Scottish Parliament, 20 November 2003

488 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Introduction

Poverty in Scotland

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on S2M-625, in the name of Carolyn Leckie, on poverty in Scotland, and three amendments to the motion.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

This is not the speech that I wanted to be making this morning. I wanted to say that no one cared about low pay this morning because Scotland were through, but unfortunately we were gubbed, so I am not able to make that speech.

More seriously—the matter is very serious—the top-paid businessman in Britain earned £564 million last year. Is it right that a single oil trader is worth the same as 51,000 hospital workers? I think not. The top earners' wages increased by 33 per cent on average last year, whereas public sector pay increased by less than 3 per cent. Members should take as examples people such as Margaret, who inputs complex data in the NHS and earns less than £11,000 a year; or Jim, a porter who just clears £180 a week basic and works for 60 or 70 hours a week to supplement his dire wage.

There are twice as many women in low-paid work as there are men and thirty per cent of workers in Scotland are below the Low Pay Unit threshold. The biggest growth area in this country is poverty in work. Even Buckingham Palace, which has a recruitment and retention problem that allowed a Daily Mirror journalist to secure a job, pays staff only £11,000 a year.

Women spend 90 per cent of their earnings on child care and other services that help them stay in work. Only one fifth of the poorest children in our country—the destitute poor—have parents in work.

We hear endless chattering from the four big parties about how to grow the economy; the usual solution is to give money to big business. The Scottish National Party plans to cut corporation tax, if it ever gets its hands on it, to 13 per cent. It wants to put more money into the hands and bank accounts of rich shareholders in New York, Tokyo and London. Surely it would be better to put the money into the hands of public sector workers—which it is possible for the Scottish Parliament to do—and give them money to spend.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is not for me to defend the SNP's economic policy, but is not it the case that cutting taxes is not so much about giving money to big businesses as it is about just not taking it away from them?

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I am sure that Brian Monteith knows that big business is already well endowed in the money department. Putting money into the hands of people who do not have money means that it is more likely that it will be spent in the economy rather than used to top up already-swollen bank accounts, as I am sure Brian Monteith realises. What I suggest would surely be better.

However, that is not enough. As members know, the Scottish Socialist Party wants an independent socialist Scotland that has control of all our resources, all taxation and so on. It is not enough merely to increase the minimum wage for public sector workers, although that is possible within the powers of the Parliament. I ask the Executive, "Why not?" That takes me to the 35-hour week, which would free people up to contribute to and enjoy life and contribute to the economy. People would make a greater contribution by spending more on recreation, such as going to the cinema and so on. A 35-hour week in the public sector would create 24,000 jobs and boost the whole economy. Forty years ago, Harold Wilson—a Labour Prime Minister—promised us that in the year 2000, at the start of the 21st century, we would have a 20-hour week. He justified that by saying that technology would mean that we had a growing economy such that we could afford to pay high wages and have a 20-hour week. We are still waiting; in fact, the working week for public sector workers and others has lengthened since then.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Can you tell Parliament how much the creation of 24,000 additional jobs in the public sector will cost each year?

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I can, if Stewart Stevenson holds on for a minute—I have the figures here. It would cost £350 million. That is the same as the whole budget of Scottish Enterprise or half of last year's underspend. That spending would create jobs and boost the economy.

Poverty is the word that dare not speak its name in the chamber. Poverty is not only about the people who beg on the streets outside Waverley station; it is about the single parent who is trying to bring up two, three or four children and who goes without food at the weekend, without a warm coat, without a decent pair of shoes or without a power card over the weekend. That is poverty; that is the general experience of one third of children in Scotland. That is a great shame on Parliament.

If any member tells me today that a hospital porter, a hospital domestic or someone who does administration or clerical work is not worth the Council of Europe decency threshold—which is £7.50 an hour—I ask them to justify that statement. I ask them to justify why it is acceptable to pay people only £5 an hour and why it is acceptable to force porters and domestics to work 60, 70 or 80 hours a week so that they can afford a power card at the weekend.

MSPs are on £49,000 a year. How much does that work out at as an hourly rate? Can members tell me? A 35-hour week would be nice for us because we work extremely hard, but we do all right on the pay.

I ask members to consider seriously what it is possible to do within Parliament's powers. It is possible to transform hundreds of thousands of lives. Do not give excuses and do not say that we cannot afford it—it is not money that is absent, but the principle and the political will to deliver. I want Parliament to send to all the public sector workers in Scotland today the message that we genuinely value them and that we will not pay them lip service, patronise them or just tell them what a great job they do; rather, we will pay them at a level that acknowledges that we value them.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that only in an independent socialist Scotland will the obscene poverty and inequality that scars our nation be permanently tackled; recognises, however, that the limited powers available to it currently must be utilised fully to tackle the root causes of poverty as effectively as possible; accepts that it has complete power over pay and conditions in the public sector which involves almost 500,000 workers; resolves, in order to eradicate low pay and improve working conditions, to introduce a public sector minimum wage set at the internationally recognised European decency threshold and a maximum working week of 35 hours to tackle the socially destructive long hours culture which currently pervades too many Scottish workplaces; believes that a £7.50 per hour minimum wage and 35 hours a week policy funded by the abolition of Scottish Enterprise and full utilisation of existing block grant will eradicate low pay in the public sector and help increase wages in the private sector, and resolves to continue collectively the push for full independence and democratic control over Scotland's vast wealth and resources to improve the standard and quality of life of all Scotland's citizens.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I am pleased to be in Parliament again debating poverty, because it is an issue of such importance to Scotland. It is vital that we lay out our strategies to tackle poverty and disadvantage.

I am proud that the Executive has made social justice, closing the opportunity gap and ending child poverty central to our vision for a fair and equal Scotland. We have been honest with the Scottish people: we have said that it will take a generation to eradicate child poverty, with significant gains along the way. We have been open with all stakeholders in Scotland: we have published our milestones and targets and we map and publish progress as we continue.

We are not interested in a list of demands or in short-term fixes, but in a long-term sustained strategy to end the scourge of poverty in Scotland for ever.

As Father Joseph Wresinski said:

"Wherever men and women are condemned to live in poverty, human rights are violated. To come together to ensure that these rights be respected is our solemn duty."

The fight against poverty underlines all that we do.

It is those who live in poverty and disadvantage who tell us that the causes and solutions to their problems are complex. They ask not for one or two policies, but for many. It is Parliament's duty not only to state the case, but to come up with the solutions, and I argue that the Scottish Socialist Party has not listened to and, therefore, does not adequately represent poor people. If it did, it would not claim that two or three soundbite policies would work.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I agree with Margaret Curran that many policies are necessary to address poverty, but will she address the simple question of whether a £7.50 an hour minimum wage in the public sector—which the Scottish Executive can deliver—is one of her policies? If not, why not?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The minimum wage is extremely important, and I will address it later on. However, everyone who is engaged in the poverty debate—particularly the victims of poverty—appreciates that the minimum wage does not take into account the hours that are worked, the size of the family or, for example, disability within the family. To tackle poverty, we need to target measures much more effectively, which is exactly what the Government's strategy on tax credit does.

There are no quick fixes: one policy will not address the whole problem. It was quite nostalgic to hear what seemed to be the old-style Militant talk and approach—a list of demands being knitted together as if that somehow presents a solution—that I have not heard for quite some time. From memory, the only thing that was missing was the demand to nationalise the top 200 or so companies, but perhaps the SSP is new Militant and has dropped that demand.

The SNP, too, talks about poverty but it cannot tell us what it would do: it cannot say whether it would end poverty, what it would do to end it or how it would do that. The SNP gives us no definitions, no measures and, in fact, no policies.

We also have the Tories, who were in power for almost two decades but did not even accept that poverty existed. We must never forget the devastation and waste of human lives that they left after two decades in power.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Margaret Curran give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Margaret Curran give way?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Oh, gentlemen—of course I will give way.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not necessarily accept that measures of relative poverty are always the truest assessment of poverty, but does the minister accept that disparities in income—the Executive's own measure—have increased rather than decreased since new Labour came to power?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I will talk about relative measures later, but I tell Murdo Fraser that the one trick that we have pulled off that the Tory Government never quite managed is a sustained increase in incomes of 19 per cent since Labour came to power. We are tackling poverty and improving the conditions of ordinary working people and other people throughout Scotland, but we are also managing to lift the level of prosperity of everyone in Scotland and Britain.

The minimum wage has been discussed. Let us remind ourselves that Michael Howard claimed that it would result in the loss of 2 million jobs and that the policy would be a disaster. However, what has happened is not quite what Michael Howard suggested.

The Tories would scrap the winter fuel allowance, end the new deal and end the child tax credit, which would leave young people, pensioners and families with far fewer resources. At the end of the Tory policies, once all those measures had been taken away, what would we be left with? We would be back to the Thatcher years, which is exactly what Michael Howard proposes.

It is the Executive that is on the side of poor people, because it understands that poverty must be tackled in all its complexity. We have to understand the impact on children of growing up in workless households. We have to understand that that means lower aspirations and lower educational achievement for children who should do much better, and that it means that families will be burdened with debt, will struggle to heat damp houses and will have to live with ill health or care for someone who is in ill health. That is what the Executive is focusing on, and we have a range of policies to address it. We understand that work is the best route out of poverty; if one policy has crucially altered working people's circumstances, it is what we have done to tackle unemployment. The SSP has no policies that could address that, and members should remember what the Tories did to unemployment levels in Britain.

Fuel poverty has been halved from 35 per cent to 17 per cent and we have made significant cuts in the levels of absolute poverty. We have sophisticated homelessness strategies and we are tackling youth unemployment systematically. There have been systematic improvements in the level of rises in income. We have focused on those who live in severest poverty, which is where our policies should properly be focused, but we are not complacent: we know that there is more to do and we know that it will take a generational shift to do that work. We want continuing and faster reductions in the level of low-income poverty among children and pensioners. We want a step change in life expectancy and we want health improvement for disadvantaged groups. We want to improve educational prospects for disadvantaged children and to widen access to higher education. We also want regeneration of disadvantaged communities to continue.

I say categorically to the Parliament that the poor in Scotland do not need the tired old policies of the past, the confused policies of the SNP or the slogans of the SSP, who would do nothing for the poor in Scotland.

I move amendment S2M-625.3, to leave out from first "recognises" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Scottish Executive's commitment to tackling poverty and disadvantage; notes the Executive's work towards increasing opportunities through growing the economy including delivering on A Smart, Successful Scotland, delivering excellent public services, particularly in education and health, and through supporting strong communities through community regeneration and focusing on the interests of the individual."

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

There is a shared belief in the Parliament—perhaps with the exception of the Conservatives—about the importance of tackling poverty, and I congratulate the SSP on using its first debate in the parliamentary session to raise that important subject. However, although the SNP shares an analysis with the SSP, we share little in our solutions. My colleagues will develop the SNP's approach to solving poverty; I will focus on the SSP.

I will quote from Tommy's Trots' manifesto for the election in May this year:

"The election of a group of Scottish Socialist MSPs would electrify Scottish politics. It would ignite a bonfire of debate about the future of Scotland and the feasibility of socialism."

We got the group, we are 203 days on, and we have our first SSP debates, but Guy Fawkes night has been the only bonfire. The SSP's participation record has been woeful. Rosie Kane promised us mayhem and madness, but she has been at just over half the meetings of Parliament and at only one of the eight meetings of the Local Government and Transport Committee. She has spoken fewer than 5,000 words since becoming an MSP, and the cost of those words is £5.59 per word.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I do not know which disgraceful remark I will address first. Stewart Stevenson ought to check with members before he makes personal remarks about them. That is all that I will say on that, but I have a question about "Tommy's Trots": will Stewart Stevenson explain to me what a "Trot" is, because I do not know?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I think that it was Corporal Jones who said:

"They don't like it up 'em".

The cost of every word that Rosie Kane has spoken in Parliament is £5.59, and here are some of the subjects that she does not think are important: police pensions, bus services and taxis for disabled people.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Rule 7.3 of the standing orders is about treating members with a bit of dignity and respect, but the personal remarks in Mr Stevenson's speech were outrageous.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

No—they are part of the normal rough and tumble of the debate.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have in my hand the list of subjects that the committee has discussed and the attendance record. Rosie Kane does not think that local railway stations or taxis for disabled people are important.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Will Stewart Stevenson give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

She did not even turn up to debate the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill—Tommy Sheridan had to turn up even though he is not a member of the committee.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Will Stewart Stevenson give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The debate is not about Rosie—

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Will Stewart Stevenson give way?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

It is clear that Stewart Stevenson is not giving way.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will give way.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Would Stewart Stevenson speak to me about a matter outside the chamber, please? [ Interruption. ]

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

What Stewart Stevenson has said is extremely personal, and I resent very much such personal attacks on me in what is supposed to be a debate about poverty. He clearly has a poverty of decency.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

What I am saying is about the poverty of ambition and ideas in the SSP. Tommy Sheridan claimed that his policies were popular, practical, radical and deliverable, so I will talk about some of them. He would nationalise trains, buses and ferries. How much would that cost? We could have a free public transport system tomorrow for the money that nationalisation would cost. Constituents of mine would love to have public transport—they do not care about its ownership. What about rural areas? Would the introduction of £100 million of special road tolls for heavy goods vehicles help the poor in our rural areas?

Miss Leckie's motion proposes a minimum public sector wage of £7.50 and a working-week ceiling of 35 hours. She tells me that the 24,000 jobs that would thereby be created would be paid for by abolishing Scottish Enterprise and would cost £350 million, but page 11 of the SSP's manifesto says that it has already spent that £350 million in raising the public sector minimum wage. The actual cost would be £328 million, plus £120 million for additional costs, plus offices to accommodate 24,000 people, which would cost £750 million.

We have already spent £1 billion but have considered only two of the 200 commitments in Tommy Sheridan's manifesto. By the time we get to the bottom of it, we will find that we have doubled the spending in the Scottish budget and have hardly touched poverty.

A high-cost economy is an unfair economy. The evidence from high-cost economies everywhere is that they cause impoverishment of the masses. My colleagues and I will develop that subject. It is abundantly clear that Tommy Sheridan's people have yet to step up to the bar in the Parliament to make a meaningful contribution that will help the people of Scotland. Tommy's plans would damage our economy and would do nothing to ensure that more resources reached those who are in greatest need.

I move amendment S2M-625.2, to leave out from first "recognises" to end and insert:

"believes that the implementation of many of the proposals in the Scottish Socialist Party manifesto would only ensure that the unacceptable poverty of the poorest in our society would come to be shared by more of our citizens than at present."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are seeing some unusual alliances in the chamber this morning.

