. How will people be attracted to work in Grampian if there are even more cuts?

No one is denying that there are challenges ahead for the NHS. However, we are talking about Scotland's—and Europe's—oil capital. The NHS is struggling to cope. It is discriminated against in respect of Government funding. The situation is ludicrous. I urge the minister to visit Grampian to see the situation at first hand and to act. If he takes the trouble to visit the hospital, I hope that he will see that there is a strong case for a slice of the £200 million underspend to go to Grampian to improve patient care and help people such as Dr Donald Bissett and his colleagues to continue to deliver a first-class service for patients.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

It is not surprising that I rise to support the Executive's amendment to the SNP's motion on the NHS. I could say that I was disappointed, surprised and shocked by the tenor and content of the motion, but that would be disingenuous of me, to say the least. I am afraid that the motion is all too typical of the SNP's approach.

Miss Sturgeon's motion and how she presented it convey an almost surreal, strange world of peculiar ingredients—a mixture of "Dad's Army" and Voltaire. In that world, according to the SNP, we are all doomed, doomed, I tell ye. According to the SNP—pace "Candide"—this is a time and place where all is for the worst, in the worst of all possible worlds. Such unremitting pessimism is not supported in any way by people's experience. Things are much more complicated than that.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

In a second.

That is not to pretend in any way that an organisation as large and complex as the NHS, which seeks to provide modern health care services to all communities throughout Scotland is perfect. I gently suggest to the SNP that that would be as unreasonable as the logic of its motion, which suggests that the Executive has presided over a total collapse of the NHS.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I think that the motion referred to "shrinking" rather than total collapse. As one of Mr Butler's constituents, I suggest to him that the experience of the NHS that I described is that of his constituents. If he does not know that as a constituency member, I respectfully suggest to him that he should get out more and see more of the people whom he professes to represent.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I am glad about Nicola Sturgeon's consideration that I should get out more, but I do get about my constituency and see people.

The minister referred to the problem with out-patient waiting lists. There are problems and I do not for one minute deny that there are challenges—it would be foolish to do so. However, the picture that is painted by the SNP motion is of unremitting doom. Miss Sturgeon is a modern-day Cassandra, except that her prophecies do not have substance. The NHS is not a picture of doom—it is about people delivering.

Let us have a few facts in the debate. For instance, public expenditure on health, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is higher than in the majority of smaller nations in the European Union. That is incontrovertible. The number of acute in-patient beds per thousand of population is among the highest in the European Union and the number of general practitioners per 1,000 of population is the highest of all of the small nations in the European Union.

On the vexed question of waiting lists, I accept that there is much to be done. However, I say to Ms Sturgeon that the total number of people waiting has decreased by 4,631, or 5.4 per cent, since December 2000. That is according to a national statistics release from the information and statistics division Scotland.

Of course, all of us in the chamber want to make provision to accelerate treatment and cut lists. We are all agreed on that. I believe that it is clear that the Executive is tackling that complex challenge. It is not a simplistic challenge or a simplistic picture, as put forward by the national party. It is complex because an increasingly sophisticated range of treatments is available and we are investing record resources to deliver the treatments that people demand.

I will end with a fact. The resources that the Executive has put into the NHS in Scotland will have risen from £4.9 billion in 1999/2000 to almost £7 billion by 2003. When national party members are asked how they would invest additional moneys they are less than convincing, as is their party's motion. That question will be asked time and again by Labour and Liberal members. Opposition is about criticism, but it is also about providing constructive alternatives and we have yet to hear those from the national party. Therefore, I urge support for the Executive's amendment. It is realistic and it paints the real picture of the NHS in Scotland.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

What an odd and entertaining performance that was from Bill Butler. When my constituents come to my surgeries to complain about the national health service, I will be sure to let them know that Bill Butler thinks that they live in a fantasy world. I am sure that they will be pleased with that response from the Labour party.

The truth is that the NHS is not only shrinking in terms of numbers—some of the numbers have been mentioned already—but it is contracting in terms of its physical presence. I know about that from Tayside. Following the interminable Tayside acute services review, I am convinced that the managers of the health services in Tayside are thirled to a centralising agenda. Across a wide spectrum of health care provision—from Perth royal infirmary's children's ward, kidney dialysis and maternity provision through to the helicopter ambulance service—that fear has been real and of great concern to my constituents and to many others throughout the health board area.

