Scottish Parliament, 24 March 2005

440 contributions from 79 members. The official report.

Official Report 24 March 2005

Firearms Legislation

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2622, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on firearms legislation.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Nine years on from Dunblane but only a few days on from the funeral of a young boy who was tragically killed in Glasgow by an air weapon, when will we learn that guns are lethal weapons? When will we take action against firearms in our society? That is why we are having today's debate.

We can act responsibly or we can abdicate responsibility. Both the Tory amendment, which denies the extent of the problem, and the Executive amendment, which fails to provide a solution, are unacceptable. The Scottish National Party's position is clear: this Parliament must legislate on firearms and it must do so forthwith.

There can be no greater duty for a Government than to protect its citizens. We struggle to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we find weapons of a lethal nature on open sale in high street shops throughout Scotland.

The Dunblane massacre shook Scotland to its very soul. We thought that such things happened only in movies or in the United States of America, but it happened in a small town in our native land. Scotland vowed collectively that such an event would never happen again and that action would be taken. An inquiry took place and legislation was amended, but that action did not go far enough: a weapon capable of killing a child was on public sale, was lawfully available and was freely used, with fatal consequences.

Firearms remain a major problem in our communities. Air rifles have captured the public attention, but they are not the only weapons that cause problems for police and communities alike. Since 1999, the number of police operations involving firearms has increased by 154 per cent in Scotland and by a staggering 670 per cent in Glasgow. Scotland has a significant problem with the sale, possession and use of real and replica weapons.

The problem is not just the illegal weapons that are traded by underworld figures. Air rifles are openly on display and can be bought freely without a licence. Replica weapons might not kill—although they are capable of being modified to do so—but they certainly frighten and intimidate. Armed response officers can no more tell the difference between a real weapon and a replica one than can the frightened shop assistant or intimidated bank teller, yet such weapons are widely advertised and openly available on the high streets of towns throughout Scotland.

Moreover, the police face difficulties in revoking firearms certificates when they have cause for concern about an individual's behaviour or actions. The law's hands might be tied, but the potential killer's trigger is not. The current law is outdated and flawed. Senior officers are required to go through far too many hoops and hurdles to revoke a licence. The current law is far too complicated and is not easily understood.

Current firearms legislation is made up of a combination of various acts and amendments. The main acts are the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms Act 1982, which have been amended on numerous occasions since they were passed. The pieces of legislation are far too many and far too complicated for the new Scotland in the 21st century.

The difficulty is not just that the First Minister thinks that action might need to be taken while the Prime Minister and Michael Howard disagree, but that the decision lies with Westminster rather than with Holyrood. In the most recent Queen's speech, which set out the Labour Government's priorities in that jurisdiction, firearms were not mentioned. If Westminster will not act, we must. However, although the Scottish Parliament is in charge of criminal justice, firearms are reserved to London. That must change.

The Executive drive for a surrender of air weapons is commendable. However, a system that allows some citizens still to buy new weapons while others hand in their old ones is illogical and inadequate. We need to address supply as well as demand. Only those who have a legitimate reason, such as pest and vermin control or registered gun club use, should be able to buy and hold firearms of whatever sort. The teenager's desire for an air weapon and the adult's desire to have a shotgun for fun are unhealthy obsessions that, in the eyes of the law, it must become unacceptable to act upon.

Scottish society is different from that south of the border. It needs different solutions to deal with a firearms problem that is significantly different. Tragically, in many English communities, the major gun problem is not air weapons or replica weapons but real weapons that are imported from the Balkans and used by yardie gangs or in senseless drive-by shootings.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

On the issues of supply and policing, does the member agree that England and Scotland face issues of common concern? How would he address those issues?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

From my discussions with major police figures and members of shooting organisations, I understand that a European Union directive will seek to address many of those matters. It is correct that that should be so, because many weapons in Scotland and the United Kingdom are supplied from the Balkans or the Republic of Ireland as well as from Northern Ireland. Of course we have a commonality of interest within the United Kingdom, but we must also clearly accept some uniformity on the matter within the European Union.

As I said, we have a fundamentally different society. That is why Scotland has different legislation on swords and knives. We in Scotland recognised that swords and knives posed a significant problem—the SNP supported the Executive on that issue—but it is now incumbent on us to recognise that Scotland also has a significant and distinct problem with air weapons, replica weapons and real weapons, on which we must legislate. If it was correct for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on knives and swords, it is certainly correct for it to do so on other weapons.

What is needed in Brixton or Handsworth is not necessarily the same as what is needed in Bathgate or Haghill. Air weapons and replica weapons are a major problem in Scotland and action is needed now. That means that the power to legislate must be devolved. As I said, the legislation on knives and swords that applies in Gretna is different from that which applies in Carlisle, because we know that we have a distinct problem and need a unique solution. The same applies to firearms. Devolution was about addressing Scotland's distinct needs. This is a need that is crying out for action.

The issue is not just who should legislate but what the legislation should do. A consolidated firearms act is a prerequisite. Let us start with a clean sheet of paper that specifies what constitutes a firearm, replica weapon or air weapon. We need to define how such weapons are sold and specify who may have them and how they acquire and store them. Just as important, we need to specify how we revoke a licence when our police have fears over a weapon's retention and possible use.

Nine years ago, there was no Scottish Parliament and action was limited. Now we have a Scottish Parliament and it is time to act on the scourge of firearms in our society. Let there be no more tragedies in the days or even years to come. It is time for this Parliament to legislate on firearms.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern recent tragedies involving firearms and the continuing dangers in our communities posed by both real and replica guns; recognises that, notwithstanding action taken after the Dunblane tragedy in 1996, there are ongoing difficulties and gaps in the current legislation; calls, therefore, for powers over firearms to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in view of the distinctive nature of our society, the distinct nature of the gun problem in Scotland and the urgent needs in our communities, and further calls for a new and all-encompassing Firearms Act to clarify what constitutes a firearm, who may possess a firearm, the circumstances under which people may acquire, keep and use firearms and all other aspects relating to firearms, including authorisation, monitoring and revocation.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Although I cannot disagree with some of Kenny MacAskill's comments this morning, I am concerned that the SNP, once again, wants to focus more on the constitutional aspects of where legislation is introduced rather than on the need to consider tighter controls and how we can work in partnership with the UK Government. If we followed the apparent logic of the SNP by having different systems across the UK, that would arguably create potential loopholes—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

No, I want to make this point.

Having different systems across the UK could create loopholes that would be exploited by those with criminal intent. I take that issue seriously.

We have some of the toughest firearms laws in the world. We will continue to ensure that those laws remain effective and up to date in controlling firearms and in reducing firearms crimes. We worked with the UK Government to address the concerns of communities about air weapons and imitation weapons. I remind the SNP that new measures were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. That legislation created new offences and restricted the sale of such weapons, raising the age at which a person can own air weapons from 14 to 17 and creating a new offence of possessing an air weapon or an imitation weapon in a public place without reasonable excuse.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I will not give way; I am very short of time.

We also banned the import and sale of a certain group of air weapons that use self-contained air cartridge systems and we introduced licensing for such weapons. However, we have said that those measures might not go far enough—the First Minister has said that, I have said that, and the Prime Minister has recognised that we need to continue to work with the UK Government to examine what more needs to be done. We are actively engaged with the UK Government in the current review of firearms law and I shall certainly ensure that specific Scottish interests and concerns inform any decisions that are taken. I reiterate the words of the First Minister, who stressed that nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out at this stage. However, decisions must be taken in a measured and informed way, and I do not think that, at this point in time, there is a good case to be made for focusing on the constitutional issue rather than on the issue at hand and on ensuring that we have appropriate legislation that meets the needs of our communities.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is not it the case that swords are a distinctive problem in English society? Within the past few days, a young man—apparently a charity worker—has been shot dead by police officers in Humberside for carrying a sword. Why is it that we have legislated separately north of the border on knives and swords but have not done so on other weapons? Is there a different problem? If so, what is it? Why are ministers prepared to act on knives and swords but unprepared to act on real and replica firearms?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Let me make it clear that I take the issue of knife crime and gun crime in communities extremely seriously. To suggest that the Executive is not prepared to act is simply wrong. We will act.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Well, do so.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We are acting—we are acting in partnership with our colleagues in the Home Office. That has already led to a tightening up of the legislation.