I was somewhat surprised to find that the Scottish socialists were proposing a debate on poverty because, if there was ever a political ideology that has caused human misery and poverty throughout the globe, it is socialism.

Let us consider the example of a few socialist countries. North and South Korea share the same peoples and the same geography; the only difference between North and South Korea is political ideology—North Korea is a socialist state, while South Korea is a democratic country with a free-market capitalist economy. Gross domestic product per capita in North Korea is a mere $1,000 per annum, whereas it is $19,400 in South Korea. Infant mortality in South Korea stands at a mere 8 per 1,000 live births, whereas it is 27 per 1,000 live births in North Korea. North Korea has a miserably low growth rate while South Korea is booming. The whole of North Korea is in extreme poverty and is dependent on foreign aid from the rest of the world to avoid starvation of its people, who are oppressed and miserable. In contrast, South Korea is a prosperous country that is reliant on market economics to grow business, create private sector jobs and generate wealth, which all contribute to the elimination of poverty.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Does the member accept that it is not necessary to look that far to find such discrepancies in life expectancy and mortality rates? One need only compare Drumchapel and Bearsden to find differences in life expectancy of 10 years and differences in mortality rates for children. Glasgow has the four poorest constituencies in Britain, which is the fourth richest country in the world. Will the member explain that and say what he would do about achieving a £7.50 an hour minimum wage—in other words, will he speak to the motion?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will be happy to address some of those issues in a moment. I merely observe that for many years the party that was in power in this country and in many of the local government areas to which the member referred has been the Labour Party—not my party.

I appreciate that the socialists find the comparison with North Korea uncomfortable. Let us take another example—Cuba, which is Mr Sheridan's favourite holiday destination. GDP per capita in Cuba is only $2,300 per annum, whereas it is more than $25,000 in the United Kingdom. Cuba is a recipient of foreign aid to the tune of $68 million per annum; the UK, on the other hand, is a foreign aid donor to the tune of $4.5 billion per annum. Far from being attracted to a low-poverty utopia in Cuba, people are desperately trying to leave the country to escape poverty and political oppression. Every year, hundreds, if not thousands, of Cubans risk death trying to escape Cuba—and the evil Fidel Castro's regime—by boat to reach the United States, with its free economy and political system.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I thank the member for his selective statistics. He mentioned life expectancy earlier. Life expectancy in Cuba is 76 years of age; it is 73 in New York and only 74 in Glasgow. Can he explain how it is that a country as poor as Cuba has managed to produce a health service that results in a life expectancy of 76?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If life expectancy in Cuba is so great, why are people risking their lives to avoid the socialist regime there? Why are they getting on boats to sail across the channel to the United States? Things cannot be that great in Cuba if they do that.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

They go to America because America continues to impose illegal economic blockades on Cuba.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Exactly—they go to get the freedoms that are available in the United States but not in Cuba.

I am probably way over time.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have a minute to close.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It seems that the socialists would prefer everyone to live in misery and on low incomes, provided that there were no disparities of income. We believe that the Scottish Government should be seeking to create wealth in our country and to reduce the burdens on businesses, such as high business rates and water charges, and to reduce the whole range of business regulation. By freeing the economy, we will create economic opportunities, which will create jobs and spread wealth. In that way, we will raise living standards for all and help to reduce poverty.

It was the great American President Abraham Lincoln who said that we do not help the poor by pulling down the rich and that we do not help the weak by attacking the strong; that is a lesson that the socialists have yet to learn. A socialist recipe will simply cause in Scotland—as it has caused elsewhere in the world—more human misery and poverty. Instead, what Scotland needs is a dynamic free economy that creates wealth and opportunity for all.

I move amendment S2M-625.1, to leave out from first "recognises" to end and insert:

"notes that socialism has caused more poverty and human misery than any other political ideology in modern history; further notes that socialist policies, where implemented, have singularly failed to remedy the lack of economic growth that is the root cause of poverty; believes that the best way to tackle poverty is to create a strong, dynamic, free enterprise economy with opportunity for all, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to reduce business rates and ease the burden of water charges on Scottish business thereby taking the first steps towards improving the Scottish economy."

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am happy to support the Executive amendment and to speak against the SSP motion. I think that the SSP has a genuine concern about poverty, which is shared by most members, but I honestly do not think that some of the debate so far has done the Parliament much credit.

I agree with the SSP's concern about poverty, but I think that its proposals would not succeed in reducing it. That is why I am happy to speak against the motion. The Executive amendment is correct to stress the Executive's commitment to ending poverty—that commitment does exist. It is the job of coalition back benchers to keep up steady pressure on ministers and the whole Government machine to deliver such policies as fast as possible. In any system, there is a certain amount of inertia, which needs a great deal of energy to overcome it. The Executive's intention is leading in the right direction and some of its policies are right. For example, this afternoon we will debate fuel poverty—an area in which there has been definite progress.

The only long-term way of ending poverty is not through grants and hand-outs and so on, although they may be necessary at some stage, but by helping individuals and communities to develop their own activities and incomes. It is necessary to strike a balance between the individual and the community, but both have an important part to play.

Although we cannot create initiative, we can create a system that encourages initiative and allows it to flourish. If, for example, we could somehow harness the energies and talents of the people who go around selling drugs and turn them into something more useful, we would transform our communities. Such people have great abilities that are totally misplaced and are doing great harm. There is a lot of ability that we are not using.

The whole Co-operative movement, to which many members in the Parliament have a special commitment, has a great role to play at local level. If people come together, they can do something that is worth while. In the matter of community enterprise, we have kept the voluntary sector in a sort of isolation. The voluntary sector and communities can set up commercial companies—a few have already done so—to create genuinely profitable activity in communities.

From our point of view, it is unfortunate that many of the issues to do with dealing with poverty are issues that are reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Parliament and the Executive have debated debt several times. We want to do what we can to reduce the mountain of debt and to make lenders more sensible, but that is basically a Westminster issue, as are benefits and pensions. The Liberal Democrats want to help 16 and 17-year-olds to share in benefits; such issues are important. On tax, we believe that the highest earners should pay a bit more and that the lower earners should be removed from the tax system. On all those issues, we can at least apply pressure on our colleagues in our various parties at Westminster.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member mentioned the tax and benefit systems, power over which is obviously reserved to Westminster. I understand that some Liberal Democrat members believe that we should bring those powers back to Scotland. Does the member agree that if, in so doing, we were to integrate the tax and benefit systems, we would tackle the high marginal tax rate that some of the poorest people in our society face?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

There are two points to be made. For a long time, we have argued about harmonising the tax and benefit systems and bringing them together so that they are coherent. At the moment, we have to accept that tax and benefits are Westminster issues that must be made to work as well as possible.

We must aim at having a humane and acceptable form of capitalism. We have a capitalist or market system, but we must make it work in such a way that the rich do not pull ahead and the poor do not fall further and further back. One way of achieving that is through education and creating more people with skills. We must build up our indigenous industries. Electronics and call centres and so on illustrate that buying in other people's industries is not the answer.

The amendment sets out a fair position, but the Executive must deliver on its commitments.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to open debate. Speeches should be of four minutes plus time for interventions.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The subject matter of today's debate has bypassed many contributors so far. Perhaps that is because it is uncomfortable for the other parties to address the main fact, which is that we have the power, even in our limited Scottish Parliament, to address poverty pay within the public sector.

None of the other parties has yet been able to justify why we continue to pay poverty wages in the public sector. We have the opportunity not only to pay the European decency threshold of £7.50 per hour but to introduce a 35-hour week to tackle head on the long-hours culture that, unfortunately, destroys so many families and communities across Scotland. We have that opportunity because we have the finance available to pay for it. If Scottish Enterprise's £450 million annual budget was deployed in the creation of a £7.50 an hour minimum wage across the public sector and the introduction of a 35-hour week—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I ask Phil Gallie to give me just a wee minute so that I can develop this point.

According to the Scottish Parliament information centre, which took advice from the University of Stirling economics department, introducing the £7.50 per hour minimum wage and the 35-hour week across the public sector would create 24,000 new jobs. Margaret Curran and others asked what would happen to jobs. Our policy is not just an anti-poverty policy but a job-creation policy. Stewart Stevenson asked about the costs. The wage and labour costs attached to the creation of those jobs would be £328 million, which is less than any of the underspends in each of the previous four years of our Parliament.

That is the problem. Time and time again, people say that we do not have power over pensions and benefits—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I ask the member to give me a wee minute.

People say that we do not have powers over other areas of our economy. We should have those powers, because to tackle poverty permanently we require an independent socialist Scotland with the full powers of a normal country. However, if we want those new powers, let us use our existing powers. Let us use the powers that we already have to tackle poverty pay.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

No thanks.

Let us try to give the workers who deliver our public services a decent standard of living. If it is good enough for the public purse to be able to afford £49,000 a year for MSPs, it should certainly be good enough for it to afford £25,000 a year as a minimum wage for public sector workers.

It was interesting to listen to the remarks that Stewart Stevenson made today on behalf of the SNP—perhaps that is the new SNP. He said that, under this socialist ideology of ours, we would have public railways, public ferries and public buses. Not so long ago, that is what his party stood for. Perhaps he should read his party's recent documents.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Sit down, my friend.

Stewart Stevenson brought into the Parliament language that he should be ashamed of. I would be interested to hear what the SNP women members think of phrases such as "Get it up 'em." That is great—that really raises the level of debate. He has disgraced his party this morning. It would have been much better if he had attacked us on our economic policies rather than try to personalise the debate. However, when people have lost the argument, they always have personal assaults and personal attacks in reserve. That is what Stewart is good at—unfortunately, that is all that he is good at.

Today, we are saying that we should use the limited powers that the Parliament has to be serious about tackling poverty. The biggest growth area in poverty is low pay. Let us show by example and lead from the front. Let us have a minimum wage of £7.50 an hour and a maximum working week of 35 hours to raise the public sector workers out of the scourge of poverty and set an example for the private sector.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I agree with Carolyn Leckie on one thing, which is that the Labour and trade union movement has a fantastic tradition of focusing on poverty and finding effective means to deal with it. From John Wheatley's vision of developing affordable public housing to Aneurin Bevan's creation of the health service and to the work done by successive Labour Administrations at national and local level in making educational opportunity accessible to those previously excluded, tackling poverty has been at the forefront of our aims, intentions and policies. What Carolyn Leckie did not say is that she and her party have stepped out of that tradition. They are apostates. They have moved away from our goals and have adopted a nationalist agenda. I will return to that point.

The most effective anti-poverty interventions are a consequence of Labour's making employment the top priority across the United Kingdom. We now have the lowest levels of unemployment in Europe. We have made paid work accessible for many more women by dramatically increasing child care provision. Many of those who were excluded from employment because they lacked skills or confidence have been supported on their journey into work. There are 1.5 million more people in jobs and 350,000 fewer children living in workless households than there were before 1997. Those are real achievements and real efforts. They have been achieved not easily, but by the co-ordinated work of Labour Administrations.

Margaret Curran is well aware that I believe that there is more to do. Targeted intervention is necessary to ensure that more people in West Dunbartonshire and in constituencies such as hers benefit from what has been achieved elsewhere in Scotland and across the UK. All that the SSP has to offer are false promises and a denial of rights to people. In my constituency, the SSP opposed the building of new schools for the people of our area. The SSP has opposed the modernisation of health services and has resisted moves to provide better protection for vulnerable elderly people through the provision of community wardens and other measures to deal with antisocial behaviour.

For the people whom I represent, poverty is not an academic debate or a slogan to be cast up on the wall. They have seen too much of it over a long period. They know that the £200 heating allowance makes a difference, as does free concessionary travel. They know that the pensioner credit will help many people who have small occupational pensions, such as many of my constituents in Clydebank. The increases in child benefit and the introduction of education maintenance allowances and modern apprenticeships are all practical measures that we have delivered to tackle poverty effectively.

The minimum wage that is derided by the SSP is pitched at a level that is close to the minimum wage levels in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland. Tommy gets his European decency threshold only from his fevered imagination. We are delivering real positive change that affects the poorest people. All that he offers are false promises that are based on a complete fallacy.

The Scottish service tax would discriminate against working families and would risk the loss of huge sums in council tax—£276 million—that are currently paid through the benefits system.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I would take interventions if the SSP had given enough time for us to debate the issue seriously. That is the SSP's fault.

It seems strange that a party that claims to be socialist wants to shift the burden of taxation from property to earned income.

However, it is no less inconsistent that the red nationalists, who sit on the same benches as the green nationalists and their yellow counterparts, are prepared to put poor people on the front line by taking us down a path that would tear apart our links with the rest of the UK. The rainbow coalition that we can see taking shape across the chamber includes those who want to improve competitiveness by going down the George Bush route of reducing business taxes in a bizarre and unwinnable game of beggar my neighbour, while Tommy Sheridan's approach is to say that we can massively increase wages. Both those approaches cannot be right. They do not sing from the same hymn sheet but, fundamentally, they say that the same mechanism will deliver those irreconcilable goals.

At the end of the day, the Scottish socialists have to be serious and say what they believe in. If they believe in tackling poverty and the things that the Labour movement has always stood for, they have to stand with us and engage in real politics. If they want only to posture—which I believe to be the case—they can carry on being red nationalists and working with their colleagues. Let us then see what the voters think, but the voters have been pretty decisive every time up to now.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I want to join Stewart Stevenson in welcoming the choice of debate, but I do not want to join in his personal attacks.

How bad is poverty in Scotland? All of us have heard the figures. According to the most common definitions, one in three people in Scotland grows up in poverty and one in four households in Scotland suffers from poverty. Many of them are the working poor who are in poverty because of a low-income job. Poverty is endemic in Scotland. The long, slow decline that we have seen in the heavy industries that attracted people to the central belt has created urban poverty. There is also the problem of rural poverty, the severity of which is often not recognised.

The Scottish Parliament was created because Scottish problems are different. We need to create distinctive Scottish solutions in an independent Scotland that can take control of our economy and our social policy. We need to move towards integrating the tax and benefits systems, creating a new safety net of a citizens income scheme, which would not create the poverty trap that exists under the current benefits system.

Let us look at the motion. The 35-hour week for public sector workers, which has not been discussed in any depth so far, is an important initiative that needs to be addressed in Scotland now. The French have experimented with the introduction of the 35-hour week and, according to the latest figures, 200,000 new jobs have been created in France as a result. The 35-hour week was introduced in France to improve working conditions for workers and to end the situation in which one third of French society was underworked and the two thirds who were overworked suffered from the stress caused by that overwork. The aim of the French experiment was to change people's understanding of work and the balance between work and recreation.