As the minister knows, the most active campaign has been to preserve maternity services at Perth royal infirmary. Last December, I expressed my concern about the lack of progress on the midwife-consultant partnership as a national demonstration project. The impression then was that the partnership was being set up to fail so that the centralisation option could be pushed ahead.

There are now rumours of an Executive ultimatum to Tayside NHS Board, which would result in the imposition of a midwife-led unit, but nobody involved in the maternity services in Perth—from the professionals through to the patients—wants that or believes that that is appropriate. Even more important, the people of Perthshire showed that they did not want that during the review. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care will take the opportunity today to disavow any such behind-the-scenes manoeuvring and to put people's minds at rest. The deputy minister could also advise of progress on the demonstration project in her closing speech, since neither she nor the Minister for Health and Community Care are leaping to their feet now.

If the midwife-consultant partnership is not to be, the only feasible option for maternity services at PRI is the existing consultant-led unit, unless of course the Minister for Health and Community Care is intent on completely destroying public confidence in Perthshire.

This is not only about maternity services. Clinical nurse specialists who work in the field of psychotherapy have recently contacted me. The service that they have been providing has been curtailed and it is now clear that not all areas of Perthshire will be covered by the service. That is the shrinking NHS in Tayside. That is the answer to the Minister for Health and Community Care's comments at the beginning about how those services are being rolled out to offer greater provision. The reality is the opposite.

I have no doubt that, in summing up, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care will try to assert that the NHS is doing well under the Executive and that it is safe in their hands. Facts tell a different story. What matters to my constituents is the experience that they have and they are not satisfied.

I will copy the correspondence on a recent case to the Minister for Health and Community Care, but I think that outlining it will help the debate. One of my constituents attended his GP and was told that he would have to be referred to a specialist at PRI. He received a letter dated 22 February 2002 informing him that the out-patient appointment was on 4 March 2003. That is absolutely ludicrous. That is a waiting time of more than a year and that is the reality being experienced by my constituents.

The NHS is shrinking. The 1999 to 2001 activity statistics from Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust show that: elective in-patients are down; day cases are down; the percentage admitted within three months is down; total out-patients are down; bed numbers are down throughout Tayside generally and in particular at PRI; and the median waiting time for in-patients is up. That is the answer to Bill Butler. Those are the realities that my constituents and those right across Tayside have to face. Fewer beds are available, fewer patients are treated and there are fewer nurses to care for them, and there is rampaging centralisation. The Executive has utterly failed the NHS, throughout Scotland and in Tayside in particular.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Before I enter into the main body of my speech, it is worth picking up a couple of points that have been made.

First, Nicola Sturgeon suggested that the root of the difficulty faced by the health service is the lack of beds. If Nicola Sturgeon was the transport spokesman for the SNP, she is the sort of person who would say, "the difficulty with public transport is that we do not have enough buses." I am sorry, we do not measure the success of public transport by the number of buses: we measure its success by the number of people who make their journeys on the buses. The problem with the NHS is not the number of beds, but the lack of operations—the falling number of operations and the lack of attentiveness to operations in the NHS. A beds review will not solve the problem. I will not take Nicola Sturgeon's intervention; I have only four minutes.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I did not want to intervene.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

For Margaret Smith to suggest that the problem for the NHS is greater demand is tantamount to saying, "People are more sick under Labour and the Liberal Democrats."

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will Mr Monteith take an intervention?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I will not take Margaret Smith's intervention either. We know that people are not more sick, but they are more sick of Labour and the Liberal Democrats being in power and failing to manage the NHS.

Last month, a constituent contacted me about his grandfather in Strathblane, who appeared to have suffered a stroke. It could not be anything but noticed that the GP was there to help out within three minutes, but that it was a further two hours before an ambulance came to Strathblane to take the grandfather to hospital. I appreciate that the incident occurred in rural west Stirlingshire and that that poor standard of service is a rarity. However, we subsequently found out that rare it may be, but it does happen from time to time in that part of Stirlingshire. Many Scots recognise that the standard of service has, in many areas, deteriorated rather than improved since Labour and the Liberals formed their coalition.