It is important that we remember the context in which we are talking. We know that gun crime has declined over the past 10 years. Part of that is due to the tightening up of the legislation, but we also know that we cannot be complacent. Guns still cause far too much damage and suffering, and one tragic shooting remains one too many. Recent tragic events have shown just how lethal any gun—even if it is not illegal—can be if it is in the wrong hands. We must do all that we can to act so that no other parent has to endure the loss experienced by the family in Glasgow. We must act to make our communities safer.

Although we are examining the legislation and considering whether and where we need to tighten it up, we should not simply sit back and do nothing. That is why, yesterday, I followed up the First Minister's plea to people to hand in weapons with a campaign to urge those—particularly parents—who have, without good reason, such air weapons in their homes to hand them in. I know that people may be concerned that that campaign has not gone far enough, but 55 weapons have already been handed in—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Out of half a million.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

That is 55 weapons off the street since yesterday, without any real publicity. I think that that, on the back of the First Minister's comments, will give some comfort to communities, because it shows that people are taking responsibility and are tackling the problems of air-guns, which are linked to antisocial behaviour in our communities. That is where I intend to focus our work with the police over the next few weeks.

I end with a plea. I urge parents and others to think again and to think really carefully about whether they need an air weapon in their home. I urge people to ask themselves three questions: "Do I need an air-gun? Can I be sure it won't fall into the wrong hands? Do I know enough about the law to be able to keep within the law?" If the answer to even one of those questions is no, I urge people to consider very seriously getting rid of their air weapon. If people do not need air weapons, they should hand them in.

That campaign is not the only thing that we will do. The right approach is to consider the 4,000 responses that came in to the Home Office consultation and to look in a measured and informed way at tightening up the legislation. I intend to work with my Home Office colleagues on protecting communities, not picking at the constitution.

I move amendment S2M-2622.2, to leave out from "notes with concern" to end and insert:

"extends its sympathies to those affected by recent tragedies involving firearms; acknowledges that following the Dunblane tragedy in 1996 UK governments have considerably tightened firearms legislation so that the UK now has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world; welcomes additional action taken by the Scottish Executive to encourage people to hand in air weapons to the police; reaffirms the benefits of a UK-wide legal framework and system of gun control, and supports the Executive in its continuing engagement with the UK Government on the current wide-ranging and comprehensive review of firearms provisions."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is inevitable that, in a debate of this nature, attention is focused on the recent tragedy of the death of two-year-old Andrew Morton. Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family. Any loss of life is a terrible waste, but it is particularly poignant when the victim is so young, as that little boy was.

Unlike the Scottish nationalists, I firmly believe that it is important that firearms legislation remains the responsibility of Westminster, and the minister has eloquently articulated the reasons why there is much to commend in that approach. Gun control is a serious issue and I believe that it is best served by there being a uniform approach throughout the United Kingdom, although I concede that there are practical differences to be found between Scotland and England.

Thankfully, we have not seen the surge in gun crime and gang warfare that has been witnessed in England. In the past week alone, we have seen four men convicted of the shootings of Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis, which occurred last new year, as well as the conviction of Peter Williams for the murder of the jeweller Marian Bates. Gun crime, involving both banned and legal guns, has doubled in England since 1997. I am pleased to note that that trend has not been replicated in Scotland, and I think that we should be prepared to speak about that, as it highlights the fact that firearms legislation, which applies equally north and south of the border, cannot guarantee a consistent response. Although Scotland has not seen the surge in gun crime that has taken place south of the border, that is not to say that there is room for complacency. On the contrary, despite the introduction of the handgun legislation at Westminster, there continues to be handgun-related crime in Scotland. I draw members' attention to the fact that, tragically, since 1998 there have been 259 murders, attempted murders and robberies involving pistols and revolvers, the vast majority of that category of weaponry being banned. Sadly, banning those guns did not prevent those crimes from occurring. Indeed, there have been more crimes of that type involving pistols and revolvers, which are largely banned, than crimes of that type involving air-guns.

What it is vital to remember, and what those statistics demonstrate, is that bans and legislation do not on their own prevent tragedies and crimes from occurring. In Scotland today, drink-driving is banned, but in 2003 more than 11,000 drink-driving offences were recorded. Drugs are outlawed, yet we have a growing drugs problem. Last year, almost 1 million crimes and offences were committed in Scotland—all incidents in which the perpetrator broke the law. Legislation alone will not prevent individuals who are intent on breaking the law from breaking the law.

In tandem with the law, we also need a robust enforcement regime. That means that we must have police out and about in our communities deterring and detecting crime. I know that the minister is now persuaded of the wisdom of what has been happening in New York, where crime fell dramatically when a zero-tolerance approach to crime was adopted, along with an increase in the police presence on the streets. Low-level crime and antisocial behaviour cannot be tolerated. Whether they involve broken windows or attacks on firemen carrying out their lawful duty, such offences are simply not acceptable. However, if they go unchecked, they create a breeding ground for more serious crime. What we need at the moment is not so much more law as more police officers on our streets. I know that the Executive disputes the statistics, but how can the 140 police officers who are on our streets at any one time possibly achieve the required community coverage? Mr Henry disputed those statistics, but I refer ministers to their own document, "Narrowing the Gap".

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will Annabel Goldie give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am very short of time. Do I have enough time, Presiding Officer?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

It is your call, Miss Goldie. You have about a minute and a half.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think that I would rather expand on my point than take an intervention from Mr McFee.

It is important that we also have a wider justice system to back up our police and communities. I have taken issue with the Executive on the recent announcement about potential criminals being allowed to pay fiscal penalties. I think that that is wiping the slate clean, so that the offenders have no record and no conviction, and even if they are prosecuted and sent to jail they may be released after as little as a quarter of their sentence. Such policies do not assist in deterring crime; they merely reinforce the fear of crime among the law abiding and they strike at the credibility of the criminal justice system. That is why my party is pledged to ending automatic early release and to ensuring that we have the necessary prison capacity to protect our communities from continual law breakers.

However, Presiding Officer, I have listened to the minister's speech and have had the opportunity to study the text of her amendment, which, in the circumstances, I am prepared to support. Therefore, I will not move the amendment in my name.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I have to say that my heart sank when I read the motion, which effectively seeks to make a constitutional issue out of a tragedy.

I cannot honestly state how I would react to a son of mine being killed, nor could I offer any words of consolation to any family that loses a loved one who is killed following shots from an air- gun—such words would be wholly insufficient. However, I understand that the family wants to ensure that no one else goes through such a horror. Therefore, the issue for this Parliament as well as for the UK Parliament is how we react.

It might be of little consolation to victims of crime, although I hope that it is a consolation to society, that the number of crimes involving firearms fell by almost 10 per cent in 2003. However, air-guns accounted for 43 per cent of all offences involving a firearm. That is a rise of 25 per cent since 2002, from 331 incidents to 415. However, that figure should be seen against a decline over the period since 1989, from 1006 offences with an air-gun in 1989 to 415 in 2003. The fall in the number of air-gun offences is more marked than that for all firearms offences.

Is it the prevalence of the air-gun or the behaviour of the owner that should concern us most? In the UK in 2003, there were 1.3 million shotguns and 671 recorded crimes that involved a shotgun. Air-gun offences in 2003 were nearly 20 times that of shotgun offences: there were four shotgun offences in 2003, in comparison with more than 100 that related to air-guns.

Why are air-guns so prevalent in urban areas in Scotland and why has it been so acceptable for people to have air-guns when they have little need to control vermin? Air-guns are not toys, although I would be hypocritical if I said that I had not used one almost as a toy when I was younger. My dad had two air-guns, which we used for target practice out in the country. He looked after them and never gave any thought to the possibility that they could would be used to attack other people. The use of air-guns routinely to fire at the emergency services, at people walking down the street or at people's animals or pets is disgusting and is rightly illegal.