That experiment has been tremendously successful. People claimed that it would lead to the collapse of the French economy, but the 35-hour week has led to a decline in unemployment and has produced a much better work-life balance across the board. There have been problems, including over-bureaucracy for small employers and how to fit overtime into a 35-hour week—that is a particular problem for many of the low-paid workers who depend on that overtime.

In some situations, the new flexibility of the 35-hour week has been used as an excuse for the introduction of the so-called flexible working practices that have undermined the work-life balance that the 35-hour week was designed to create. That said, I repeat that the experiment has been a tremendous success. It has made France richer in jobs, questioned the role of work and re-emphasised that what is important is quality of life for all in society rather than growth for growth's sake. That is why it is really important that the motion raises the topic of the 35-hour week. However, it is clear that the 35-hour week cannot be introduced across Scotland until we have an independent Scottish Parliament with full powers.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

What would the effect be on patients of the imposition on the health service of the 35-hour week?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You should begin to wind up, Mr Ballard.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

It would mean more jobs. For far too long, we have tolerated the present situation of junior doctors working for 50, 60 and 70 hours a week. That system does not work—one cannot work people harder and expect to get the same productivity from them. We need to reduce hours so that people can be more productive during the hours that they work.

We need to end poverty pay in the public sector, move towards a more flexible understanding of work and tackle the underlying causes of poverty. That can be done only if we have the full powers of an independent Scotland. In the meantime, we need to tackle the issues of overwork and underpay in our society.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am very happy to speak in the debate. However, I regret that the SSP motion does not refer to a large percentage of our population—the pensioners who live in poverty. I note what Des McNulty said about making a difference, but all that I can say to him is that we have had new Labour for six years at Westminster and four and a half years in the Scottish Parliament.

I looked again at a speech that I made in the chamber around the same time of year in 1999 and noted how little has changed for Scottish pensioners since then. At that time, the basic state pension for a single person was £66.75. Four years on, the figure is £75.50, which is an increase of a mere £8.75—or £2 per year for each of those years. When council tax rises, fuel cost rises, inflation and so on are taken into account, I would be surprised if Scotland's pensioners are even where they were all those years ago.

The statistics from Help the Aged and Age Concern Scotland on the subject are chilling. The number of pensioner households in the United Kingdom who receive means-tested benefit is expected to reach 57 per cent by the end of this year. Indeed, 23 per cent of those aged 60 and over who are entitled to income support will not claim it but will continue to live well below what is a living wage.

The figures also show that 41 per cent of single pensioners receive a net reported income that is lower than £6,000 per year. In 1979, 12 per cent of single pensioners were reckoned to be living in poverty. However the figures for 1995-96 show that the percentage increased by 33 per cent. Those are the financial circumstances in which many of our one million Scottish pensioners find themselves.

In 1999, I made a speech about access to health care, in which I said:

"social work cuts in East Lothian ... caused a home to close down, people to be dispersed, meals on wheels to be stopped and pensioners to be given two week's supply of frozen food."

I also raised the issue of the day care centre at Broomhill in Penicuik, which provided respite care for the elderly and which was running out of money. The centre needed just a little bit of money to meet its needs, in comparison with the sums that the Executive was spending on all its shiny brochures. What has changed? The day care centre still struggles for money, homes are still being closed in East Lothian—indeed, a home in Cockenzie is struggling at the moment to stay the course—and pensioners are still being moved from residential home to residential home like bits of furniture in the back of a removal van. Nothing has really changed in all those years.

I turn to access to health care in the community. I commend members in the previous session of the Parliament, including members of the Health and Community Care Committee, for pursuing the issue of free personal care for the elderly in the face of a resistant Executive. However, the delivery on the ground is not what we parliamentarians thought it would be. Instead we have cuts in district nurses and cuts in care. I saw that dreadful "Panorama" programme and I am sure that the way in which the elderly people were shown to be treated is echoed in some care homes in Scotland.

In my last few seconds, I want to repeat something that I said about travel in the same debate in 1999:

"The three important words in relation to transport and pensioners are: available, accessible and affordable."—[Official Report, 2 December 1999; Vol 3, c 1181-1182.]

I remember that Sylvia Jackson referred to a national concessionary fare scheme for pensioners. It was announced in time for the first Scottish Parliament elections but is it in place? No. Nearly five years down the line, we still do not have free transport for pensioners in Scotland.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member give way.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I cannot. I am in my last minute.

If a pensioner wants to travel from Penicuik to Peebles, they can get as far as Leadburn on their concessionary fare pass. However, from that point onwards, they have to pay £1.50 return to get to Peebles. That is the reality on the ground. I say to Des McNulty that—never mind what the Parliament can do, let alone what Westminster can do—nothing has really changed. It is time that Scotland's pensioners get what they deserve, which is a decent life.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Today we have a rare chance to debate what the SSP would actually do in power. I want to start in a spirit of generosity. A lot of SSP supporters care sincerely about poverty. As Karl Marx said, in 1888 I think, the point is not to interpret the world,

"the point is to change it."

If one is going to change the world today, it is not about the ardour of one's adherence, the power of one's rhetoric or even the sincerity of one's soul; it is about the power of one's ideas. Let us talk about the power of the SSP's ideas.

Of course, all socialists know that the single greatest driver of poverty through the centuries has been unemployment—debilitating, depressing, impoverishing worklessness. So what will the SSP do about unemployment? We have only to look as far as Comrade Sheridan's manifesto, which tells us that the SSP's first acts would be to nationalise Scotland's banks, to take over the North sea and to take control of our power stations. Not quite the top 200 companies, but fear not—the backsliding, according to the SSP's one published book of ideology, is that some sections of the economy would most likely remain in private hands. So whatever the protestations about poverty, the SSP would put thousands upon thousands of Scots on the dole.

Twenty years ago, when I first knew Tommy Sheridan, Frances Curran and Colin Fox, they were all proudly revolutionary socialists. Indeed, they were all Trotskyists. Of course, to Trotsky, mass unemployment was not part of the problem, but part of the solution—an opportunity to ferment revolutionary socialism. We do not hear much about revolutionary socialism today—the reasons have already been alluded to in the chamber—because the only two self-styled revolutionary socialist states are North Korea and Cuba.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Here is the rub—it is reformist governments, rather than revolutionary governments, that actually bring about change in people's lives. What the revolutionary socialists do well is rhetoric, but they do not realise change in people's lives.

I end with one more lesson for the self-styled socialists of the SSP. Their central policy for tackling poverty in Scotland is the Scottish service tax, but it was the French socialist Proudhon who, in 1840, came up with the wonderful socialist soundbite, "Property is theft." But what does the SSP want to do in this land of Balmoral, Glamis, Inverary and Dunrobin? It wants to abolish domestic property taxation all together. For Scotland's sake, the SSP should go homeward and think again.

The issue for the six SSP MSPs is that they cannot tell us whether their programme is one of revolutionary socialism that is designed to precipitate the collapse of capitalism under its own contradictions, or whether it is a reformist strategy. That matters, because the Scots are not daft. Over the centuries, they have seen every shade of socialism sell its strategy—so much so that they have learned to judge parties not by the power of their rhetoric, but by their record of delivery. Of course, what the SSP does best is not real change, but popular, anti-establishment rhetoric, which is why this debate about changing lives will be subordinated by the more populist headline-grabbing Bush baiting, to which we are about to come.

Campbell Martin (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Minister for Communities began her speech by saying that she was pleased to be here talking about poverty again. I am not pleased that we are here talking about poverty again, because the fact that we are doing so means that poverty is still a real and living thing in Scotland. It means that successive Labour and Tory unionist Governments have failed to tackle the poverty that affects far too many people in Scotland.

I have mentioned before in the Parliament that some of the people I grew up with and went to school with unfortunately have not worked for 20 years. Their children have grown up and moved into the family business—unemployment—which means that they are moving into poverty. The reality for far too many people in Scotland is that they cannot see any way out of that poverty, because politicians have failed to deliver a way out.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member give way?

Campbell Martin (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No, thank you.

We have heard the statistics and political theory, but I want to have a wee reality check and tell politicians in this chamber what poverty actually means to people out there, and particularly what it means for children living poverty, because they have not asked to live in poverty. Children have no control over their predicament; they learn to cope with what they are living in. Children in Scotland today have had to learn to cope with being hungry. They have had to learn to cope with being cold. They have had to learn to cope with going to school in old clothes. They have had to learn to cope with holes in their shoes. They have had to learn to cope with not being able to go on school trips. They have had to learn to cope with lying about why they cannot go on school trips, because they do not want to tell their pals that their parents are poor and cannot afford it. That is what poverty means. We should be talking about that today, and about how we eradicate poverty in Scotland.

For adults in poverty, the reality is that they must sell anything of value that they have, although they probably get very little—next to nothing—for anything that is of value. For single parents, poverty means that they do not eat so that their children can have a meal of some sort. They do not go to Tesco or Sainsbury's; they go to the local shop, because that is the only place where they can get stuff. That means that what they buy is usually at inflated prices and usually of poor nutritional quality, and that their kids do not get fresh produce. That is poverty. That is what we should be talking about.

Poverty also means the re-emergence of loan sharks in towns and cities throughout Scotland, because when people are poor they cannot get access to money. Banks will not give them money when they need it—banks only give people money when they do not need it—so they cannot get a bank loan. They cannot get tick in most shops, because they know that they cannot pay it back. The reality is that loan sharks have re-emerged. In Ayrshire, there is a man who gives single parents a lift to the post office on Monday morning, but not because he is a nice person. He hands them their Monday books, lets them collect their benefits, then takes their Monday books back off them and takes half their benefits. That is part of the reality of being poor in Scotland today.

A phenomenon that has emerged fairly recently is that of the working poor—that is, people who are in employment, yet who are still so poor that they are living in poverty. We have to eradicate low wages and get rid of the people who perpetuate them. I have with me a printout of North Ayrshire Council's website to show to Labour members. I ask whether they are ashamed of the Labour councillors in North Ayrshire, because on the council's website today they advertise the fact that in North Ayrshire the level of wages

"is 12% below the UK level".

They advertise as a selling point the fact that the people in North Ayrshire are poor. Do Labour members know how the Labour councillors in North Ayrshire describe that? They say:

"North Ayrshire, therefore, has a very cost effective labour supply."

That means, "Our workers are exploited. Come and join in. Come and exploit our workers." That is what Labour councillors say, and it is a disgrace. I hope that Labour members are ashamed of them.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am not sure whether Campbell Martin subscribes to the same philosophies and solutions as Stewart Stevenson but, like a number of other speakers in the debate, he was high on analysis and low on solutions. This is a serious debate about a very serious subject, which deserves a serious analysis of the issues. Unfortunately, that is not something that we have had today. The main reason for that is the flawed and highly damaging proposals of the SSP that are outlined in the motion.

The bulk of members in the chamber could perhaps agree on two things, the first of which is the importance of investment in high-quality public services, to provide the social services—health, education, transport and all the rest—on which poor people depend more than others, and which help to improve the life chances of all our citizens.

The second is the importance of productive work in building individual and community confidence, in providing income and raising the quality of life, and in providing the taxes to pay for those crucial public services. Good public services and economic prosperity are linked, which is why Liberal Democrats support both a progressive taxation system and a huge emphasis on education and skills creation—building on Scotland's academic capacity, encouraging innovation, and supporting small businesses, but also abolishing taxation on incomes of less than £10,000, increasing the rate to 50 per cent for incomes of more than £100,000, raising pensions, and bringing back proper benefits, as Donald Gorrie touched on, for people under 25. That is a progressive and radical programme that is based on partnership between the Scottish Executive, Westminster and Europe, but which supports, rather than threatens, business.

The SNP used to offer us one panacea; now we get two from the SSP—not just an independent Scotland, but an independent socialist Scotland. Give us independence, and the powers of a normal independent state, and magically all will be well. That is not so much rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic as launching a little lifeboat into the icy waters of the Atlantic and hoping for the best.

The most normal constitutional arrangement is not independence but federalism in one form or other—a partnership between central government and national, regional and provincial authorities, as exists in Germany, Spain, Switzerland, the United States of America, Australia and Canada. Federalism is a sophisticated, modern, pluralistic and liberal approach, which combines the advantages of substantial self-determination with the extra resources and clout of the larger state.

The SSP, however, offers us a second panacea or, as I would describe it, a second suicide note. The SSP presents not only the risks of constitutional upheaval but a set of policies that would destroy the Scottish economy, eliminate much of the tax revenue that is needed for public services and plunge far more people into poverty and despair. Scottish Enterprise may not be perfect, but its abolition, as proposed by the SSP—and indeed siren voices in other parts of the chamber—would strike a mortal blow, particularly in Glasgow, where the concentration of poverty is worst. Funding to restore contaminated land: gone. Funding to develop the Clyde: gone. Funding for the economic development companies: gone. Projects to create jobs and wealth throughout Scotland: gone.

The SSP's policies would also require full utilisation of the block grant—we now know that that means end-year flexibility, which is one-off money, not repeat money; the money to deal with winter sickness in our hospitals; and money that is earmarked for all sorts of key social services.

The reality is that the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive is tackling poverty, with long-term, effective solutions, which are helping more and more people out of poverty. The socialists will entrench and increase poverty, and it would be a total and utter disaster for Scotland if they or their ilk ever had their hands on the levers of power.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This has been an interesting and revealing debate. It has been interesting because it has given members of the various parties the opportunity to say how they would tackle poverty—that is an important debate to have in the Parliament. It has been revealing because of the line of attack that has been taken by the various parties: the bitter attack by the SNP on the SSP and the bitter attack by the minister on Conservative views. That reveals the very nature of the political threat to the SNP, which is worried about the erosion from the left by the SSP. The minister is worried about the threat from the Conservative party, so she attacks the Conservatives for a change, rather than the supposed Opposition. How revealing was that?