The motion mentions the shrinking NHS. I suspect that people in Dunfermline will identify with the shrinking of the NHS when they consider what might happen to the Queen Margaret hospital there, which is currently under review. The people in Stirling—which I am glad to believe might become a city today—and Falkirk will be concerned about the review of their royal infirmaries. The people in Perth, as Roseanna Cunningham has pointed out, are concerned about the provision for maternity care and services at Perth royal infirmary. Those people, who see the result of acute services reviews, are concerned about the shrinking of the NHS.

In the Forth valley, the length of time that people have to wait for treatment has shot up since the Scottish Executive assumed responsibility for health matters in 1999. Residents are now waiting more than a week longer for treatment in hospital: it has gone up from an average 32-day wait almost three years ago to a 40-day wait now. The number admitted for treatment within three months has also declined, from about 82 per cent to 77 per cent, over the same period. Out-patients in the region are now waiting more than a week-and-a-half longer. They wait on average for 65 days for a hospital appointment, compared to 54 days in June 1999. The number of out-patients that are seen within nine months has also declined. The figure for the Forth valley, which is replicated in other parts of Scotland, is down from 57 per cent to 49 per cent.

Tangible improvements in the service require a change of policy from the Scottish Executive. All that has been delivered so far is yet another addition to the Government's ever expanding health team, this time in the shape of a ministerial parliamentary aide. The Executive does not seem to understand that the growing team is not the solution, but part of the problem. Unfortunately for residents in the Forth valley, Fife and elsewhere, there seems to be little prospect of ministers allowing the simple truth to sink in, that it is not inputs, but outputs that matter.

I support the Conservative amendment.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Conservative's worst attack is that Mr Chisholm has a ministerial aide—that is pretty devastating stuff. In his opening speech, Mr Chisholm made some sensible remarks about the problems that face the NHS, which is a refreshingly honest approach from a ministerial team. He also illustrated what is being done about the problems by mentioning the resources and the philosophy that the Liberal Democrat and Labour Administration has introduced.

Some refreshing honesty from the other parties would not go amiss. Despite Mr Butler's efforts, he did not get an answer to his pretty straight question about resources. Perhaps the SNP will answer him in the winding-up speeches. The minister gave a precise answer to the Conservative spokesperson's question about administration, but the Conservatives did not appear to hear it.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No, I want to make some progress. We heard what Nicola Sturgeon had to say earlier on.

I will take the opposite tack from that of SNP members, who ducked the question of resources, and will illustrate where resources could be used more effectively. At present, NHS Shetland spends £1.1 million on flying patients from Shetland to Aberdeen for various treatments and procedures. In the Western Isles and Orkney a comparable amount is spent on flying patients to the mainland. To be frank, £1.1 million spent on British Airways is a scandal. I would rather that the money was spent on front-line care in the Shetlands, such as doctors, nurses and treatments. I encourage ministers to consider closely—and to tackle constructively—the money that island health boards spend to fly patients to hospitals, such as those in Glasgow, Inverness or Aberdeen.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does Tavish Scott recognise that the expertise and specialism in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Inverness and Aberdeen hospitals does not exist in Shetland? Does not he wish that patients in Shetland should have access to that expertise?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I accept that, but Mary Scanlon completely misses the point. My concern is why my constituents who travel to Aberdeen for specialist treatment must pay £300 for the round trip on British Airways. That is the point; if Mary Scanlon knew anything about island life, she would understand it. I hope that ministers will consider alternatives in that area. I suggest that resources might be reallocated.

We must consider how we can best spend resources. Those who make the system work, such as staff nurses, doctors and ancillary staff, are a great resource. However, more needs to be done in supporting their work. That means supporting the physical infrastructure and providing new equipment, and also improving terms and conditions. This week, I received a letter from a GP in my constituency. He said:

"There is always more pressure to do things in GP that were done in hospitals, but there seems no transfer of money with the transfer of workload, so therefore there is more pressure on time for all staff."

I hope that among the measures that will be introduced, initiatives for isolated rural GPs will be considered carefully.

Expectations are rising in the general population. New procedures are devised to meet those expectations, which will rise again as a result. Local staff gave me three examples of such procedures. They were dual energy X-ray absorptiometry—DEXA—scans to determine the need for protection against osteoporosis, new drug treatments such as statins to protect against heart disease by lowering blood fats and new procedures such as joint replacements and coronary artery bypass grafts.