The increase in the use of air-guns in that way is matched by the increase in the number of people who carry knives or use glass bottles as weapons. Why some sections of our society are more inclined to violence or conflict is a serious issue that the Parliament needs to address urgently because the age profile of such offenders is getting younger. In 2003, 195 air-weapon offences were cleared up by the police. Of those 195, the age of the main accused in 76 cases was 15 or under. In a further 74 cases, the main accused were aged 16 to 20, and in only 45 cases were the main accused aged 21 or over.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Does the member accept that when someone applies for a shotgun or firearm licence they are required to demonstrate that they can securely store their rifle? If that same certification was required for air rifles they would not fall into the hands of 10, 12 and 15-year olds in the way that he alluded to.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am sure that the member has read the consultation paper by the Home Office, which asks that exact question. The issue is being considered by a Parliament—just not the Scottish Parliament. That does not negate the fact that the Scottish Parliament is being consulted with regards to changing the law.

The consultation also considers the definitions, ownership, certification and potential banning of some other types of guns and addresses codifying in law lethal weapons, which are not currently defined. As has been said, any death that relates to air-guns is unacceptable and is one too many. Thankfully, there have been only two such incidents since 1989 in Scotland.

Liberal Democrats have supported moves to set up a national firearms register and have also supported the UK Government's moves last year to create the new offence of carrying a replica firearm or an air-gun in public and to ban gas cartridge weapons.

Although we are concerned about the use of replica weapons by criminals, we share the Government's view that a total ban of some of those would be unworkable. Nevertheless, we would support steps to restrict availability by licensing outlets and banning internet sales. We support the recommendations by the all-party parliamentary group at Westminster, which found a strong case for more restrictions on replica weapons.

I have difficulty in accepting that there would not be very considerable problems with having separate firearms regulations and penalties in England and Scotland.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

No. The member is in his last minute.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The member will forgive me.

SNP members sincerely argue for independence, but I hope that they can see the argument that, until their dream is realised, there are strong arguments for a common approach to be taken to some issues within the United Kingdom—as, indeed, Mr MacAskill indicated. Better co-ordination within the UK among police forces, local authorities and others is needed.

We are not complacent. When a schoolchild in the USA murders his grandparents, goes to school and murders his classmates and then turns the gun on himself, the impact is felt not only in the USA but around the world; that is also the case when a young child is killed in Scotland. We have serious questions to ask, not of the constitution but of the law, our society and, increasingly, ourselves.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I add my own words of condolence and concern for the family of the victim, Andrew Morton, in Craigend.

As Jeremy Purvis alluded to, we must consider the global context of the use of weapons. The tragic incident in Minnesota involving Jeff Weise has reminded us of the even more disturbing Columbine incident a few years ago. In Scotland, it puts us in mind of the massacre that took place in Dunblane. Time after time we express our grief and our shock after such incidents, yet guns remain on display and on sale across Scotland.

As the Executive has announced in respect of sporting knives, guns are not all used for legitimate purposes. Even those that are used for innocent target practice—as Jeremy Purvis told us—can end up falling into the wrong hands or their use can result in tragic accidents.

I share some of Cathy Jamieson's reaction to the SNP motion. It is sad that a clearer motion has not been lodged. The motion does not call for tighter regulation; it calls for devolved regulation. Members know very well that I support the bringing of those powers to Scotland, but I wish that we were debating a call for tighter regulation rather than one for devolved regulation.

I am also unclear about what the motion means when it refers to

"the distinct nature of the gun problem in Scotland".

We should look at not only the types of weapons but the number of recorded offences. The proportion of incidents in which different types of weapons are used may vary between Scotland and England, but the number of recorded firearms offences in Scotland has been coming down, while in England and Wales the figure for many of those offences has been going up. Air weapons are not a new phenomenon and they are not distinctively Scottish. Figures from the Gun Control Network show that in the past four months alone, 47 incidents involving the use of air weapons have been recorded. Four of those were in Scotland; the rest were all in England or Wales.

There is a case for saying that the problem in Scotland is not distinct, but I would not move on from that to say that we should therefore leave the powers to deal with it at Westminster. I want those powers to be brought to Scotland, but I am not sure that the motion clearly states what we would do with them once we got them.

There is much to support in the Executive amendment, but I hope that what I perceive to be a contradiction at the end of the amendment can be explained. The amendment mentions the benefits of having tighter regulation than neighbouring countries have, but states that shared arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the UK are an advantage. If loopholes can be exploited, why would differences in regulation between Scotland and England be more open to exploitation or abuse than differences in regulation between the UK and France or France and Germany? I say to the Executive that I am open to persuasion on its argument, which I will listen to in the minister's closing speech, but the issue should be addressed.

As for the Conservative amendment, I have to say that words fail me when I consider the behaviour of the Conservative party since the events at Craigend. There seems to have been a calculated insult from Michael Howard to the Morton family, to their community and to the people who were touched by the Dunblane massacre. To tell a grieving family that the problem is one of too much gun control beggars belief.

The Justice Department is not the only department that should do something about the matter. We need young people to grow up in a society that gives them hope and a sense of purpose and which fosters their ability to resolve conflicts without violence. It may be that the Education Department and the Development Department, which has responsibility for communities, have more to say on the subject that does the Justice Department alone.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I declare an interest, as my husband is a partner in a pest control firm and as such is subject to legislation on the control of firearms.

I extend my sympathies to the parents and relatives of Andrew Morton and to all who have suffered from the indiscriminate use of firearms. I agree that there must not be a knee-jerk reaction to this tragic case, but it is difficult not to be emotional when the life of a two-year-old child has been lost. I completely understand the anger and frustration of Andrew Morton's family.

I welcome the amnesty that has been introduced by the Minister for Justice, which has already seen a number of air-guns handed in. However, 55 out of an estimated 0.5 million is only 0.1 per cent. We must do much more to prevent another tragedy from happening. That is why we need to consider introducing an all-encompassing registration system, which would deal with what some see as an unfortunate macho culture in Scotland.

On the Tory and Labour amendments, I recognise that there has been a tightening of legislation at Westminster, but one-size-fits-all legislation cannot possibly work for the type of firearms that can be obtained in Scotland. Recent legislation has raised the age at which people can acquire firearms, but let us not forget that the age of the alleged perpetrator of the crime against Andrew Morton was well above any limit that has been set. The minister and Jeremy Purvis mentioned the dangers of Scotland having different legislation from England but if Scotland needs separate and different legislation, surely it is our duty as a Parliament to realise that and introduce it.

We must realise that as air-guns get older, they become much more dangerous. Their springs become worn and the guns become more dangerous and powerful. In fact, some are as powerful as 0.22 rifles. We must get it across to people that air-guns are not toys but lethal weapons. Perhaps an educational campaign would make people aware of that.

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland believes that there are 500,000 air-guns in Scotland, but we need to know exactly how many are in circulation. We also need to know about the weapons that are involved in incidents. At the moment, we are working on 2003 figures, but that is not good enough. We need updated figures.

Other issues have to be examined. We have to look at current legislation and stop the indiscriminate sale of air-guns, as Kenny MacAskill said. Members have only to walk through the streets of Glasgow and up to the Barras, as I do most Sundays, and they will see big, powerful air-guns—huge things that look like rifles—for sale in shop windows. Legislation must be introduced to ensure that such weapons cannot be bought over the counter. Firearms should be kept under lock and key and be open to inspection by officers at any time, so the legislation should also ensure that the main key holders are registered with the police, as Bruce McFee said.

In conclusion, our motion calls for powers over firearms to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in view of tragic happenings, not just recently, but in the past. The Parliament should agree on that. We have to get the police, community groups, the Parliament and other interested parties round the table to discuss the way forward on regulating the use of these lethal and dangerous weapons, which, in the wrong hands, can have grave consequences.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The tragedy in the east end of Glasgow happened in Margaret Curran's constituency, and in an area that I served as a councillor for many years, as I stated in a parliamentary question to the First Minister. The shock and concern of that community is testimony to how horrified its members are by the events of a few weeks ago. That horror is felt by many other people in Scotland and across the UK. This tragedy follows on from the events in Dunblane nine years ago, and the need to respond to concerns about access to firearms and their misuse by individuals.