We must, however, stick to the debate rather than simply the nuances that come out of it. It is important that, in such a debate, one does not disparage one's opponents. I will not seek to disparage my opponents, but I shall certainly disparage their policies. I, like my colleague Murdo Fraser, have considered the international circumstances of many countries and the many ways in which poverty is tackled. I recommend to members a book called "Index of Economic Freedom", which shows clearly that it is those countries that travel down the road of giving people economic freedom that tackle poverty the best. They ensure that wealth is created and spread throughout their societies. Members will find—and it will not be a surprise to them—that countries such as Cuba, Yugoslavia and Belarus, which were once part of the Soviet empire and chose not to give their people more economic freedoms, have been left behind in tackling poverty by those countries that have gone for economic freedoms. Some of those are economic freedoms that we take for granted in this country and in this chamber and some of them are economic freedoms that are being threatened and eroded.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the member agree that, when we consider the level of poverty and deprivation throughout Europe, the countries that are the richest and have least poverty are the small economies of Scandinavia, such as Denmark and Norway, and countries that are independent and able to pursue policies that suit them?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

While there are some small countries at the top of that table, one should also mention Australia and the United States, which are not known for their smallness.

What has epitomised the approach by socialist parties—be it the SSP, which believes in socialism max, or the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, or indeed the SNP, which believe in socialism lite—is the belief that to tackle poverty we must tackle wealth. Under that approach, wealth, not poverty, is the scourge of the world. We should take wealth away from people and stop people having wealth, because then no one will be poor.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I am in my last minute.

We, in this party, believe in a different approach—an approach that has worked in places such as Estonia, and could certainly work in Scotland and the rest of Britain—which is to spread wealth, and to give more opportunity for wealth so that it pulls up people and their families and gives them opportunities in life in order that they can then build a better society. We in this party are not ashamed to support wealth—that is the way to tackle poverty.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The motion may be long, but I thank Carolyn Leckie for lodging it, as it has allowed us to debate this important subject again. Christine Grahame mentioned that we spoke about poverty in 1999; we also had a debate on the subject on 14 December last year. It seems as if poverty is continually being debated, but what has actually happened out there? I agree with Carolyn Leckie that only with independence can we truly eradicate poverty.

I am sure that all members, regardless of their party, would agree that it is a national disgrace that children are still living in poverty. It has been mentioned that one in three children live in poverty, but one in five working adults and one in five pensioners also live in poverty. The minister said that she was happy to take part in the debate, but she also said that things were changing for the better. If members listen to the figures that are presented by myself and others, they will recognise that it does not matter how much spin is put on the issue or how many targets—or whatever the buzzword is—are proposed, things are not changing. People are still living in poverty and people are still struggling. Things are simply not changing.

Robert Brown mentioned the Lib-Lab Executive—perhaps it is the Executive that is suffering from poverty: poverty of ambition. The Executive has poverty of ambition for our country and our people. We should tackle that. If the Executive had more ambition and spoke more to its Westminster colleagues about tax credits and so on, we may not eradicate poverty but life would be a lot better for people out there.

The minister spoke about the minimum wage and family tax credits. I do not need to tell the minister that we do not have control over those issues.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

What about the SNP's polices—not a word about them?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Somebody has already mentioned the policies.

We must take control over the tax and benefits system. I believe that Westminster is using the system to keep people unemployed. There is no point in sitting in this Parliament and tinkering around the edges.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, I am sorry but I will not.

We will not eradicate poverty by tinkering around the edges. I quite enjoyed our little tour around the world with Murdo Fraser. We were in North Korea and South Korea and we went to Cuba and America, but I do not remember him mentioning Scotland. Perhaps if he took more interest in his own countrymen, people in this country might start to listen to him.

Des McNulty can always be relied upon to stick up for Labour policies. He is a loyalist. I was going to call him a red, white and blue man, but perhaps I will change it to just a unionist man, considering that he called us a mixture of yellow, green and red nationalists. Des McNulty constantly talks up the policies as if everything is marvellous in the Labour Party, but everything is not marvellous or all roses. He said that the Labour Party is socialist and Wendy Alexander gave us a lovely wee history lesson on socialism. Perhaps she should speak to her colleague Bill Butler, who told school kids and me last week that the Labour Party has never been a socialist party. I was surprised when he said that. Wendy Alexander mentioned socialism and socialists so often that that must be her mantra. Perhaps one way of keeping her roots would be for her to remind herself that, one day, the Labour Party might be a socialist party.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No. I am sorry; I am in my last minute.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member is past her last minute.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I commend Campbell Martin for saying it all about the reality of living in poverty in Scotland today. We know what it is like to live out there in the sticks. It is about time that the Labour Party and the Lib-Lab Executive went out there and spoke to and listened to the people, instead of repeating to us the mantra that everything in the garden is fine and rosy.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I will deal with Mr Monteith's remarks later.

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on the Executive's behalf. Before Mr Martin leaves the chamber, I will say that I welcome the opportunity not because I enjoy standing in the chamber talking about poverty, but because the debate provides an opportunity to discuss ways of resolving the problems of poverty. Unfortunately, although Stewart Stevenson promised that we would hear about ways in which the SNP would resolve those problems, no SNP members provided solutions. We heard a critique about poverty, but no solutions. That shows the dearth of ideas from the SNP.

Members have heard about the Executive's commitment to combating poverty and delivering social justice to the people of Scotland. However, we must not become complacent about poverty or think that we can deliver a quick fix. The problem is complex and cannot easily or quickly be solved by introducing one or two policies or initiatives.

Carolyn Leckie opened the debate. I welcome our debating poverty, but this is not the first such debate. We held a debate on poverty in September, which Ms Leckie must have missed. She suggested that we could resolve some poverty issues by increasing the minimum wage in the public sector, which she said would cost £350 million. Unfortunately, that figure does not take into account knock-on effects on property costs and additional working hours.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

In a minute.

Stewart Stevenson referred to those knock-on effects. I commend Carolyn Leckie for suggesting how the move would be paid for—by the abolition of Scottish Enterprise—but abolishing Scottish Enterprise would deny an investment of more than £500 million to deliver economic growth for Scotland. Moreover, such a move would have a devastating impact on nearly 25,000 of our vulnerable young people, as it would remove £73 million for investment in schemes such as skillseekers, modern apprenticeships and the get ready for work programme.

It will come as no surprise that business would also suffer from such a move. Not only would the training for work programme end, but Careers Scotland would disappear. Such initiatives help people into work, yet the SSP would risk losing them.

The peripheral and fragile communities in the Highlands and Islands would also suffer badly from the loss of £89 million of investment in their economies. Do they not matter?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I give way to Tommy Sheridan.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The minister is sadly mistaken, because Highlands and Islands Enterprise was not mentioned. The proposal relates specifically to Scottish Enterprise. Does the minister agree that the 32 local authorities in Scotland could easily perform the function of bringing together businesses and colleges to provide the training and resources that she talked about?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

Mr Sheridan would still have to fund that.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister is in her last minute.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am sorry, I cannot give way.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

No, I cannot.

Mr Sheridan said that extra jobs would be created if we reduced the length of the working week to 35 hours. How would we pay for that? A 5 per cent increase in the number of Scottish Executive staff would be an additional 200 staff, and accommodation for them would cost us at least £1.2 million. The facts and figures do not add up.

As I am in my last minute, I will move on to the Scottish Tory party, because we should not let it get away in the debate. Murdo Fraser talked for two and a half minutes of his four-minute opening speech about foreign economies, but we want solutions for people here in Scotland. The only solution that the Scottish Tories have is to reduce business regulation, but that must be considered as part of an Executive package that includes investing in transport infrastructure, skills and training. The biggest single cause of poverty is unemployment, which the Tory party used for most of its 18 years in power as an economic tool. The Tories must answer for that to all the people of Scotland.

The way to remove poverty is to ensure that people have employment. The Executive is committed to supporting our people into employment. That is how we will tackle poverty.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I am disgusted by some of the input to the debate. I thank Sandra White, Campbell Martin, Christine Grahame and Patrick Harvie for talking about poverty and for bringing the debate back to some kind of sense, instead of attacking, prodding and being personal about some of our colleagues. That was disgusting.

Carolyn Leckie said:

"Poverty is the word that dare not speak its name in the chamber."

Did she not hit the right note when she said that? We saw the reaction: we dare not discuss poverty. Many examples exist of the poverty that people in our communities live with. Campbell Martin gave excellent examples from the community in which I, too, live in North Ayrshire. We know about that because we live in those communities and they are real to us. Perhaps Wendy Alexander has a conscience when she talks about socialism. Perhaps she remembers her earlier days and perhaps that is the problem.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Will the member give way?

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

I do not have time to take an intervention.

Carolyn Leckie gave the example of a hospital porter who earns £180 a week. I would like to see people in the chamber living on £180 a week. Today, 30 per cent of Scottish children still live in low-income households and still live in poverty. The Executive has been in power for four years and is in its second term, but expresses disgusting rhetoric.

Of dependent Scottish children, 14 per cent live in homes where no one works. We have third-generation unemployment. In addition, 42.4 per cent of the Scottish population aged under 16 are children of parents or carers who claim key benefits. Those children live not in wealth, but in poverty.

We listen and are in touch, unlike Margaret Curran, who is certainly out of touch. There are now working families who have discovered that work does not pay. In Scotland, 40 per cent of households on low incomes include a working adult. One in 10 babies born in poverty in this country is underweight and up to 12 times more likely to die in the first year of their life. Death rates in the most deprived 10 per cent of areas are more than twice as high as those in the least deprived 50 per cent. Pupils who receive free school meals form just under half of all exclusions, and 48.6 per cent of Scottish applicants who are accepted at UK higher education institutions are from social classes I and II, but only 9 per cent are from classes IV and V. I could go on and on. Those are examples of poverty. I tell Margaret Curran to go out into communities and find out what that is like.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Will the member give way?

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

No.

It is clear that Stewart Stevenson did not understand that the debate was about poverty. I am sure that the people of Scotland will appreciate his concerns about the poorest in our communities.

Murdo Fraser took a poke at socialism and quoted several examples from throughout the globe. He needs some lessons in understanding the differences. It is obvious that he needs to take a class in economics and politics. Scotland is a wealthy country. Shame on us for not caring properly for our elderly. We cannot pay our carers or nursery nurses a decent wage, but we can pay fat cats obscenely large wages.

There are unmet child care needs, so the situation is not as wonderful as Des McNulty would like to portray it. In 2000, more than a quarter of parents reported that their child care needs had not been met in the past year. Even the number of three and four-year-olds attending nursery schools does not help the problem. Carolyn Leckie spoke of the fact that parents who are working are paying a huge amount of their wages on child care. People cannot get to work because they cannot get child care, and Des McNulty must realise that we have a long way to go on that.

The SSP recognises—as does Unison, which represents 140,000 public service workers in Scotland—that large staff shortages across the public services are evidence of the need to address low pay if services are to be reformed. There are gaps and shortages in social services. Last week, sadly, we had a debate about child protection at which we highlighted the shortage of social workers. We also have a shortage of nurses and of other health professionals. If we are to attract those people, we need to give them a decent wage. Producers are also consumers, and we seem to forget that. They are consumers of public services, and a buoyant public sector means money being spent in the economy, which helps to support small businesses.

How sad it is that Stewart Stevenson was so busy attacking Rosie Kane that he was unable to make the case for independence. The Scottish Parliament has no powers to prevent Scotland from being pushed into George Bush's illegal war. It has no powers to welcome refugees who are fleeing persecution. It has no power over our vast oil reserves, our electricity, our gas or the nuclear power plants in Scotland. It has no power to increase the pitifully low state pension or to end the degrading means tests that are faced by our elderly. We must restore the link between earnings and pensions, but we have no power to do that in this Parliament; nor do we have any power to combat exploitation in the private sector by raising the disgracefully low level of the national minimum wage.

Patrick Harvie outlined the case for a shorter working week and the need to end poverty in the public sector, particularly among workers who are overworked and underpaid. A shorter working week would give parents time to spend with their children instead of being herded into casual work where, if they are asked to work a night shift, they have got to do it or they are up the road. That is the reality in my community. It may not be the reality in Margaret Curran's community, but it certainly is in mine. This Parliament has the power to make that change for the public sector. A wage of £7.32 an hour is hardly a huge income, but it is the European threshold. Almost a third of full-time workers in Scotland are paid below the national average wage.

If Mary Mulligan is asking for a resolution, here is one: no more illegal wars in our name. Billions could be saved that could go into our economy. Those billions could improve public services and provide for our nursery nurses and other low-paid workers. I ask those members who have entered sensibly into today's debate to think carefully and to support our motion.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you rule that members cannot have it both ways? They cannot say that there must be no personal attacks on themselves and then resort to making a speech that is a personal attack on a minister.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think members will recognise that that is a useful debating point, but it is scarcely a point of order.

It would also be appropriate to ask for the Official Report to show that Ms Byrne's references to Patrick Harvie should in fact be to Mark Ballard, who made the speech in question. [Interruption.] I would be grateful not to have any other suggestions about misidentification; I did not notice any.

World Peace

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is motion S2M-618, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, on world peace. There are three amendments to the motion and an amendment to one of the amendments.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

If I sound hoarse, it is probably because I have been on one demonstration too many this week.

Our motion is strongly worded, because George Bush is being wined and dined and flattered and fawned over in London, and we want to counter that view of George Bush with the truth. The truth is that George Bush has blood on his hands—the blood of many hundreds of Americans and of tens of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis. This is the man who, as governor of Texas, executed 152 people. One of the last of his victims was a grandmother with learning difficulties who was found guilty of murdering her abusive husband. This is the man who used his privileged family background to dodge conscription in Vietnam and arranged to do his military service in the national guard—the equivalent of Dad's army—while thousands of young Americans of his generation were being killed in the jungles of Vietnam.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thought that, according to the party's last speaker, the SSP was against personal attacks.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I take it from that remark that Alex Johnstone is a fan of the man—the man who has now sent 400 young American soldiers to their deaths in the desert of Iraq and has not had the common decency to turn up at any of the funerals or memorial services for those service personnel.

In May 2001, George Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban—yes, the Taliban—just months before he dropped the bombs and pulverised their regime. He continues to give money and weapons to dictatorships, but only to dictatorships who are the good guys, we must understand. For example, he gives money to the feudal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, which carries out public beheadings for witchcraft, stones women to death for adultery and—by the way, let us be clear about the fact that it is a freedom-conscious capitalist country—bans music, cinema, theatre and art. Let us hear it for capitalist democracy in Saudi Arabia.

Our motion is not against the Americans. George Bush was elected by just 25 per cent of the American electorate. In the future, when Michael Moore is President of the USA, we in the Scottish Socialist Party will be delighted to invite him on a state visit to an independent, nuclear- weapons-free, socialist Scotland. Members should get on his website and find out the truth. We are not against the American people. We are against the warlords in Washington who exploited the death and misery of the events of 11 September to unleash the dogs of war against the ordinary people of Afghanistan and Iraq to serve their own economic and political interests.