The aging population and the change in the aspirations and requirements of the population lead to increased demand on the system. I do not accept the utterly spurious argument that some members have put forward that demand is not rising—that is demonstrably not the case. Anyone who is closely involved in constituency work will know that and should try to find constructive ways around it. For example, if we tackle the moneys that are spent wastefully on British Airways flights, we could find more money for the delivery of health services in constituencies such as mine.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

As Mary Scanlon said, another week, another health debate. Earlier this week, I wondered what topic the SNP would choose for today's debate. Health is a wide-ranging subject and I mused on which specific area the SNP would focus. When I saw Nicola Sturgeon's motion yesterday morning, I was not surprised that the SNP had not chosen one of the diverse areas of the health remit. Yet again, we have the usual moaning and groaning and doing down of the NHS, which helps only to demoralise staff and to frighten patients. How many times must we listen to that in the chamber? How many times must we emphasise the facts before they finally filter through?

As Bill Butler mentioned, it is a fact that health spending in Scotland increased from £4.9 billion in 1999 to nearly £7 billion in 2003. We must emphasise that.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

No. Nicola Sturgeon had a good opportunity to say what she had to say. We have heard it all.

It is a fact that health spending will continue to increase at record levels year on year under this Government. It is a fact that six new hospitals have been built and that two more are on stream as part of the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS in Scotland.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

We do not need lessons from Ben Wallace on rebuilding the NHS.

I have given the facts, not the type of scaremongering that those in opposition—I use the term widely—put about. The SNP motion mentions

"fewer nurses and fewer acute beds",

but 10,000 more nurses will qualify by 2005, which is 1,500 more than was planned.

As the minister mentioned, the Executive recognises that the recruitment and retention of nursing staff is vital. The many new initiatives, such as fully funded return-to-practice courses and guaranteed employment for newly qualified nurses, go some way towards addressing the issue. However, as I have said on other occasions, we must go further by considering how we train our nurses and whether we can offer a less academic route into the profession. There is a vast, untapped resource of people who would prefer that type of career.

The fundamental point about bed numbers escapes some members. Working in the NHS is a continual learning curve. New technology, new surgical techniques and new research findings lead to continually changing protocols and ways of working. Minor surgery once necessitated a stay in hospital, but that is not now the case. Each month, more procedures become suitable for day treatment, which reduces the need for beds. Some members get hung up on reductions in bed numbers because they simply do not understand the issue.

The SNP motion claims that the NHS is shrinking, which shows a complete lack of understanding of the way in which the service works. The SNP members are laughing—I am glad that it is amusing to them because it is not amusing to me.

As a constituency MSP, it would be remiss of me to say that everything in the garden is rosy. I am the first to say that we have not yet got things right. Like that of other members, my postbag reflects the fact that some people wait too long for treatment. The minister acknowledged that out-patient waiting times are not as we would wish. However, for the first time in many years, work is under way to address the problem.

There is a good story to tell on health and it is time that we told it. I will never forget the 18 years of Tory rule. In opposition, it is easy to blame those in Government, which is what we hear from the SNP day in and day out. I speak from first hand experience of those years. What would the SNP do if, heaven forbid, it had the chance? Nicola Sturgeon and her colleagues should put their money where their mouths are. They should show us their policies and tell us exactly how they would fund them. Independence tomorrow would immediately reduce Scotland's health budget by £1 billion. How many more patients would suffer then?

For every patient who has a complaint about the NHS, thousands more are delighted with the care that they receive. It is time that we started to focus on the positives. As the Executive amendment says, we commend the commitment and dedication of NHS staff. We owe it to them and to patients to look to the future in a positive light.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I am not sure what Janis Hughes—who is an excellent member of the Health and Community Care Committee—means when says that she addresses us as a constituency MSP. She has one constituency, but she should try dealing with three in the east end of Glasgow. List MSPs have to hold surgeries and have a huge work load as well.

I want to address an issue on which I think all members agree. Postcode prescribing is one of the greatest injustices in the NHS. Imagine a battlefield casualty-receiving station and many soldiers with the same serious wounds. A doctor asks one, "Where do you come from?" "Edinburgh," the soldier replies. "Oh, you are all right," says the doctor. Others say, "Tayside," and they are okay. However, if anyone says, "Glasgow," the doctor says, "Sorry." That is what it is like. Certain drugs are not available to people if they live in the west of Scotland. Where a person lives is still where they die—and they die earlier, if they live in Glasgow. That happens not just for social reasons such as appalling housing, but because the funding is refused for certain drugs that are funded elsewhere.