The key issue is not the location or the nature of firearms; it is the capacity of individuals to use them, and the fact that we cannot track how people access them. This morning's debate should not be about the constitution. Ultimately, it should be about what we as informed representatives in Scotland can do to minimise the occurrence of events such as those that have taken place in the past few weeks.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Precisely.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I hear the word "precisely", and I agree with it, because our debate should be precisely about those issues, not about whether we have full powers or the fact that only certain aspects of the law on the misuse of weapons are devolved to Scotland. The fact that right across the chamber concerns have been raised about the motion will, I hope, lead the SNP to reflect upon it after the debate.

Only two or three months ago I encountered a terrible situation of the potential use of a firearm within the Bridgeton and Gorbals areas, which resulted in the individual concerned being convicted last week. That incident caused substantial fear and alarm in the community. We need to address what it is about our culture that leads to the misuse of firearms, particularly air-guns. For the life of me, I do not know why people need to have air-gun rifles, particularly in urban Scotland. My experience of air-gun rifles is fairly negative. It is argued that the use of such weapons is a harmless bit of fun that perhaps leads to an exhilarating buzz with no consequences, but in some cases their use can be extremely dangerous, or even lethal. That is the reality. Until that reality is acknowledged, we cannot have the debate that we need to have.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member is correct to point out that there is a problem with the culture. Does he acknowledge that all parties accepted that there is a knife culture in Scotland, that we needed to legislate and that we correctly did so? Why is it correct to legislate against a knife culture, but not against the prevalent gun culture and the use of air weapons, replica weapons and real weapons?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

No one is arguing that there is no need for legislation. The SNP's claim is that only the Scottish Parliament can legislate, but I disagree profoundly. We can exercise powers here on some aspects of weapon use, but we can also exercise powers through consultation, discussion and agreement with the Home Office. That is the debate that we need to have. I hope that the debate is about encouraging changes to legislation to address the issues. The Gun Control Network has produced a series of publications on the misuse of air-guns. The funny thing is that they cover Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, and show that events have occurred throughout the country. It is reasonable to think about ways to address those events.

I am not interested in the country of origin of legislation. That is not the central point. At issue is the legislative framework. What is the legal definition? What is the regulatory framework? Can we move forward? The minister has identified that she wishes to do that. I hope that we can do so, for the sake of future generations. If we do, we will be responding not just to the recent tragedy, but to other events, and hopefully we will put in place a much stronger framework.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I will speak on behalf of my constituents in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, which comprises urban and rural areas. Not long after I was elected, one of the first things that I was involved with was the problem that a farmer was having with people going through his fields when his horses were in foal. I was horrified to find that a foal had been shot and that its terrible injury had become infected. A great deal of care and attention and £1,000 of vet bills later the foal was able to walk, but with a limp.

Recently, we had a tragic accident—if it can be called an accident. The person who shot the little boy, Andrew Morton, happened to be shooting at firemen, who are well protected. Depending on where high velocity projectiles land, they can kill.

When I worked in Springburn, our health centre windows had pellets shot through them, but we never caught the people responsible. Following the incident with the farmer in my constituency, the police were involved and the people responsible were caught. I encouraged the police to do something in schools to help children understand that animals hurt like human beings hurt. Wildlife officers are going a long way towards achieving that.

Windows in a hall in Bishopbriggs are constantly being put in by air-rifle pellets. One of my constituents has installed toughened glass in their windows because they have been put in so many times. However, nobody is caught. My constituents want tight rules and regulations and they want the people who are involved to be caught. We all understand that, no matter what the legislation is and how tight the rules are, people will get guns. People who shoot guns illegally must be put in custody and taught a lesson. We should consider why people find it funny to pop shots at firemen. This may be cynical, but I wonder whether, in the recent exceedingly tragic incident, the chap would have been caught if he had shot just at firemen and the little boy had not been killed.

We need to catch the wrongdoers. If we do not have enough police to catch them, we are in serious trouble. I have listened to the debate—the most serious point is that we need to tighten up the legislation and make people in our communities feel that it is worth reporting crime, rather than that they have to install toughened glass. People are constantly worried about such incidents, which may not be the most common type of crime, but they happened when I was a child and they still happen, so we are not getting on top of the situation. Windows are being put in and, one day, somebody's eye may be put out—a young child has already been killed.

When I was a child, a young man had an accident when playing with a bow and arrow—one of those canes that people used to play with. He was shooting the cane into the sky for fun to see how far it would go, but it came down and landed in his eye. I have never forgotten that tragedy. That accident affected the person who caused it, but we are talking about people who use guns for some kind of fun. I do not care where it is done, but we must tighten up the legislation and do something about the matter.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I remind members of an important point: people outside the Parliament will not judge us by our actions today, nor by what we say, but by what we achieve in delivering a safer Scotland. We should put aside what are, frankly, semantic debates about the SNP motion and the amendments and focus on the core issue of how to deliver improvements in public safety.

A paradox that has intrigued me for a considerable time is that, 30 years ago, the two countries in which I felt safest were the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union—two countries in which the police were not armed. Of course, in one country, the situation was an indication of a submissive, highly controlled population that lived in fear of a draconian Government; in the other, it was the result of a society that had many common purposes and goals.

When my father died some years ago, it came as a great surprise to me to find that he had a blunderbuss in the house. My father was a GP and a patient had apparently given it to him as a present for a service that he had rendered. The weapon was likely to be more lethal to the user than to anyone at the other end of it, but, as many people who are faced with that circumstance do, I took it to the police at once and told them that I wanted nothing whatever to do with it. That illustrates and builds on Jeremy Purvis's point that the issue is not only the prevalence of air-guns, but the behaviour of those who have weapons of one sort or another.

I welcome the increased attention that is being given to the subject in the Parliament, at Westminster and in Europe. I do not entirely agree with what is going on at Westminster. For example, in the "Control on Firearms" consultation paper, David Blunkett stated:

"We do not believe that licensing of low-powered air guns and imitations, or restrictions on their sale, is proportionate or enforceable."

I disagree—we must do something about that. I say that as someone who used to have the 10-bob licence that people bought at the post office if they wanted to carry an air-gun in public places.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Sorry, I do not have time, because the debate is short.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee has stated:

"We recommend that the purchase or sale of any imitation firearm by or to persons under eighteen via telephone, mail order or Internet should be prohibited".

Maybe, but the real issue is that when people buy a weapon, a face-to-face transaction should take place that is predicated on the requirement that the person who receives the weapon must show that they are authorised to have it. We need a debate about how we can achieve that. There is room for further debate on the recommended age limit of 18, given that we give kids access to the lethal weapon with four wheels and a steering wheel at age 17. Similarly, the committee suggested that the

appropriate minimum age for the legal possession of a lethal firearm ... is eighteen".

We need to find a solution that is consistent and immediately understandable.

I welcome the fact that high-energy air-guns are now treated differently from other air-guns. However, with some air-guns it is possible to create a high-energy charge without the projectile containing the charge. Although there are other substantial loopholes in the legislation, the danger comes not from the energy that propels the bullet—be it explosive or compressed air—but from the person who holds the gun. Therefore, we must license people, register weapons and inspect their storage. Like other members, SNP members will welcome legislation and enforcement wherever it comes from, be that the EU, Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or through the actions of local authorities and police forces. However, we will stand condemned if we stand aside and do not take every opportunity to improve safety in Scotland.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

As members have said, the motion is not entirely without merit. In fact, in places, it approaches a measured attempt at a contribution to what is an important debate. That image is only slightly tarnished by the fact that the SNP chose to publish the motion via the press rather than the Business Bulletin .

If, as the motion alleges, the existing legislation is fragmented and unclear, a proper consolidation and clarification exercise must be undertaken. Whether the law needs to be revisited and, if so, how it should be improved are important topics that merit examination. The need for the effective control of firearms is plain. To look ahead to the next debate, it could be argued that, given the global death toll from firearms, they are the real weapon of mass destruction in the world. The issue is too serious to be used as a political football. I find it slightly distasteful that the SNP has chosen the subject as an excuse for its latest synthetic constitutional crisis. I will not say too much about that, because the subject is not fit for party-political knockabout. I merely invite the SNP to reflect on whether citing recent tragedies and implying that one constitutional arrangement rather than another could prevent them might be seen as crass.