Our motion condemns Tony Blair for war crimes because of his complicity, his deceit of the Scottish Parliament, his deceit of the Westminster Parliament and his deceit of the people of the United Kingdom. In March, this Parliament voted narrowly and reluctantly to support the bombing and invasion of Iraq. Most of the MSPs who voted for war—they can speak for themselves in the debate, because they all put their hands up and supported it—did so because they believed Tony Blair. They believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be used within minutes. I am sure that they believed that the war would make the world a safer place. They will have their judgment day. They put their hands up and they can give their views in today's debate.

Now, we know—and I hope that other members will acknowledge in today's debate what the Scottish Socialist Party said all along—that there are no weapons of mass destruction.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In this very important debate, there is nobody on the Government front bench.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

That is not a point of order, but it is a matter that the Executive will doubtless wish to consider.

Please continue, Ms Curran.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is obvious how important the issue is to the Executive. It is national headline news and on the front page of every newspaper, and the Scottish Executive does not feel able to participate in the debate.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Frances Curran accept an intervention?

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I am afraid that I have to carry on as I am in the last minutes of my speech.

We know that there are no weapons of mass destruction. I hope that members will agree that, instead of creating a more peaceful and more stable world, we have stirred up a cauldron of hate in the Muslim world, which stretches from the Mediterranean to the Indian ocean. Generations will live with the consequences of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

I ask this new Parliament, which is supposed to stand for freedom and democracy—if we listen to the front-bench members, who are not even here today—to send a message on behalf of the Scottish people that reverberates across the world: that we support the mass demonstrations that are assembling in London as we speak to demonstrate against George Bush. Let us hope that the demonstration is 100,000 or 200,000-strong, or bigger. Let us also hope that the Scottish Parliament dissociates itself from Tony Blair and the Labour Government's decisions in Westminster. The Scottish Parliament sends a message that we stand for peace, solidarity and co-operation with the people of the world. Let us make our voice heard in a world that is clamouring for war.

I move,

That the Parliament opposes the State visit to the UK by George W Bush; deplores the complicity and subservience of the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who now shares the responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and dozens of British service personnel; considers that the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament were deceived into backing an illegal, immoral and unjustified war; believes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned the world into a more dangerous and unstable place than ever before; agrees to send messages of support to the many thousands of protestors participating in the "Stop Bush" UK national demonstrations in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and recommends that the International Court of Justice should place George W Bush and Tony Blair on trial for war crimes.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

The prospect of achieving world peace by means of a 75-minute Scottish Socialist Party debate in the Scottish Parliament seems a little optimistic. As I have just five minutes in which to open for the Labour Party, let us take it as read that the commitment to peace and justice is one of the Labour Party's fundamental principles—it always has been and it always will be.

Indeed, I sincerely hope that every member of the Parliament supports the principle of world peace. Perhaps we should give a special welcome to the opposition to violence that was expressed by Frances Curran and in the motion lodged in Tommy Sheridan's name. The SSP draws its political inspiration from one Leon Trotsky, who was famously committed to the achievement of his objectives by

"revolutionary, that is, violent means".

If we have moved on from that position, we should welcome such progress.

Frances Curran has just spoken to a motion that proposes some kind of moral equivalence between the elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the likes of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. On reflection, even Tommy Sheridan might acknowledge that that proposition is rather silly.

A lot of us might like to see regime change in the United States of America. A lot of us are very worried about the US Administration's position on climate change and extremely disturbed by the detention of prisoners in Guantanamo bay. However, the United States is a democracy. Next year, the American people will have an opportunity to elect a new President. It is a good thing that the people of Iraq should soon be able to elect their own Government at long last.

I thank the Scottish services personnel who have fought—and it is tragic that some have died—to make it possible for the Iraqi people to exercise that right. I take this opportunity to express our support and sincere gratitude to the men and women of the British armed forces and the police officers and others who are engaged in that difficult and dangerous mission. Just last week, soldiers of the Royal Scots regiment, who are recruited in the Lothian area, left Edinburgh to be deployed in Iraq. I salute their professionalism, their courage and—dare I say it—their indefatigability. Above all, we want them all to return safely to their families at the end of their tour of duty.

Incidentally, I say to my Liberal Democrat colleagues that I noticed that Mike Rumbles's amendment would, in amending the amendment that I lodged, leave out the expression of support for British troops. I hope that that is an oversight; if it is not, it is deplorable.

The big question that underlies this debate is whether it can be justified for democracies to deploy military power against tyrants who are oppressing their own people or threatening their neighbours. I accept that there is a perfectly respectable pacifist position that military action can never be justified, but I disagree with that position. I believe that military action can be justified and I am extremely grateful to my father's generation for taking up arms against Nazi Germany.

I spent some time doing relief work in areas of Bosnia that were under siege by Serb forces. I will never forget the suffering that I saw during the long wait before the United States agreed to deploy with NATO against those oppressors.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry. I have only a couple of minutes left and this is an important debate.

How many citizens of Srebrenica might be alive now if NATO had deployed sooner? Perhaps the victims of poison gas at Halabjah would have had a chance if the west had not turned a blind eye to Saddam for such a long time.

Yes, war is hell—I know; I have seen it. Yes, it would be infinitely better if we had an effective United Nations to take responsibility for these matters. Yes, it is a deplorable fact of realpolitik that it is not possible to tackle each and every rogue state immediately. However, I suggest that it would be a counsel of abject despair to use that fact as an excuse for a refusal ever to intervene against any tyrant anywhere.

The SSP motion is, in effect, a condemnation of the presence of British and other coalition peacekeepers in Iraq and it is a call for them to be withdrawn. That is exactly what the people who bombed the United Nations and the Red Cross in Iraq want us to do. If our forces were withdrawn, a bad security situation would become catastrophic, reconstruction would become impossible and the plight of Iraq's people would become even worse. Saddam Hussein would probably return to power and I do not think that that would be a good idea. If Saddam returned to power, what message would that convey to the rulers of Zimbabwe or Burma, and what hope would there be for the implementation of United Nations resolutions on Palestine?

The trouble with the SSP's world view is that it would make the world a safer place for dangerous tyrants. No thank you, Tommy. I want real criminals to be brought to justice in The Hague and I want Britain to use its influence to tackle the underlying causes of terrorism and to achieve a just resolution in the middle east. I strongly support the case for peacekeeping and peace-making intervention forces, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations. I express the Parliament's gratitude to and support for Scottish service personnel in Iraq.

I move amendment S2M-618.3, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"supports all those who are working for world peace and the extension of democracy; reasserts its support for the route map to peace in the Middle East; believes that the contribution of UK service personnel, including those from Scotland, should be commended, and expresses its sympathy to the families of those members of the armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country and in the pursuit of world peace."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In stark contrast to the extremist and intemperate motion from the Scottish Socialist Party, the Liberal Democrat amendment not only reflects the public mood but identifies the three main issues that must be addressed if we are to make real progress in our efforts to make the world a safer place.

My amendment aims, among other things, to strengthen the search for peace in the middle east, which is why it starts at the point in John Home Robertson's amendment that it does. I believe that I am the only member in the chamber who has been on active service in the fight against terrorism, so I trust that John Home Robertson and other members will accept that my amendment to his amendment would not, and does not, devalue those members of the armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

The Liberal Democrats, both in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster, made our opposition to the Government's position absolutely clear. We argued most strongly that military action against Iraq should take place only as a last resort and that more time should be given for the weapons inspectors to do their job. The Government, however, justified military action on the ground that the threat from weapons of mass destruction was too great for the inspectors to be given any more time and that the UN had previously authorised such action. The facts are that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq and that the UN has been marginalised and ignored. I wish that it was otherwise.

Our amendment makes it clear that, although we believe that initiating military action in Iraq without a clear mandate from the UN was wrong, President Bush's visit provides an opportunity for us in the United Kingdom to press him to take action on three important fronts.

First, Iraq must not be abandoned. Those who went to war have a moral duty to make Iraq safe and give the people of that unfortunate country the opportunity freely to choose their own form of government. Self-determination of the Iraqi people must be a fundamental principle of the occupying powers.

Secondly, the British citizens who are imprisoned by the Americans at Guantanamo bay must be charged and receive a fair trial or be sent home to face justice here in the United Kingdom. The Americans must realise that they risk losing all moral authority in their war against terrorism. How can they achieve their aims of upholding the rule of law, defending democracy and preserving freedom if they fail to uphold those great ideals in their treatment of the people whom they imprison at Guantanamo bay? Those prisoners are held without charge; they are seemingly non-persons who are outwith the protection of any legal system. Our Government must act on its duty to protect the British citizens who are held there. The Liberal Democrats believe that action must be taken either to charge our citizens with an offence prior to a fair trial or to bring them home to face justice. The status quo is simply not an option.

Last, but certainly not least, the source of injustice that feeds the cancer of international terrorism must be addressed. The US President must honour his promise to continue his unremitting search for peace in the middle east through providing security for Israel and justice for the Palestinians.

I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment, which would send a clear and constructive message to our American allies, and to a wider audience, that is designed to achieve movement towards a more peaceful world in the months and years ahead.

I move, as an amendment to amendment S2M-618.3, amendment S2M-618.3.1, to leave out from "reasserts" to end and insert:

"acknowledges the deep feeling aroused by the State visit of the US President George W Bush; believes that initiating military action in Iraq without a clear UN mandate was wrong, and recognises the opportunity presented by the visit to make clear the public's wish that those who initiated the war have a duty, under the supervision of the UN, to make Iraq safe and give its people the opportunity of a democratic future, that the British citizens in Guantanamo Bay are either charged and receive a fair trial or are sent home to face justice within the UK, and that the promise to continue the unremitting search for peace in the Middle East with security for Israel and justice for the Palestinians must be honoured."

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The pictures on television last night of George Bush being fawned over in London must have been painful for the families of service personnel who lost their lives in his illegal war and for the families of those who are still in Iraq and who risk their lives every day. The present situation in Iraq is connected to the nature of that war. We cannot take unilateral action in defiance of the international community and then expect other countries to help us to pick up the pieces. Is it any wonder that Iraqi people now view the US and the UK not as allies on the road to democracy, but as an occupying force in their country?

In London yesterday, George Bush defended the use of measured force. A war that involves the use of thousands of cluster bombs, tonnes of depleted uranium and 30 canisters of napalm and that killed up to 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians could be described as many things, but measured is not one of them. Other countries must become involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, but that can happen only if the United Nations is put in charge, as that would allow the international community to start to lay the foundations of democracy and to work to return the country to the Iraqi people. That should be done when it is in those people's interests, not when it suits George Bush's re-election prospects.

The anger that people feel about Iraq is huge and tangible, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. The debate is about world peace, which will always be an elusive dream without the positive contribution of the United States. Right now, one of the threats to world peace is the way in which the US Administration chooses to wield its military and economic might, which, whatever George Bush says, is rarely to further democracy or human rights or to lead the charge against world poverty and disease. What George Bush does and says is in America's interests, or rather what the neo-cons—the disciples of the pre-emptive strike and the full-spectrum dominance school of politics—perceive to be America's interests.

Many American citizens are as appalled by that as the rest of us are. Bush and his cronies are not representative of the majority of decent American people. Bush and his cronies are not leading the world, but putting the United States at odds with the world. They reject the Kyoto treaty and the International Criminal Court and turn a blind eye when Israel breaches the road map to peace. They preach free trade to the impoverished third world, but engage in blatant protectionism of their industries, oblivious to the fact that nearly 3 billion people in the world live on less than $2 a day. They lecture the world about human rights, while presiding over the most appalling abuse of human rights at Guantanamo bay.

More than 600 suspected Taliban fighters—five of whom are children—have been held in Guantanamo bay for nearly two years without charge, access to lawyers or any prospect of a fair trial. It is a little known fact that, under US environmental law, iguanas on Guantanamo bay have rights. However, it seems that, under the US Administration, foreign children have no rights. That situation is justified in the name of fighting terrorism. Clearly, we all want to combat international terrorism, but understanding some of the factors that cause terrorism might be a good place to start. It is a sobering thought that, although al-Qa'ida was not active in Iraq before the war, it is now.

Bush said last night that Britain is America's best friend in the world; the problem is that Britain is one of the American Administration's only friends in the world. If Blair were a true friend of the United States, he would tell Bush today in no uncertain terms that he is on the wrong course. Sadly for all of us—not just members, but people throughout the world—no one should hold their breath for that to happen.

I move amendment S2M-618.2, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"regrets the State visit to the UK by George W Bush at a time when civilian and military casualties in Iraq continue to rise; condemns the decision by George W Bush and Tony Blair to pursue an illegal war in Iraq on the basis of false and misleading information; considers that US military command in Iraq should be passed to the United Nations and that the process of handing over control of the country to a democratic government should be accelerated in the interests of the Iraqi people rather than the re-election prospects of George W Bush; believes that the total disregard of the current US administration for the views of the international community, as illustrated by its stance on Iraq, the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court and its abuse of human rights at Guantanamo Bay, poses a threat to world peace, and calls on Tony Blair to raise these issues in the strongest possible terms with George W Bush during his visit to the UK."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I congratulate John Home Robertson on his amendment and on the way in which he spoke to it. I do not agree with everything that he said, but I agree with much of it. I emphasise that Conservative members support his unamended amendment, should ours not be agreed to. I also agree with something that Frances Curran said—I believe that this Parliament and the UK Parliament were misled by our Prime Minister at the outset of the Iraqi war. However, I contrast that with the actions of President Bush, who was honest about seeking a regime change, which we backed. I do not believe that the war was illegal; I believe that United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 covered our involvement in the war.

The United States has been Britain's greatest ally in striving for worldwide peace. The partnership dates back through the entire 20th century and in no period was stronger than when the United States entered the 1939-45 war, when Britain stood alone against the fascism that had been imposed throughout western Europe by Nazi Germany. Since that time, we have been through the anxious years of the cold war, when Conservative support—both in government and opposition—for nuclear deterrence was key to sustaining peace between the major power blocs and, ultimately, to bringing freedom to the eastern European countries, some of which are now at the point of entry into the European Union. I pay tribute to the many Scottish workers who worked at Holy Loch, Faslane and Rosyth in support of that programme.

The protesters who operated under the banner of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament are back on the streets today for another reason. However, on this occasion, those people will not be supported by former CND members such as Tony Blair.

As we cast our minds back to the war years, no member can fail to deplore the waste of life—50 million people died in the second world war and as many again, if not more, carried their wounds into the remainder of their lives. Anyone who supported war along those lines would need to have their heads examined. I am sure that no member would wish that to happen again. I suspect that no one in 1939 wanted the war that followed, but this nation was forced into it.