The Executive set up the Health Technology Board for Scotland to try to end postcode prescribing and NICE blight—blight caused by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in England, which has caused huge delays in the approval of drugs by health boards. NICE is being investigated by the House of Commons Select Committee on Health. However, what has been achieved in Scotland? The Health Technology Board for Scotland seems to be an exercise in putting a kilt on it, or making it seem Scottish. The board will report three months after NICE reports. That is ridiculous. I stress to the ministers the need to get on to the Health Technology Board for Scotland, to find out what on earth it is doing.

One patient in Glasgow, to whom I have referred before, has broken through where the Health Technology Board for Scotland, NICE and everyone else failed. She is a very brave woman from the Gorbals who has appealed to just about every MSP, pleading for her life, because she could not get the drug herceptin prescribed in Glasgow, because the health board would not fund it. After months of trying, she has succeeded. Yesterday came the very good news that the Greater Glasgow Health Board will fund herceptin and that four other health boards in the west will comply. That determined, very ill woman teamed up with my assistant—Evelyn McKechnie, to whom I pay tribute—who is a breast cancer survivor. Those two formidable women did a massive amount of work over 17 months on campaigning to get herceptin prescribed. Why should individuals have to try so hard? We cannot accept the continuation of postcode prescribing in any civilised society.

Turning to a consensual issue, I notice that Lord Palmer, at the House of Lords, is trying to abolish the Scottish Parliament. We all say to him, "Dream on." When we do what the public want us to do—when we try to do something sensible and obey public wishes—people approve. I am delighted to inform Parliament that there have been more than 100,000 hits on the Parliament webpage on the subject of chronic pain, which those of us on the cross-party group are trying to highlight as an issue. To find a way of restructuring the NHS, we must ask why people bother to use the NHS at all. The No 1 reason is that they are in pain, through some disorder or other. That is why surgeries are overcrowded. Back pain is the No 1 complaint at doctors' surgeries. Operations often do not work, and the queues for operations could be eased. We need proper specialist pain services to lift some of the 550,000 pain sufferers out of the operation queues. We should treat them properly and improve the NHS—it can be done.

I hope that we will get a positive response from the ministers. I am an incurable optimist and I believe that we will get a response that will enable us to progress down that road and do what the public are telling us to do.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We have heard a lot of doom and gloom from the Opposition parties about the state of the national health service. As usual, no solutions have been offered and we have not been told what those parties would do differently.

Earlier this week, I attended an event in my constituency at which 22 NHS staff were honoured for 20 to 30 years' service to the NHS. Those men and women had entered the service in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of them had worked for almost 39 years in the service and had shown dedication and loyalty throughout that time. Several of them told me afterwards that they were sick and tired of the NHS being used as a political football. Most important, they did not recognise the description of the NHS that was given in the media—of a service that was falling apart, in meltdown and lurching from one crisis to another. That was certainly not their experience of the NHS. Those who portray the service as on the point of collapse would do well to remember that. We need balance in this debate and we must approach the issues in an even-handed manner.

There can be no doubt that there are problems in the national health service. Only a fool would deny that the service faces many difficulties. However, judging from my constituency casework, waiting times seem to be the No 1 issue among service users. That is the main area of complaint from constituents. I am therefore delighted that the coalition has taken action on that issue. A waiting times unit has been set up and is beginning to produce solutions based on identifying spare capacity in the system and matching it with patients who are waiting. That is to be welcomed. Senior officials in Argyll and Clyde NHS Board believe that there is enough capacity in the NHS to deal with the backlog. However, there are massive questions about how beds, nurses, doctors, consultants and patients can be matched and brought together in the same place at the same time to ensure that the extra capacity can be used. The issue is not as simple as the number of acute beds—that is a simplified way of considering the problems in the NHS.

The fundamental problem facing the NHS is the lack of investment in it over the past 20 to 30 years, against a background of growing demand and an aging population. As the technology improves, people are living longer. The statistics show that clearly, although, disappointingly, because of the poor health record in Scotland, our statistics are much poorer than those south of the border. That creates extra demand on the NHS in Scotland. It is no coincidence that the United Kingdom sits at the bottom of the European league for health spending.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I ask Mr Lyon to give us a definitive answer. Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of the continuation of the Arbuthnott formula as it stands—yes or no?