The nationalists have not made a case for the claim in the motion that we have a

"distinct ... gun problem in Scotland",

or even that we have a distinct problem in the UK. Given the SNP's fondness for league tables and referring to other countries, I am surprised that it did not come across the fact in the Home Office consultation that firearm homicide rates are worse in Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and Sweden—the list goes on. Firearms regulation is not like other devolved issues such as health, in relation to which our geography and public health profile mean that we need specific Scottish solutions to particular Scottish problems. The issue is not like education or justice, in which Scotland has distinct systems—guns are just as deadly in Glasgow as they are in Gateshead.

In any event, the important question is not who makes the laws, but their substantive content. Much has been said about tightening the regulations on air-guns. The Executive is right to work with the Home Office to make them harder to acquire. I also welcome the First Minister's determination to close any loopholes and get air-guns out of circulation. In the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, Westminster rightly increased the minimum age for the possession of an air weapon from 14 to 17 and introduced a new offence of having an unloaded air weapon in a public place without a reasonable excuse.

Of course, we might conclude that we need to go further, but I am sure that any reforms will be something on which the Home Office and the Scottish Executive will work closely in the interests of nothing other than public safety.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We now come to the closing speeches. John Farquhar Munro, you have four minutes to close for the Liberal Democrats.

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

As we have heard, people who own and use any type or calibre of firearm have a duty and a personal responsibility to ensure the secure custody and safe use of that weapon. Current firearms legislation has incorporated adequate regulations and control in relation to all legally registered weapons. That legislation is further enhanced by a thoroughly strict vetting of the licence holder's personal character and suitability to hold firearms. I suggest that we already have the appropriate regulations and the appropriate police powers to ensure that those regulations are rigorously enforced by the justice system.

Of course, the problem concerns not legal but illegal weapons and their indiscriminate use. Many of those weapons, as we have heard, seem to have been easily acquired on the internet or through catalogue sales that circumvent the best efforts of the law enforcement agencies in their attempts to curb and control this escalating malaise in our modern society.

Like many others, I was disgusted and shocked to hear of the callous shooting of Andrew Morton and of his death. I am sure that the heart of the Scottish nation was saddened by that cruel event and that our sympathies still rest with the bereaved family.

That particular incident, I understand, was due to the reckless use of an air-gun in a public place. Under existing legislation, that is clearly an unlawful act. Like many others, I am not aware of any information that would indicate whether the incident was the result of a deliberate attempt to harm or of a misdirected pellet. Whatever the intention, however, the result has been devastating for us all.

Air-guns in the wrong hands and in the wrong location are dangerous. There is no doubt that we must review the existing controls on their ownership and, if the law requires, introduce more rigid controls. However, I suggest that we must do that in a way that is fair and is easily enforced and acceptable to all law-abiding firearm users.

In simple terms, I suggest that we attempt to establish a record of all air-gun and air-pistol owners. Those details could be held on a national database and a simple certificate of approval could be given to each approved, registered owner. Like many others, I have no wish to restrict the pleasure of the many legitimate and sensible owners of air-guns and air-pistols because of the mindless actions of a few irresponsible people. Stricter controls would prove difficult, if not impossible, to enforce effectively.

The current firearms legislation contains sufficient powers to ensure that we can control the ownership and use of firearms. I suggest that we should ensure that those controls are effectively applied so that we can rid our streets and communities of the illegally owned firearms.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The spirit of this debate has been one of sympathy for the parents of Andrew Morton, the child who was unfortunately killed as the result of the use of an air-gun. It is important that we also put on record the sympathy of the Conservative party for those parents. It is, perhaps, slightly concerning that that spirit was broken by Patrick Harvie, who I believe tried to make some political capital out of the events of last week.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I will not.

Within almost every party in this chamber, there are members who have experience of the legal culture of firearms that exists in Scotland today, involving people who legitimately hold firearm and shotgun certificates and go about their business properly and responsibly.

The mistake that too many people make—and which, to an extent, the SNP has made today—is to confuse those legally held firearms with the illegally held firearms that are too often used to commit acts of violence or armed robbery. Those are the weapons that we ought to concentrate on primarily. The motion before us is confused and somewhat naive in how it lumps all firearms together.

Earlier, Cathy Jamieson made clear a point that the Conservatives can agree with. She said that legislation is robust, should be dealt with on a UK basis and that actions taken in this Parliament and recently in the Westminster Parliament cover many of the issues that have spurred the SNP to lodge this motion. Specifically, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which has been mentioned by a number of people, created a new offence of possessing an air weapon or imitation weapon in a public place without reasonable excuse. In itself, that should be enough to manage the problem of air-guns and replica weapons. However, we need to ensure that the police are able to implement that law. I believe that the legislation is already suitably robust to enable us to regulate what we describe as legally held firearms and to enable us to begin to take action on the type of weapon that inspired the SNP to lodge the motion that we are debating.

We have heard a number of people, not least Annabel Goldie, talk about the importance of recognising that the situation in Scotland is different from and better than that south of the border. There is no argument that says that legislation based on UK-wide or English experience is likely to be unhelpful or inappropriate in Scotland. In fact, the evidence is that such legislation is likely to be valuable in Scotland and that Scotland's legislative requirements in that regard are no different from those south of the border.

It is my conclusion, therefore, that firearms legislation should continue to be set and administered on a UK-wide basis. That will ensure that we have a consistent understanding of how legally held firearms can be regulated. In the early part of last year, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 delivered regulations that allow us to pursue the issue of air-guns and replica weapons. That means that we can now proceed against those weapons in such a way as to make those tragedies less common and, hopefully, end them altogether.

As Annabel Goldie said, the points in the Conservative party's amendment are covered adequately by the Executive's amendment, which we will support in the vote later today.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

If one thing has been clearly shown by this morning's debate it is that the Home Office was right to consult on what is an extremely serious issue. This morning, we have heard a range of opinions and suggestions, which is exactly why the Home Office embarked on a consultation exercise that asked some extremely specific questions. Indeed, the fact that there is such a range of opinions explains why more than 4,000 responses to that consultation have been received. I am not aware that any MSP has sent me a copy of their response to that consultation exercise, but I would be grateful to receive them and will ensure that, when I am in discussion with my Home Office colleagues, I highlight the particularly Scottish responses and the views of members.

We have heard some thoughtful contributions this morning. Although I criticised the SNP, and Kenny MacAskill in particular, for what I took to be an attempt to deal with the constitution rather than with communities, I have to say that some of the speeches from other members, particularly Stewart Stevenson and Sandra White, highlighted some of the issues that we need to discuss in response to the Home Office consultation.

Annabel Goldie also made a thoughtful contribution. As always, she could not resist the temptation to discuss police numbers, and again I cannot resist the temptation to remind her that we currently have about 1,000 more police officers throughout Scotland. She also mentioned early release, and I remind her again that we are dealing with that and with prison places. However, I welcome some of the comments that she and Alex Johnstone made this morning, which were perhaps, if I may say so, in contrast to those of some of the other members of their political party.

A number of members identified the link between the illegal actions of people who own legal weapons and antisocial behaviour, particularly in urban areas, and several members discussed the need to consider the matter not just from a legislative point of view but in relation to enforcement and education. Jeremy Purvis, Frank McAveety, John Farquhar Munro, Stewart Stevenson, Patrick Harvie and Jean Turner all spoke of the difficulties that communities face and the need to tackle the problem from a number of angles.

I understood the nuance of Alex Johnstone's contribution differently from Patrick Harvie. I may have missed something as I was scribbling my notes, but I thought that his contribution was constructive. He asked a particular question about why we need legislation across the UK, and I thought that Duncan McNeil dealt with that effectively in his contribution. I could not agree more with Patrick Harvie's comment that the education ministers and the communities ministers also need to be involved in the process. It is important for them to be involved as we develop our work.