Inevitably, the war in Iraq produced casualties, but the death toll of Iraqis does not exceed the number of people who were murdered by Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. More Iraqi lives have been saved than were lost. The deaths of British servicemen and all others who have lost their lives as a consequence of military action are a heavy price to pay for our intervention in Iraq. However, so too were the deaths in action in the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Bosnia. I say to Frances Curran that we went into Bosnia to protect Muslims, not to fight them, which is often forgotten these days. I well recall criticisms that were made of the Tory Government for failing to take action in Rwanda and the Congo. Those criticisms came from many of those who will be marching today over Iraq.

George Bush is a democratically elected leader of the world's only remaining superpower. He has great responsibilities on his shoulders. For us to turn our backs on him at this time would be criminal. We should remember that, for the present time, whether we like it or not, he is the voice and physical presence of every United States citizen. I deplore the way in which the Scottish socialists and Greens, among others, have attempted to stir up animosity. Given the debate on poverty that we have just had, I remind them all that many jobs in Scotland could be affected by our actions at this time.

I move amendment S2M-618.1, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the State visit to the UK of the democratically elected President of the United States of America, recognises the close ties that have existed between governments and peoples of the UK and USA in times of world war, cold war and peace, and believes that without that level of co-operation there would be no free world as we know it today."

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

As a long-standing member of CND, I was looking forward to this debate. To me, world peace is the most important issue that we can debate. The world has been torn apart by wars for far too long. Anything that we can do to promote peace is well worth our time and we should not miss such an opportunity.

I did not support the war in Iraq and I reject war as a solution to any of the world's problems. That comes from my belief in non-violence. I have difficulty even with the statement that war should be used only as a last resort, because the inevitable consequence is people dying. That, to me, is a good enough reason to reject war as a solution. Today's conflicts have complex roots and some have been caused by previous wars. We will not solve the problems or address the disaffection that is felt in communities and societies by recourse to violence.

However, state visits between countries are part and parcel of the communications between nations. Although we can condemn the detail of Bush's visit, the real issue is how we can promote world peace. I believe that we should seek non-violent solutions.

Over the weekend, Bush contended that the fact that we have the democratic right to demonstrate and freedom of speech is a justification for going to war. However, lots of us have taken part in demonstrations and marches and I am sure that we would have chosen to stay quietly at home if we had believed that not marching and not demonstrating would save a life or stop a bomb.

We often hear talk of a lack of interest in politics. However, once again, the demonstrations yesterday and today show that there is a deep, heartfelt interest in the politics of the world and, particularly, in the promotion of world peace.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the member join me in welcoming the large number of young people who came to demonstrate in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and throughout the UK, yesterday, giving the lie to the line that young people are apathetic about politics?

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Yes. That is exactly the argument that I am making.

I have always believed that what we do as individuals has an effect on the wider world and I am pleased that so many members have taken this issue so seriously and come together to debate peace. What we do and say individually has an effect on how we are seen in the wider world. Scotland and the Parliament need to take their place in striving for world peace. It is a pity that we are not debating a wide-ranging statement on world peace that the majority of members could have supported easily or perhaps that we could have agreed to unanimously. Instead, the public see and hear us argue and fall out. I sincerely hope that we can look forward to a more peaceful world and that each of us will do what we can individually to promote peace in our own circle of influence.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Last night in the UK, George Bush said that violence was necessary to bring peace—what a philosophy of despair. The protests against the war in Iraq were the biggest protests ever held in the United Kingdom. More than 1 million people were out on the streets. That is the democratic will of the people—it is democracy in action—whereas the visit of George Bush is not. Where is the peace in the middle east that his foreign policy was supposed to bring? I will concentrate on one aspect of that policy.

The Daily Telegraph of 24 September reported that 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium were dropped on Iraq during the recent war. The UK Government refuses to give figures, but that figure has been suggested by other researchers. The DU-coated weapons explode on contact, turning the DU into a fine radioactive dust to be blown around in the winds of Iraq—a dust that will be radioactive for the life of this planet. That is a moral outrage. Those weapons are tested here in Scotland, at Dundrennan, where some 5,000 DU-coated weapons have been fired. If their use is morally unjustifiable, so is their testing in Scotland.

If the Executive has any claims to decency, it must make representations to its English leaders to stop the testing and use of DU weapons. I am deeply disappointed that the Executive has so little interest in world peace that it could not send even one minister to the debate.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I suspect that the situation is worse than that. I think that the Executive is boycotting the debate.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I thank the member for that.

DU emits predominantly alpha radiation, which poses little external risk. However, if alpha radiation is ingested into the lungs or stomach, it is more lethal than either beta or gamma radiation. Paradoxically, low levels of alpha radiation can cause more damage than high levels can, because cells that are simply killed by high-level doses can survive low-level doses and mutate into cancers. Alpha radiation particles that are lodged in the body can stay there for life. The United Nations environment programme has warned of the risk of inhaling DU dust during the Iraq war.

It gets worse. It has been suggested that the DU that has been used was not clean. DU is a waste product from the enrichment of uranium in the nuclear industry. It is now claimed that the DU that was used in Afghanistan also contained enriched uranium and even plutonium. The process is not clean.

The European Green parties helped to ensure that the members of the European Parliament voted on 13 February for a moratorium on uranium weapons. A third of the US troops who were active in the first Gulf war are now on disability pensions with Gulf war syndrome. The European Committee on Radiation Risk recently published a report showing that previous risk models for DU exposure are incorrect by a factor of up to 1,000. In other words, DU is up to 1,000 times more carcinogenic than was previously thought.

On impact, DU explodes into a fine radioactive dust. That dust will blow in the winds of Iraq for all time for the children to breathe. That is an environmental crime. These are the weapons of mass destruction that have been used in the Iraq war. The use of depleted uranium weapons is a crime against humanity and the testing of such weapons on the beautiful Galloway coastline is an outrage.

I congratulate Mr Sheridan on securing this debate to highlight the crimes that have been committed by the Labour Government in the Iraq war and I call on the Executive to stop the testing of DU weapons in Scotland forthwith.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Wendy Alexander slagged us off this morning for Bush baiting. While Bush is baiting the rest of the planet, we will continue Bush baiting on every possible platform and the Scottish Parliament will be no exception. I will pass my speech to Stewart Stevenson later, as he and his researchers seem to have loads of time to be my political stalkers.

I support what Chris Ballance said about the Executive ministers, who clearly could not be bothered to come to the chamber. I agree with Christine Grahame that they seem to be boycotting the Parliament. Is that not extreme? It is a pity that they do not boycott, behave badly and express themselves in direct action like that when that is required in the streets or in the Parliament.

We have had Pinochet and Putin, so why not go the whole hog and have George Bush as well? The UK is fast becoming a red-carpeted safe haven for every bloodthirsty killer on the planet. When innocent people come here fleeing poverty and war or seeking a better future, they are fingerprinted, photographed, cross-examined, humiliated, frightened and detained, yet the warmonger can come freely and is wined and dined at the taxpayer's expense.

This morning, we talked about poverty and heard that we have no money for services, wages, free school meals or hospitals. However, it seems that we have an open cheque book when it comes to death and destruction. Let us look at what we get for our blood money.

Since the second world war, the USA has been involved in the deaths of at least 86 million people, mainly from countries in the southern hemisphere. The majority of victims of armed conflict are women and children. Rape is routinely used as a weapon of war, yet rape victims are rarely granted asylum. It cost £6.6 billion to attack and invade Iraq while 1.5 million people die of malnutrition every year.

Having worked in the area, I know that many soldiers are either conscripted or join the military to escape poverty or to get training or employment. I also know that our job centres are now full of army recruitment officers soaking up young people who have no other opportunities and who are then forced to kill people who are even less well off than they are. When those young people return sick from the effects of pollution and traumatised by the terror of killing, they are ignored by their Government.

The USA's war on terror enforces economic, political and military domination on behalf of the oil industry and multinational corporations. Capitalism and the arms industry wander freely throughout the planet, their way paved by war, while the victims and asylum seekers are treated with cruelty and suspicion.

Tony Blair has no friends other than the warmongers any more. His invitation to George Bush is an insult, given that people on all sides are dying daily as a result of the attacks, which were based on lies. More than $900 billion has now been spent on military budgets worldwide instead of on caring for everyone on the planet.

Earlier, we talked about poverty—at least, some of us did. When Gordon Brown was asked how much he was prepared to spend on war, he replied that he would spend as much as it takes. That is the Brown principle. I ask members to imagine what would happen if that principle could be applied to poverty.

The Washington warlord is not welcome and the Scottish Parliament should and must distance itself from his visit in the way that the Scottish Executive has distanced itself from this debate.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

This debate is primarily about US foreign policy and the fact that the UK Prime Minister has given his blessing to it. The world faces a dilemma in that we cannot achieve world peace without the backing of the US but neither can we achieve it with the current US leadership in place.

I remind the chamber that yesterday was the 13th anniversary of the signing in Paris by the members of the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of the treaty that signalled the end of the cold war. However, in this new millennium, few people in Scotland or internationally would think that the world has become a safer place in the past 13 years. We all know that, thanks to the USA's short-sighted foreign policy, the world is a much more dangerous place.

As an indication of the changes that have taken place over the past 13 years, I draw the attention of the chamber to the fact that, last week, a survey revealed that 53 per cent of Europeans think that the USA is a danger to world security. That places the USA on a par with North Korea and Iran. Of course, George Bush has become unpopular throughout Europe not only because of Iraq, but because of his back-pedalling on the environment and his opposition to the International Criminal Court.

Previously, the cold war united Europe and the USA, but now America is the only huge economic and military superpower on the planet. It has decided to use that might to become the archetypal playground bully, thinking that the only way in which it can do things is by using that economic and military might.

What happened on 11 September should have been a wake-up call to the USA but, instead, it seemed to view it as some sort of call to arms. After 11 September, we were all united behind the USA in the fight against international terrorism. However, America moved the agenda away from that and towards weapons of mass destruction and, later, regime change. In the meantime, other issues that it could have tackled, such as world poverty, famine and the issues that feed terrorism throughout the world, have been completely neglected, particularly the crisis in the middle east, which seems to have fallen off the USA's radar screen.

Surely our strategy must be to isolate the terrorists. However, the current USA policy, to which Blair gives his blessing, isolates America and the UK, not the terrorists. Further, it gives terrorism a worldwide recruiting sergeant and it undermines the UN.

The challenge facing Scotland, the UK and the rest of the international community is somehow to persuade the USA that international interests are also America's interests. At the moment, the USA is trying to persuade the rest of the world that its interests are the same as international interests.

Bush has to start learning how to make friends and not just create enemies. Yesterday, the UN put out an appeal for aid to help in the 21 crises throughout the world that have been neglected because of what has happened in Iraq and, previously, in Afghanistan. The UN wants $3 billion to that end, which is a tiny percentage of the $87 billion that Bush asked Congress for to deal with the situation in Iraq. What would the world be like today if Bush had thought that it was in the USA's interest to ask Congress for $87 billion to tackle world poverty and famine? Think of the bridges that that would have built and the resentment towards the USA that would have been eliminated.

Scotland should be confident of being able to make a contribution to the process that I have described. We should remember that, back in the early 1990s, Norway helped the middle east peace process and that, as Ireland takes over the European Union presidency, it has put on the EU's agenda a range of issues relating to international development and world peace. If a small nation such as Ireland can make that sort of contribution, Scotland should be able to do so as well. It is despicable that the Scottish Executive ministers have not appeared for this important debate.

The message from this chamber today should be that the USA's leaders must change their foreign policy and that, if they will not do that, the people of the USA must change their political leaders.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

This debate has provoked some genuine and strong speeches. Two or three members have noted that no Executive ministers are sitting on the front bench. The reason for that is quite clear: there is no Executive position on this reserved matter and the two Executive parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, are here today to state their own views.

Mike Rumbles expressed the Liberal Democrat case in relation to war. We argued passionately that the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to do their job in Iraq. We believed that war should have been undertaken only as a last resort and that action should have been taken only with the clear authority of the UN.

I believe that Prime Minister Tony Blair was sincere when he argued in the foreword to the February dossier that Saddam Hussein's

"military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

That is the case for war that was put by his Government and for which he won parliamentary backing. However, the fact that the USA-led survey group has failed to find any evidence whatever of weapons of mass destruction shows that that premise was fatally flawed and, therefore, that the war was wrong.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Would the member also like to put on record the fact that no evidence has been found of any linkage between Iraq and al-Qa'ida or the attacks on 11 September?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

That is well recognised and I take that point.

There are many who suggest that George Bush should not have visited the UK. I believe that we must give him the respect that he deserves as the democratically elected President of the USA and that he should be welcomed.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Is George Lyon seriously suggesting that George Bush got more votes than his rival?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We could spend all day discussing that matter. Whether we like it or not, he is the elected President of the United States. Although his visit might be ill-timed, it presents us with an opportunity to make clear to him the public's wish that those who initiated the war have a duty, under the supervision of the UN, to make Iraq safe and give it the opportunity of a democratic future. The timetable for bringing the troops out of Iraq and handing over power must be driven by that goal alone and not by George Bush's re-election campaign.

George Bush must also be told that British citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo bay must either be charged by the American authorities and receive a fair trial or be returned here to the UK to face justice. Either way, President Bush must make a decision on the matter. I understand that, when Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, met President Bush yesterday, he was given an indication that progress would be made on the issue. However, we need an announcement today, before President Bush leaves the country.

I put on record the Liberal Democrats' tribute to our troops in Iraq and to those who have lost their lives, making the ultimate sacrifice for their country. The troops have done us proud in their conduct during the war and in their attempt to manage the peace since the war's conclusion.

The visit of President Bush offers a real opportunity to drive home to him the deep concerns that the British public have about his Government's foreign policy and about his intentions on Iraq; to reinforce to him the desperate need to continue to pursue a solution to the running sore in the middle east; and to demand action on his treatment of British citizens at Guantanamo bay. I hope that all members will take the opportunity of tonight's vote to send a clear message from the Parliament to George Bush that we want action. Support our amendment.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on world peace. It is useful to remind ourselves of necessary priorities in our attempts to make the world a safer place. If Tommy Sheridan and his colleagues had been in Iraq and had opposed Saddam Hussein's regime in much the same way as he opposes the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, it is unlikely that he and they would have lasted long. That is a point that is very much in favour of British democracy. However, I defend absolutely the right of Tommy Sheridan and his party to speak their minds forcefully and to the point.

We support peace and peaceful developments, but not at any price. That has been a Scots tradition since the declaration of Arbroath.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am not giving way. I am entitled to freedom of speech as much as SSP members. The SSP has allowed only one hour for a debate of the greatest possible magnitude and I regret very much that the whole morning was not provided for it, in which case I would have given way repeatedly.

The declaration of Arbroath stated:

"For it is not glory, it is not riches, neither is it honour, but it is liberty alone that we fight and contend for, which no honest man will lose but with his life."

That was a wholly honourable and worthy sentiment.

As we near the 40th anniversary of his assassination, I cannot help recalling the words of President John F Kennedy in his inaugural address:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That, again, was a wholly honourable and worthy sentiment.

The reasons why freedom can protect peace are the very ones that President Roosevelt gave when he set out the four central human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Where there is lawlessness, disorder and indiscriminate murder of civilians, there is no freedom of peace of mind for those in the vicinity, because the rights and freedoms of those concerned have been violated. Communities throughout the world have the right to survival against such threats of violence.

In the course of the debate, a number of less-than-complementary remarks have been made about President George W Bush. As it happens, I hold in my hands a letter that he sent to me shortly after his election. In that letter, he commented on the theme of this morning's debate, namely peace. As he cannot be here this morning, it is only fair that I report to the Parliament what he wrote. He said:

"We will undoubtedly face a number of challenges in the years ahead. I am confident that, with a spirit of mutual respect, co-operation, and open dialogue, we can successfully meet these challenges. The future also presents enormous opportunities. Together we can use these opportunities to advance the peace, freedom and prosperity of our peoples."

I commend his words to the Parliament.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome today's SSP debate on world peace. Many members have been saying that it is ridiculous to debate world peace in only an hour and a quarter. We cannot solve the problem in an hour and a quarter, but if we and people round the world stopped talking about ideals, ambitions and dreams, we would never get anywhere.

The SSP has the right to use its debating time for the subjects that it wishes to debate. We hear all the time from the Scottish Executive that everyone has rights and responsibilities. The SSP has the right to discuss world peace and I believe that the Scottish Executive should at least have the responsibility to turn up and listen to the debate. George Lyon gave us a reason why the Executive ministers are not here: it is because they have no position on world peace. Will that same Executive display absolute hypocrisy by turning up at 5 o'clock this evening and pressing their buttons to vote against—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

World peace.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes, against world peace—on which they do not have a view. That would be purely so that they do not embarrass Tony down the road by the Parliament saying that it totally opposes what he and his friend, George Bush, are up to.

Instead of hearing from the Scottish Executive, we heard John Home Robertson, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party. He is no longer in the chamber either—unless he is creeping round the back somewhere. John told us that the commitment to peace and justice is fundamental to the Labour Party. He should tell the Executive that, and ministers should be here to listen. He should also tell Tony Blair that, because he seems to have forgotten about that fundamental commitment of the Labour Party.

John Home Robertson went on to salute the Scottish soldiers, which I think everyone does. He noted that the Lib Dems did not include that in their amendment, and said that that was deplorable, unless it was an error—which George Lyon cleared up. It is also deplorable that the Scottish Executive is not represented here to salute the Scottish soldiers, in line with an amendment lodged by a member of the Labour Party.

The debate moved on. Nicola Sturgeon, Richard Lochhead and others were at pains to express the fact that we are not against the Americans or American ideals; we are against how those ideals have been traduced by the right-wing cabal that now has power in America. We heard references to the American President being democratically elected. Is there anybody here who really believes that, after the debacle that was the last presidential election in the USA? We are against the apparent unquestioning acceptance by the Prime Minister of this country of everything that that right-wing cabal in America says, which has led us into a disastrous war, with disastrous and continuing consequences.

I thought that Chris Ballance's contribution on gulf war syndrome and depleted uranium and its effects was very interesting. It would do everyone good to read his speech in the Official Report tomorrow and to come to a view on how we can protest about that particular element of policy. That leads me to the weapons of mass destruction that are located down on the Clyde. If we are seriously talking about world peace, then let us talk seriously about ridding our country of nuclear weapons.

The debate obviously goes much wider than Iraq. The problems of Iraq are not the only ones in the world. Let us do some of that talking, dreaming and real radical thinking and move towards looking at world peace. Let us start with a debate on the arms trade and the fact that, for as long as western Governments prop it up, we will never achieve world peace. Please support the SNP amendment.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

In my four minutes I will add my voice to the voices of many Scots who have strong emotions about the current situation in Iraq and the visit of President Bush. The motion in Tommy Sheridan's name asks us to condemn the visit by President Bush and indict Bush and Blair for war crimes. I have no trouble supporting the first part of the motion, but I do not think that the second part in any way attempts to pull in a broad-based position. I believe that it is Saddam Hussein and his ministry who should be brought before a war crimes tribunal. I cannot welcome Bush's visit on any count, not just because of his dishonesty over the war, but because of the human rights violations in Guantanamo bay, which cannot continue, and his failure to sign the International Criminal Court agreement and the Kyoto agreement. There are numerous reasons why I do not welcome his presence in the United Kingdom.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

No. I do not have time.

Frances Curran said that perhaps we should have Michael Moore for president. He is a funny guy, but he is making lots of money, so I do not think that he is a socialist.

We have had a mature debate this morning, as we have had mature debates on this subject in the past. It is crucial that that level of dignity continues. If we do not have a level of dignity around debates in which we disagree, we are not representing seriously our constituents, who have a variety of views to which they come in a considered way. I am working with Scottish universities that are working with institutions in Baghdad to help the Iraqi people in some way. We should all consider what we can do.

I turn to the amendments to the motion. The SNP amendment is fair, but I will not support the Tory amendment tonight. I have a couple of words to say on the Liberal Democrats' position. I do not believe that it is a fundamentally antiwar position, although I understand where the Liberal Democrats are coming from. This is the second time that they have called for peace in the middle east and I support that; however, if they really believe in peace in the middle east, they must join others in the Parliament and in the cross-party group on Palestine and add their voice. I have said that before.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Only if it is to hear the member say that he will come to the cross-party group. I am sorry that I do not have the time.

Prime Minister Blair and President Bush have claimed that they want to achieve world peace and that they want a solution for the Palestinian people.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

No. I do not have time, because I want to talk about the Palestinian cause.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

It is just a short intervention.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member is not taking an intervention.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Prime Minister Blair and President Bush's words on that are weak, because there has been little action on it. It is important to recognise that the reason why we need a solution for the Palestinians is that there will not be peace in the world or the middle east unless we resolve the matter.

I want to put on record why that is important. Palestinians are a people without a country; they are displaced in the middle east. Some people might say that they are a people too many; I say that they are a country short. To be an ordinary Palestinian today means having experienced half a century of conflict, being deprived of the elementary right to live in one's country and being forcibly removed from one's house to allow one more Israeli family, who might not have been born in the region, to settle. Palestinians have no means of identity, unlike every other citizen in the country. They have no Palestinian passport and they are denied the national expression and national identity that every other person in the world—with notable exceptions—has.

It is important to recognise the balance of power in the conflict. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will join me in condemning what is happening with the building of the so-called security wall, which is further isolating poor communities in the west bank from their water supply, and the crippling checkpoints that mean that ordinary Palestinians cannot get to the doctor or attend a funeral. That is the reality of life in the occupied territories. I know that there is consensus about getting peace, but we need action from everyone to ensure that we get it.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I might have to raise my voice as the sound of some members of the Executive making their way to their seats at long last might be problematic for members' hearing what I have to say.

Pauline McNeill said that she was glad to join us in condemning the visit of the warmonger George Bush to the United Kingdom but that she is not prepared to support our call for him and Mr Blair to be present in an international court to answer the accusation of war crimes. Last night, one of the key members of the defense policy board, which advises the United States Department of Defense, Mr Richard Perle, made a speech in London. In that speech he said about the invasion of Iraq:

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

The reason why we want Mr Blair and Mr Bush tried for war crimes is that they have broken international law. I find it absolutely offensive for members such as Phil Gallie, John Home Robertson and others to compare in any way, shape or form the threat of Adolf Hitler in 1939—the real and urgent threat of the Nazi regime—with the phoney web of deceit and lies that was fabricated to justify the invasion of Iraq and which has led to the deaths, according to Medact, of between 22,000 and 55,000 people in Iraq, at least 11,000 of whom were innocent civilians. That is four 11 Septembers. That is what happened in Iraq on the basis of a fabricated tissue of lies and deceit that the Iraqi regime posed any threat to either the US or Britain.

The reality is that the Iraq regime was odious and tyrannical and the people of Iraq should have been supported with international solidarity in overthrowing it. I say to James Douglas-Hamilton that I will take no lectures from a Tory, because in government his party supported, financed and armed that odious, tyrannical regime throughout the 1980s. I say to John Home Robertson that I will take no lectures from him, with his selective amnesia. When he was having a go at Milosevic and Hussein, why did he leave out Suharto and the regime that was given 100 arms deals by his leader, Tony Blair, before the people of Indonesia—not bombs or foreign invasions—overthrew that odious regime? It is a pity that John Home Robertson forgets how odious it was.

The whole world is now a more unstable place than it was before the bombs were unleashed in Afghanistan and Iraq and before more and more people began to say, "What about Osama bin forgotten and Saddam who?" The war was supposed to be about them, but it had nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the United States of America securing a cheap oil supply and ensuring its domination across the globe. It is a great pity that the Executive, which wants to talk day in, day out about the neds, the thugs and yob culture, is not prepared to come here today to defend the biggest ned on the world stage, George Bush. That is the problem that the Executive faces.

It is a pity that the Executive is willing to have the courage to vote to send servicemen and women to an early grave, as well as innocent children in Iraq and Afghanistan, but does not have the courage to sit on the front bench and defend its position in this morning's debate. That type of behaviour is absolutely reprehensible.

This country might not have been united in its opposition to the war in Iraq, as many people had their doubts and thought, "Maybe they know something that we don't; maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt," but there is now a mood throughout the country as people realise that the case for war was a complete and utter fabrication to justify the invasion of Iraq. Tony Bliar lied to the people of this country, and he should be ashamed of that.

If we are talking about friendship, perhaps we should invite George Bush to Scotland; however, the only reason why we should invite George Bush to Scotland is so that we can put him in one of the Trident submarines and send him back to America with his nuclear weapons. If he is not willing to come to Scotland, perhaps he will come to Hartlepool and get on board one of the toxic ships that we can send back to America as well.

In this Parliament, we should express nothing but solidarity with the American people, but we should express complete and utter contempt for the American Government and Administration. They should be in court, in the dock, for their international war crimes, which have made our world less safe to live in.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before we move to First Minister's question time—[ Interruption. ]

I suspend the meeting for three minutes.

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Like everyone else, I regret that interruption—and I deplore members of this Parliament applauding people in the public gallery who interrupt the Parliament.

Before we start First Minister's question time, members will want to join me in welcoming to the gallery Lynne Brown from South Africa, who is the Speaker of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament. [Applause.]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-358)

Will the First Minister also join me in condemning the attack on the British consulate in Istanbul this morning?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Obviously, I condemn any attacks.

I start the afternoon by expressing the collective disappointment of the chamber at last night's football result. However, I also praise the more than 20,000 Scottish football fans who, yet again, have been superb ambassadors for their country. I am sure that, for the team, we would all wish for a repeat performance of Saturday's game at some point in the future.

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss progress on implementing the partnership agreement and our legislative programme.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I associate myself and my party with the remarks that the First Minister has just made.

On three occasions in March 2003, the First Minister told Parliament that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that war was required to remove them. Why did he mislead Parliament?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not think that I misled Parliament at that time. I believe that the events that have taken place since March, which is what we should reflect on in all the debates and discussions this month and in the future, have shown that the troops from Scotland and from the rest of the United Kingdom—who have served their country and the rest of the world so well in recent months—are doing a good job. They should have been supported by everybody in the chamber and I hope that, as the months go on, they will be.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The question was about the statements the First Minister made to Parliament about weapons of mass destruction.

On 13 March, the First Minister stated that Iraq

"is not willing to give up its weapons of mass destruction"—[Official Report, 13 March 2003; c 19436.]

On 19 March, the First Minister stated that the United Kingdom stood ready

"to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction"—[Official Report, 19 March 2003; c 19659.]

On 20 March, the First Minister stated that we had to meet

"the clear objective of ensuring that Saddam Hussein no longer has access to weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 20 March 2003; c 19799.]

Given all the water that has gone under the bridge and in the light of what the First Minister has just said, it is clear that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the First Minister made those remarks in March. What possible justification can the First Minister have had for making those misleading statements to Parliament earlier this year?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Given the events of recent months, I for one am delighted

"that Saddam Hussein no longer has access to weapons of mass destruction"

because he is no longer in power in Iraq. The international community recognises that and Mr Swinney should recognise it. The most evil dictator in the world has been removed from office, his people are now free and I believe that we have an opportunity—our Scottish soldiers are playing a prime role in achieving this—to rebuild Iraq as a democratic and prosperous country. We should welcome and support that opportunity.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The question is still about the fact that the First Minister stood in front of Parliament and misled it about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Not one weapon of mass destruction has been found. There were warnings at the time that no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

The President of the United States came to London yesterday and delivered a speech about international policy and about Iraq. Not once did he put the words "Iraq" and "weapons of mass destruction" in the same sentence.

Does the First Minister accept that it is time a clear message was sent to President Bush: all of us in this country who have deep reservations about what has gone on in the international community expect control of Iraq to be handed over to the people of Iraq and security in Iraq to be handed over to the United Nations, to ensure that we can deliver the security and peace that the United States has been incapable of delivering in the international community?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Some pretty stupid questions have been asked over the past two years while I have been First Minister, but that one takes the biscuit. If Mr Swinney thinks that the United Nations would have been able to take over the running of Iraq and to build a democratic Parliament with Saddam Hussein still in power, he has a crazy way of looking at the rest of the world.

The British Government has been trying to find the weapons of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland for at least 30 years. We run that country; it is part of our own country. It would be relatively easy for us to find those weapons if it were easy for us to find weapons in Iraq.

Mr Swinney should recognise that in the months since Iraq was liberated, Scottish troops have played a fantastic and superb role at the front line in difficult circumstances: reopening more than 1,500 schools; reopening 70 of Baghdad's 90 sewerage plants; setting up again the power supply in Iraq—it reached a post-war high on 6 October; and, crucially, enabling something that we enjoy, sometimes uncomfortably, in this country—a free press.