As I indicated in my opening speech, I will continue to work with the UK Government in the best interests of the Scottish people. We heard a number of comments this morning about the fact that our work has borne fruit when we have been involved in efforts to toughen the law. When we look at the statistics, we can perhaps take no comfort for those who have been involved in serious incidents involving air weapons, but we have to ensure that we continue the trend of reducing the level of gun crime.

I will comment briefly on the range of options that we heard this morning. Members in all parts of the chamber talked about whether we should ban weapons, whether we should license them, whether we should introduce tougher enforcement measures and how we should deal with the problem. The debate has shown that it would be wrong to take an immediate decision on legislation so soon after a particular tragedy without fully considering all the implications. We owe it to anyone who has lost a loved one or been injured in such circumstances to consider all the circumstances and get the legislation right, as we did after the events in Dunblane. It is my responsibility as Minister for Justice to ensure that I continue to work with the Home Office on that. As I said earlier, if the outcome of the review shows that tighter controls are necessary, I have every confidence that action will be taken in a measured and reasonable way. All options will be looked at; nothing will be ruled in and nothing will be ruled out.

I do not have time to focus on all the contributions that members made to the debate, there was recognition that most people who use weapons, particularly for sporting purposes, do so responsibly. I argue that those people would also back our campaign to ensure that no air weapons fall into the wrong hands. I hope that those people—and indeed everyone in the chamber—will lend their weight to our efforts to stop those who use air weapons to terrorise communities and cause unnecessary fear, damage and injury. We want to ensure that people know and obey the law and that those who do not obey it are caught and punished.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

This is a particularly pertinent debate as it comes in the aftermath of the tragic death of Andrew Morton and in a week in which we have seen in the United States of America the harm that guns can do in a society. I begin by expressing my personal condolences to Andrew Morton's family and the families of the victims of the gun culture that has a grip on the USA.

Unfortunately, the victims in northern Minnesota are not alone, as such incidents seem to be a regular occurrence in America and deaths from guns there run at a rate of more than 30,000 per year. The National Rifle Association and the pro-gun lunatics there have truly taken over the asylum. Fortunately for us, that is not the kind of culture that we have here in Scotland. Indeed, we do not have the gun problems that the south and midlands of England have. However, we do have gun crime. In addition, we have an increasing problem with the use of replica weapons in crime and, tragically, we have witnessed the fact that air weapons are out there and can kill.

Replica weapons and air weapons can be bought with ease and their use is spreading. The question that we must answer is what we intend to do about the twin problems of replica weapons and air-guns, because having fewer guns means having less gun crime and I believe that that should be our goal. On replica weapons, we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. What is the purpose of owning such an item? What would it be used for? To what innocent purpose could a replica weapon be put? The answer to those questions is that replica weapons serve no purpose and are used more and more often in the committing of crime. Criminals choose them because they are easy to get and when they are pointed at people they have the same effect as real weapons. The problem is that it is impossible for people—even highly trained police officers—to determine whether a gun is real or a replica, except on close inspection. Even if there was an innocent use for replica guns, it makes more sense for our society to stop them being so freely available.

There are indeed legitimate reasons why certain people should have access to certain guns, and a number of speakers mentioned them. Such people include certain highly trained police officers in the course of their duties, farmers for the control of vermin, gamekeepers and stalkers for use in their employment and members of properly licensed clubs. Any guns that are used legitimately need to be tightly controlled, properly secured and used by people who are licensed by the police to do so.

However, there is no reason on earth why members of the public should have access to automatic weapons or handguns and I can see no reason for us to continue to allow unlicensed access to air weapons and replica weapons.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

There was a question on that in the Home Office consultation paper. Did the SNP submit a comment to the consultation, which ran from May until the end of August last year? If so, will it make that available in the Scottish Parliament information centre?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have to say to Jeremy Purvis—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The answer is no.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

If Karen Gillon waits a minute, I will give her an answer.

We are debating the issue in the Scottish Parliament. We lodged the motion so that Scotland's representatives could discuss the matter and agree what action we should take—not to discuss what discussion documents or consultations with the Home Office we get involved in, or what pleading to London we do.

We have heard arguments that we should neither ban nor license air weapons as that is simply too difficult to achieve. If we are to take that defeatist attitude, we might as well pack up and go home. If we are determined as a society to do something, it can be achieved. I believe that the vast majority of the population of Scotland is convinced that we must keep a tight rein on guns and ensure that we have the toughest gun control laws that it is possible to have.

We are lucky in Scotland in that we do not have the madness of the gun lobby, which claims that it is a civil or even a human right to own or even to carry weapons. It is not an infringement of someone's human rights that we deny them the right to own an Uzi submachine-gun, nor is it someone's civil right to carry a handgun. Some people claim that guns do not kill people and that it is people who kill people. Of course, that is true as far as it goes, but the reality is that it is people with guns who kill people. People with guns kill more people per incident and they kill more efficiently, effectively and quickly.

The owning and carrying of weapons must be strictly controlled irrespective of the type of weapon, and of course we must stop the carrying of knives—as discussed by a number of members, including the Minister for Justice—but equally we must deal with the twin problems of replica weapons and air weapons. The difficulty is that we do not have the power to deal with firearms. Instead of dealing with the problem, we must plead with London and hope that it will do us the favour of legislating for us.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No. While we wait, the problem grows and nothing is done to stop it. I say for Duncan McNeil's benefit that it is not us who are hiding behind the constitution or using the constitution; it is the Labour-led Executive that is hiding behind the constitution in order to do nothing.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No, sorry. I do not have time.

The USA, the south of England and Scotland all have their own differing problems, each of which needs its own solution. However, Scotland's Parliament cannot act in defence of Scotland's people. If we had the powers to do so, we would not hesitate to consolidate legislation on firearms and, at the same time, deal with the problems of replica and air weapons, but our hands are tied and we are at the mercy of the UK Government.

I have no doubt that if this Parliament had power over all offensive weapons, not just knives and swords, the overwhelming majority of people would welcome the introduction of an all-encompassing firearms bill. I do not remember members of the Executive parties or the Tory party arguing that we should not legislate on knives because doing so would create differences, loopholes or problems. What is wrong with strengthening the law in Scotland on firearms, as we did with the law on knives and other blades? It is perfectly correct that we should do so, because our primary duty is to protect the people of Scotland. If we introduced an all-encompassing firearms bill, it would bring together in one piece of legislation the plethora of laws and regulations that relate to firearms and would allow us simultaneously to tackle the problems of replica and air weapons.

We should unite in stating clearly that we want to tackle the issue. The only way that we can ensure that it is tackled is for the Parliament to have the necessary powers to do it and for us to act. We cannot ensure that London will do so; we wait and hope. I urge members to support the motion in Kenny MacAskill's name.

Nuclear Weapons

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2640, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on nuclear weapons.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

We should be clear that this debate is about Britain's very own weapons of mass destruction, which are paid for by you and me, Presiding Officer, and indeed by the taxes of everyone in the chamber. How do they differ from other WMDs? For a start, they are easily verifiable and they are not difficult to locate. A team of United Nations inspectors would have little difficulty in tracking them down and, at the end of their search, the world would know what it already knows: that Britain, unlike some other countries, has WMDs. Let us not pretend that we are talking about anything other than WMDs.

We have moved on from the days of the arms race and the madness of mutually assured destruction, but the facts about nuclear weapons have not changed. Every single Trident warhead has seven times the destructive power of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima in 1945, killing 140,000 and leaving a legacy that continued to kill for generations.

The moral argument against nuclear weapons remains as strong as ever—indeed, I believe that it has been strengthened. We are no longer in a situation where two power blocs strive to cancel each other out while fingers are poised twitchily over the nuclear trigger. Instead, a group of countries in the nuclear club are insisting that they and only they are responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. The door has been locked and nobody else is to join the club. Anyone who attempts to do so is slapped down and told not to be a naughty boy, unless of course they are a friend of the United States, in which case their actions are overlooked. That is international arrogance of the highest order and a case of "do as I say, not as I do".

The country that tried most recently to join the nuclear club is North Korea. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, stated clearly that North Korea is risking further world isolation. She said:

"there needs to be no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula in order to maintain stability in that region."

That somewhat begs the question why, if nuclear weapons are not okay for the Korean peninsula, they are okay for the Cowal peninsula. I do not accept the argument.

There are safety issues with our current system. We know that there have been eight incidents on the jetty at Coulport, where nuclear warheads are loaded on to Trident submarines, which have resulted in the emergency services being called. We know that Scottish local authorities and the Scottish Executive are not included in risk assessment exercises on the transportation of nuclear materials through places such as Glasgow. The Ministry of Defence will not tell us what the most recent risk assessment exercise, which was carried out in January 2005, had to say. That is unacceptable. It is clear that there are safety issues that we should be addressing in the Parliament.

On the legal side of things, our possession of weapons of mass destruction is in flagrant disregard of international law. In 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled:

"the threat of use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law"—

but hey, why should that apply to the United Kingdom?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I take Roseanna Cunningham back to what she said about North Korea and ask her one simple question: does she believe in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I believe that no country should have nuclear weapons and that those that do should be setting an example to ensure that others do not decide to take that road.

If the moral and legal arguments will not sway members, they should consider the finances involved. Apart from being objectionable because of the evil that it has the potential to do, Trident has been a costly white elephant and I have no reason to believe that any replacement system would be any different. Over the 10 to 12 years of its operational life, Trident will have cost the UK taxpayer £15 billion, the cost of replacing the system will be upwards of £20 billion and it costs something in the region of £1 billion a year to run. If we do not ditch it now, Scotland's share of the money blown on a replacement for it would be in the region of £3 billion over 10 years, at an annual cost of £300 million. I do not believe that Scotland can afford to spend its money on that.

Compare all that to the cost of retaining Scotland's historic infantry regiments—the MOD expects to save only a few million pounds by disbanding them—not to mention what those vast sums could have meant for schools or hospitals.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The member says that she wants to keep the Scottish regiments and yet at the same time she wants to disband the British Army. How can she square that?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Like most modern west European states, an independent Scotland would have its own defence forces—we have never said any different—which would include the continued existence of the historic regiments of Scotland.

I turn to the three amendments. The Green amendment would be a useful addition to the motion and we are happy to accept it. I have to characterise the amendment in Robert Brown's name as typical Liberal Democrat weaselspeak. I am trying to work out from it whether the Liberal Democrats are for or against Trident, but it is impossible to do so—I look forward to an explanation. Scott Barrie's amendment is profoundly confused. He was obviously never on any of the anti-nuclear marches that I was on, which is a pity, because I had thought that more members had been on such marches. If he is so keen to debate the reserved matter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, I suggest that he persuade his ministers to introduce a debate on it in Executive time. The Scottish National Party will be well up for such a debate.

I make no apology for debating nuclear weapons in the Scottish Parliament. I do not deny that the subject matter is outwith the Parliament's current competence, but we have debated such issues before and we will do so again. It is an issue of huge importance to Scotland and we are Scotland's voice. We must be heard. There is a UK general election in the offing and voters will have the opportunity to vote for a party that is committed to delivering an independent, nuclear-free Scotland. I hope that they take that option. Until then, the debate must go on and must influence that decision. I doubt that Scots want the son-of-Trident programme any more than they wanted Trident in the first place—a fact that tends to be glossed over by members of the Executive parties.

Only three months ago, the Parliament passed a motion that condemned the amalgamation of Scotland's infantry regiments. The money that Trident costs Scotland every year could save the Black Watch and the rest of the Scottish regiments. I want Labour and Liberal Democrat members individually to look to their consciences as they consider how to vote this afternoon. This is not an issue on which the partnership agreement takes a stand and the Parliament is not going to pass legislation on it. I know that many members have a long-standing commitment to the cause of nuclear disarmament, and some of us have been on the same demonstrations together down the years. Today, the Parliament has the opportunity to keep faith with those principles by supporting the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament is opposed to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Scotland; believes that the existing Trident nuclear system which costs almost £1 billion annually to keep in operation should be scrapped; recognises that a decision on the replacement of Trident will require to be taken within the next UK Parliament; further recognises that the cost of replacing Trident would be over £20 billion, and wishes to register strong opposition to any proposal by Her Majesty's Government to procure a replacement for the Trident nuclear system.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

There are few people—none in the chamber, I hope—who would support a proliferation of nuclear weapons, although the issue of nuclear deterrence remains controversial and complex. Ms Cunningham said that she never saw me on any marches, but I never saw her on any marches either; perhaps we were on different marches. I assure her that I was on marches in the early 1980s.

Many people argue that the conditions for complete nuclear disarmament do not yet exist; others claim that a lead must be taken. However, most people agree that the goal should be non-proliferation, arms control and a path to the reduction in number of nuclear weapons. Deterrence, arms control and non-proliferation are critically important to Britain's security in an increasingly interdependent world, and the ultimate goal must be the global elimination of nuclear weapons, as my amendment acknowledges.

Ms Cunningham's motion, on behalf of the SNP, says nothing of the sort. It opposes weapons of mass destruction in Scotland but says nothing about such weapons elsewhere. It gives the impression that we do not want them here but we do not care about anyone else. The motion criticises Trident but says nothing about whether the money that would be saved should be spent on alternative defence projects or—as is more likely—no defence projects at all. It is on the issue of defence projects that I wish to concentrate.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I am astonished at Mr Barrie's comments. He does not want us to debate the reserved matter of UK weapons, yet he somehow thinks that we should debate matters that pertain to entirely different countries. He needs to question his logic on the issue.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

If Roseanna Cunningham and her colleagues listen carefully to what I am going to say about SNP logic regarding defence jobs in Fife, they will agree that that is what we should be talking about.

From previous questions and debates, we know that the SNP holds a self-contradictory position on defence and says some things differently in some parts of Scotland from what it says nationally. Some may say that its position is not just self-contradictory but hypocritical. Only last week, Margaret Ewing questioned the First Minister about the economic impact of Ministry of Defence cuts at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss in her constituency. She was right to do so, and I would have expected nothing less from such an assiduous constituency member. However, where would those bases—and RAF Leuchars, in Fife—be in an independent Scotland? The critical mass would not exist to secure those bases and an independent Scottish air squadron. The SNP should be big enough or honest enough to admit that.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank Scott Barrie for his kind comment about my work for Moray. Does he believe that the Ministry of Defence should increase its defence procurement budget in Scotland beyond the 6 per cent that is currently allocated, which is way below the level that it should be at?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Defence procurement and defence jobs are the very issues on which I will concentrate the rest of my speech.

On the subject of MOD spending, I turn to our navy. I am sure that, later in the debate, Jackie Baillie, the local member for Faslane, will highlight the contribution that the base there makes. However, I want to talk about Rosyth dockyard, in my constituency. On Monday, the leader of the SNP called for a cross-party campaign to save jobs at Rosyth. Although I suppose that his belated concern for the situation at Rosyth should be welcomed, let us get a few facts straight. Where was Alex Salmond, in his first incarnation as the SNP leader, when the dockyard trade unions, local Labour MPs Gordon Brown and Rachel Squire, and Labour councillors on Dunfermline District Council and Fife Regional Council were fighting to secure the Trident refitting contract in the early 1990s? He was nowhere to be seen, and not just because there were no votes to be won on the issue in Banff and Buchan. Much as the SNP is now trying to make political capital out of the job difficulties at Babcock Rosyth Defence, the main—indeed, the only—cause of the run-down of employment at the dockyard, was the cynical award of the refitting contract to Devenport Royal Dockyard by the previous Tory Government, not on the basis of best value or economic grounds, but purely in a failed attempt to hold on to Tory seats in south-west England.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

No. I have taken enough interventions.

As we knew then, and as we see from today's motion, the SNP does not believe in Trident. Even if we had won the campaign to have the refitting take place at Rosyth, the SNP would have cut the jobs there anyway. The Tories took our jobs away, but the SNP would also have taken our jobs away. It would have made no difference to the people of Fife which of them was in government. Let us have no crocodile tears, feigned sympathy or members' motions; the SNP would have betrayed Rosyth exactly as the Tories did.