Iraq now has a free press: 170 different newspapers are on the streets and satellite dishes are legal and flourishing. The people of Iraq now have a chance to express their opinions. Our Scottish soldiers are helping them to achieve that, which is something we should welcome and be very proud of.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That still leaves the original question: where are the weapons of mass destruction—the First Minister was determined to persuade the Parliament to support a war to rid the world of them—and why did the First Minister mislead the Parliament?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Swinney might not have noticed, but Saddam Hussein has not been found either. Iraq is quite a big place. Perhaps Mr Swinney should at some point visit that country and see where Scottish men and women, who are serving their country, are rebuilding schools, hospitals and roads, turning the water and power supplies back on, protecting the local population and creating a democratically based Iraqi army, the first battalions of which are now on the streets, and a police force with thousands of local officers who, in due course, will enable the country to be run by Iraqis, for Iraq, in the safety of the international community.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-363)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I plan to meet the Prime Minister on at least two occasions before the end of the year. I am sure that we will discuss a number of important issues. In particular, I plan to raise with him the importance of direct routes in and out of Scotland by air. I would be happy to inform him about the success of our route development fund, which this morning announced its first direct route out of Glasgow—a regular flight from Glasgow to Dubai, which will be very good for Scottish tourists and for the Scottish economy.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That is interesting. The First Minister should encourage the route development fund to support a flight from Glasgow to Baghdad and let Mr Swinney go to see what Iraq is really like.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister's friends in the Scottish Labour Party delivered a Scottish solution to his English problem with foundation hospitals. As we know, Westminster retains the ability to legislate on any devolved area it chooses and could therefore establish in Scotland the foundation hospitals that we know Scottish Labour MPs to be keen on. Does the First Minister agree that such apparently English solutions to Scottish problems would be a constitutional outrage and, accordingly, that the idea is equally outrageous the other way round?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I believe that the elected members of a democratic Parliament have a right to vote in democratic votes in that Parliament. It is also right and proper that those who are responsible for the health service in England—the Westminster Parliament and the Whitehall Government—take decisions that are appropriate for that health service and do so in the full knowledge of the running of the service and of its aims and objectives and that, in Scotland, this Parliament and Executive take responsibility for and decisions on the Scottish health service. That is the right and proper arrangement, but it is one that Mr McLetchie's party opposed for an awfully long time.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The thing about the new constitutional arrangement and, given the experience of the last 24 hours, the difference between the Conservatives and the Labour Party is that we accept the logic and reality of the institutions but the Labour Party is bringing them into disrepute. The First Minister would do well to remember that the United Kingdom is a union founded on consent and that, ultimately, that consent depends on equity and being fair to all. Does the First Minister agree that his colleagues' actions play into the hands of nationalists and separatists on both sides of the border and that true unionists would not behave in such a constitutionally cavalier and irresponsible manner?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is interesting to see—it was clear last night in the shape of Tim Yeo in the House of Commons—that the anti-Scottish bias that ran through the Tory party and Government for 18 years still exists under the leadership of Michael Howard, who was so much a part of it.

I believe that if this Parliament has a right to have a view of the health service that is different from that of our colleagues in Westminster, it is clear that that should also be the case in the Conservative party. I notice that, in spite of the fact that Mr McLetchie's party opposed foundation hospitals in the House of Commons last night, just six months ago in this Parliament, he spoke about the benefits of foundation hospitals and asked why they were being denied to the people of my constituency. He has a right to be different from his colleagues south of the border and we have that right, too.

In the meantime, we will get on with the business of building a health service of which Scotland can be proud, by increasing the number of operations that take place and the number of doctors, nurses and other professional staff and by ensuring that modern techniques deliver patient care as close to the patients as possible. We have set those objectives and that is what we will work for.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

In light of this week's lobby by hundreds of multiple sclerosis sufferers, including those from Stirling, will the First Minister outline what action is being taken to improve care for people in Scotland who are suffering from MS?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Members of all parties in the Parliament identified care for MS sufferers as a concern very early on, given the high rate of MS that exists in Scotland. It is important that we do something about that, and we have—broadly, with all-party support. We have increased the number of MS nurses and we have increased the number of neurologists in Scotland by 40 per cent over the past six years. It is clear that much more still needs to be done. Malcolm Chisholm continues to meet those who have an interest in the area, to ensure consistency across Scotland and a decent quality of care.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what issues were raised at the last meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland. (S2F-371)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland met for the first time on 5 November and discussed a number of issues, including its remit and working arrangements, the appointment of external members and its forward work programme. It was agreed that our principal objective is to embed sustainable development and environmental justice across policies and programmes. A summary of the issues that were discussed at the meeting has been posted on the sustainable Scotland website today.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I thank the First Minister for the commitments that he made in that reply. However, it is just over a year since he and I took part in the United Nations environment summit in Johannesburg. In April 2002, before the First Minister went to Johannesburg, the Executive published a document that included suggestions for ways in which the sustainability of our society could be measured. Although I welcomed those indicators of sustainability at the time, I pointed out that the list of indicators was far from complete. There was no target for the recovery of fish species or for reducing the amount of electricity we consume, for example. Does the Executive intend to complete its list of indicators and targets and does the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland intend to make that task one of its priorities?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes. In fact, one of the issues that we addressed at the first meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee was the way in which the Sustainable Development Commission is looking to improve the indicators that are used at a United Kingdom level and its move towards appointing a Scottish vice-chair, to give a specifically Scottish input to its decisions and a better relationship with us. In the light of that movement, the Executive is reviewing progress not only on our indicators, but on the way in which we measure progress in the area as a whole. We will report back to the Parliament on that in the future.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Harper can ask a supplementary, provided that it is brief.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

One of the biggest challenges is to reduce our global ecological footprint. Given that, at present, our footprint is about three times its fair share, will the First Minister give a commitment that, when the full set of indicators is finally published, he will include a footprint indicator and a target for reducing Scotland's global footprint?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have not yet agreed to go down that road. There are several different points of view on the best way to measure progress on sustainable development. We need to take account of those points of view and to ensure that we choose a solution that allows us to make an immediate impact in Scotland and to make progress in the right direction.

Our objective is clear: it is to ensure that sustainable development and environmental justice are at the heart of our policies and programmes and that we measure our progress to ensure that Scotland makes a more significant contribution to a world in which we do less damage to our environment. We must ensure that, in what we use, what we make and the way in which we conduct our business, we perform in a much more sustainable way.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Does the First Minister agree that, if we are to deliver our policies in a more sustainable way, we need joined-up thinking between different bits of the Government? On issues such as tackling pensioner poverty and eradicating fuel poverty, we can see the benefits of doing that. Will the First Minister agree that the real challenge now is to make the policy links between economic prosperity and environmental and social justice? Will he have a look at this week's recommendations on waste management from the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which would let us do precisely that?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am always keen to look at those committee reports and to study them carefully and respond positively.

We take this issue seriously. I have said on a number of occasions that we need to move away from the old argument, which said that we could have either economic prosperity or environmental protection. In the modern world, I believe that Scotland can benefit from having an environmental concern at the heart of our economic policy. We have the ability and opportunity to develop new industries in renewable energy, waste management and a number of other areas. If we seize those opportunities, we will not only make Scotland a cleaner and healthier country; we will ensure that we are more prosperous as well.

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

Does the First Minister agree that we cannot have a sustainable Scotland and sustainable communities in the west Highlands of Scotland unless people continue to enjoy access to consultant-led acute hospitals, such as those in Fort William and Oban? Will he urge both local health boards to bring forward proposals that allow those aspirations to be met? Does he agree that the phrase "Lochaber no more" is fine for part of a song by the Proclaimers but should not be a proclamation of the upshot of the Scottish Executive's health policy?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The matter will be addressed by the Minister for Health and Community Care when we receive proposals from the health board.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the First Minister what support is being provided for further education colleges attempting to meet the Scottish Further Education Funding Council's requirements for achieving financial security by July 2006. (S2F-357)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are continuing to increase, to record levels, our funding of the further education sector. That provides real evidence of our commitment to boosting skills and lifelong learning for all. In each of the next two years, funding will increase in cash terms by over 8 per cent and, by the end of the current spending review period, annual support for further education in Scotland will exceed £0.5 billion for the first time. That level of funding is designed to support both the financial recovery plans of colleges and quality enhancement across the sector for the students concerned.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I very much welcome the increase in funding that the First Minister has outlined, but given the different factors that affect colleges throughout Scotland, does he agree that the July 2006 deadline could risk overstretching colleges such as Coatbridge College that are currently facing financial difficulties? Coatbridge College's recent decision to incorporate the closure of its leisure centre into its recovery plan will affect the health and well-being of students and the wider community. Does the First Minister agree that greater support is needed to ensure that such colleges are not forced to cut valuable services in order to meet the deadline?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is important that colleges are well managed. It is also important that they recognise their obligations to the wider community. But their primary responsibility is to deliver quality teaching to the students they serve. Those decisions are essentially for college management rather than for politicians, but I hope that in Coatbridge and elsewhere the management will take all the factors into account.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is financial security and governance part of the remit of the current Executive review of college governance? Will a review of the funding of higher education students in the college sector be included?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The purpose of that review is essentially to look at the governance of the colleges concerned rather than the current financial circumstances. However, I am sure that, in looking at governance, those responsible for the review will want to ensure that the financial arrangements deliver further education in Scotland as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given the fact that programmes such as the modern apprenticeship scheme are administered by Scottish Enterprise but delivered by further education colleges, would it make more sense and assist the finances of colleges if the schemes were administered by the colleges themselves? We would thus cut out a tier of bureaucracy and cost.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That is not a ridiculous suggestion and I am sure it deserves debate. It is certainly a lot better than Mr Fraser's previous suggestion, which was to abolish Scottish Enterprise.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Executive will announce its decision with regard to the fluoridation of water supplies. (S2F-369)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Our consultation document "Towards Better Oral Health in Children" set out the facts around Scotland's poor oral health record and invited views on a range of measures, including water fluoridation. We plan to publish a report on the analysis of that consultation, and our response to it, shortly.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Does the First Minister agree that although fluoridation is presented as one way to tackle Scotland's oral health, the priority should be to ensure that every man, woman and child in Scotland has access to a dentist on a regular basis? What is the Scottish Executive doing to train and retain enough dentists to ensure that that happens throughout Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Absolutely. I agree entirely with that. Mr McCabe is about to make a statement on the matter in the chamber. I refer the member—Mr McCabe will also do so—to the important commitments that the Executive has made. Not only have we made a commitment to train more dentists and to provide financial incentives to encourage more dentists to practise across Scotland—particularly in rural Scotland—we have, significantly, made a commitment to encourage the population of Scotland to register with a dentist, to ensure that their kids are registered with a dentist and that their kids learn how to brush their teeth.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what matters were discussed at the conference of European regions with legislative power on 11 and 12 November 2003. (S2F-366)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The regions with legislative power meet as a network to pursue matters of common interest. In particular, we contribute to the development of constitutional arrangements in Europe and, individually, we add to the status of member states.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sure that we all wish the First Minister well in his presidency of Regleg. In his quieter moments, does the First Minister wonder why Ireland, with a population that is less than that of Scotland, is up to the task of leading Europe and why tiny Malta, with a population of less than that of Edinburgh, has a seat at the top tables of Europe when Scotland has to make do with membership of a regional body that has no power and little influence? Is it not time the First Minister raised his ambitions for Scotland and started to argue for our place at the heart of Europe; a place that would allow us to fight our corner and start to defend our vital national interests?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Given her new remit with responsibility for Europe, perhaps Ms Sturgeon should do some reading about the new arrangements. She needs to find out exactly what the new arrangements are.

The reality is that, in the new constitutional arrangements in the European Union, the votes of countries including Ireland, Denmark and others that Ms Sturgeon and others are always happy to quote in the chamber, go from being a third of the equivalent vote of the United Kingdom to being a quarter of the equivalent vote of the United Kingdom. The point is that Scotland has the very big vote of the United Kingdom.

Our membership of these European Union channels means that Scotland enjoys the best of both worlds: we have the power of the United Kingdom's vote, which is increasing in size and influence, and we have the right to make direct representations. That right has been welcomed—[Interruption.] SNP members should wait for the rest of the answer. That right has been welcomed by the acknowledged and experienced European politician, Professor Neil McCormick, the SNP member for Scotland in the European Parliament. I welcome the fact that he has been nominated yet again for the European politician of the year award in next week's Scottish politician of the year awards ceremony.

Professor McCormick has made it absolutely crystal clear that the new draft constitution

"should require European laws to leave as much scope for local decision-making as is consistent with securing the legislative aim".

He has also argued:

"The Treaties should make clear that the Commission has an obligation to consult in relation to forthcoming legislation with all legislative authorities at whatever level within the Union".

He welcomed the new measures, one of which we have for Scotland. If he is gracious enough to do that, Ms Sturgeon should be, too.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Rather than invite the First Minister to speculate on what he might do if constitutional arrangements were different, I ask him to give the chamber an assurance that he will continue to press the European Commission on flexibility in the new EU constitution. Will he argue for a greater voice for the regions, particularly regions such as Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

SNP members regularly make abusive remarks about our "regional colleagues" in the European Union. They seem to forget that nations such as Salzburg had an independent Parliament long after Scotland did, and that Bavaria had an independent Parliament even later than Salzburg did. Those are nations with histories similar to ours, and they work with us to secure not only the maximum benefit from the involvement of their larger member state in the European Union, but their own involvement as well.

We should be proud to stand side by side with them, but we should also ensure—and this is what is important—that the decisions of the European Union are more relevant for us here in Scotland. That should apply not just in fishing—although that is critically important at this time—but in other areas, particularly in the criminal law. We have our own legal system, and the European Union should recognise that. Getting that diversity inside a Union of 25 member states is very important for Scotland and for this devolved Parliament—and we will continue to fight for it.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The First Minister did not make clear in his response to Christine May whether the proposed European constitution was discussed at his meeting. Can he say whether it was and, if it was, what reservations, if any, were expressed about it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Yes, of course it was discussed: it was the central item for discussion. The main focus of that discussion was to ensure that we defend the proposed article on subsidiarity—which would guarantee that decisions are made at the right level in Europe and are not unnecessarily centralised—so that it goes through in the final version.

The second focus was to ensure that the way in which the European Commission makes decisions and produces proposals guarantees consultation not just with the 25 member states, but with the recent and ancient regions and nations of the European Union, which are not member states, but deserve to have their say heard as well. Scotland stands with them, and we are certain that we will win the argument to get the European Commission to give us that right to consultation.