Often, in parliamentary debates, SNP members claim to be internationalist yet, when it comes to defence, they display the worst aspects of any little Englander approach. They want us out of NATO; they want to deny our international defence commitments; and they would hide behind the skirts of the rest of the western world but promise nothing in return. SNP members should not complain—as they will in today's debate—about the UK Government's defence policy without at least giving us a glimpse of theirs. What would happen to the 7,000 jobs that are connected with Faslane? What would be the future work at Rosyth? Refitting a couple of fisheries protection vessels is not going to hold on to the jobs there. Those are questions to which my constituents want answers. Rather than discuss a hypothetical decision that might be taken by some Government at some point in the future, perhaps SNP members could answer those questions.

I move amendment S2M-2640.4, to leave out from "is opposed" to end and insert:

"acknowledges that defence and national security are matters reserved to the UK Parliament and acknowledges, in the words of the Government's Strategic Defence Review, "the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons"; welcomes the many moves taken to reduce the number of weapons in the world including UK support for the convention to ban anti-personnel landmines, end-user certificates and other restrictions on the arms trade and the significant reductions in the UK's nuclear weapons stockpile; notes the position of the Scottish National Party, in favour of withdrawal from the United Kingdom and NATO; recognises that withdrawal from the United Kingdom and from NATO would put at risk 25,000 direct MoD jobs in Scotland, 6,000 more dependent on MoD contracts and 12,000 more jobs supported by the military presence, and notes that between 2000 and 2004 the MoD placed 2,500 contracts in Scotland worth around £2 billion, all of which would be at risk under the SNP."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the SNP for raising this issue for debate. However, it is a strange motion to put before the Scottish Parliament at this time. As Scots and as citizens of the United Kingdom, we all have an interest in the United Kingdom's defence and foreign policy actions. The security of the realm and its people is, after all, the first duty of any Government. Nevertheless, defence is a matter that is reserved to Westminster and the Scottish Parliament therefore has no functional responsibility for defence.

More important, no decision is currently being made by Westminster about Trident, nor is one imminent. It is not the subject of current debate and there is no specific international opportunity at present to push the cause of disarmament. Indeed, the world is probably as dangerous a place as it has ever been, partly because of the short-sighted decision of the United States and the United Kingdom to wage war in Iraq without UN sanction or a sustainable casus belli.

Above all, there are issues about the proliferation of nuclear weapons that affect Israel, India, Pakistan and the unpredictable rogue state of North Korea. The unilateral scrapping of the United Kingdom's remaining nuclear weapons—the four Trident submarines—would not make the world one iota safer and might well make it more dangerous. Liberal Democrats yield nothing to others in wanting a nuclear-free world in which the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent, among others, is scrapped. However, that must be done as part of an international agreement that contains an effective mechanism to discipline rogue states. That is something that the SNP must address.

The United Kingdom's Trident force is not a threat to world peace, nor is it an urgent issue today. The situation in North Korea and Iran is an urgent issue; the presence of two nuclear states on the Indian subcontinent is an urgent issue; and the nuclear arms that are possessed by Israel, the focus of the middle east cauldron, are an urgent issue. When it is boiled down—Scott Barrie touched on this—the SNP's proposition seems to amount to the idea that we cannot do anything about those places, so everybody else should give up their nuclear weapons. That is not a sustainable, practical policy in the current state of the world.

The reason why the SNP is raising the issue today has nothing to do with Trident but has to do with two things, both arising from the forthcoming general election. The first is the need to secure the party's left flank against the Scottish Socialist Party and the black-and-white mirror world that the socialists inhabit. The other is the need to secure the party's right flank against the problem that its manifesto costings do not add up. It will be disappointed because scrapping Trident would save the UK £687 million per year, which represents about £60 million in Scotland. That would hardly fund the cost of replacing the investment in the local economy of West Dunbartonshire that the Faslane base that employs 5,000 people provides, far less the yawning funding gap in the rest of the SNP's policy. That is the valid point.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Robert Brown will be aware that the Secretary of State for Defence said recently that after the UK elections, a decision will be taken on a successor to Trident. Is it Robert Brown's view that the UK Government should commission a successor to Trident?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I will deal with that question in a moment because I was going to move on to that subject.

Up to 40 countries across the globe have the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons. Fortunately, most have taken a positive decision not to do so. Some take the opposite view and others have manufactured nuclear weapons in secret. Thanks to Mordechai Vanunu, the rector of the University of Glasgow, and others like him, we know that Israel is one of those nations.

The key to progress is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which requires sustained international efforts to maintain and progress, and which is the subject of an important review conference in May. No doubt the subject at issue will include those states that have not signed up to the non-proliferation treaty.

Let there be no doubt in the chamber that those countries will not be influenced in the slightest by a unilateral decision by Britain. However, it is important that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty exists against a background of commitment by the established nuclear powers to disarmament. That is why the Liberal Democrat amendment, unlike that of Labour, is committed to a multilateral nuclear disarmament process and not just a general futuristic objective. That process should involve building on the comprehensive test ban treaty, the non-proliferation treaty and supporting a nuclear weapons convention.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member acknowledge that the UK Government has not delivered on the non-proliferation treaty and that that is why rogue states such as Korea want to arm? Because we have not made reductions, we have not made the argument for the NPT.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

That is a bizarre argument, which seems to be saying that because other states have not signed up or agreed to the non-proliferation treaty, we should get rid of Britain's nuclear weapons.

Trident has been designed for a 30-year deployment. HMS Vengeance was ordered in 1992 at a cost of £550 million and the other submarines incurred similar costs. Rightly or wrongly, that money has been spent, as has the £13 billion for the Trident system. That argument is over for the time being and a decision on a replacement will not have to be made until the end of the decade or possibly later if they are kept in service for as long as the prefab houses of old were.

Liberal Democrat instincts on issues of defence and foreign policy are usually sound. They are certainly sounder than those of the Labour Government on Iraq and a good deal sounder than those of the dithering and opportunistic Conservatives. We take the view that no effective case for a successor has been made, but the decision is one for another place and another time.

I do not doubt the sincerity of individuals' beliefs on this very difficult subject. However, I question the SNP's role in the chamber. It is the main Opposition party. Its primary role is to hold the Executive to account and it does not do that very well. Every time it brings to the chamber a debate on a reserved issue, as it does all the time, it demonstrates its irrelevance here, and we already know that it is irrelevant at Westminster.

On Trident and nuclear disarmament, I commend the Liberal Democrat amendment to the chamber. I move amendment S2M-2640.2, to leave out from "is opposed" to end and insert:

"believes that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is central to nuclear weapons control; supports the universal ratification of, and adherence to, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; regrets that technology in the production of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, continues to advance and to proliferate around the globe; supports the retention, against this background, of Britain's nuclear deterrent until real progress can be made on the multilateral elimination of nuclear weapons; believes that for nuclear non-proliferation and weapons reduction to be achieved, nuclear-armed countries such as Britain must be willing to participate in any disarmament process; believes that a decision to commit any research or other funding for the preparation of any successor to Trident must be first approved by the Westminster Parliament and that no effective case for a successor to Trident has yet been made, and calls on the UK Government to press for a nuclear weapons convention to formalise the commitment of all nuclear weapon states to nuclear disarmament."

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

There are two groups in this Parliament. There is the Lib-Lab-Con party, which is in favour of Trident, and there is everyone else, who represent the 85 per cent of Scots who say that they oppose nuclear weapons on our soil.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice advised that

"the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law".

In other words, it would be contrary to the Geneva convention, the declaration of St Petersburg and the Hague convention. Trident was useless in the Falklands fiasco, in Bosnia and in our attack on Iraq. Indeed, the high cost of Trident has damaged our conventional capabilities. It does not provide security; it simply gives terrorists a target.

Remember the hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of damage that was caused by three elderly ladies with a pair of bolt cutters a few years ago. How safe would Coulport be against a well-equipped terrorist? Nuclear convoys that supply Trident suffer accidents in most years and are vulnerable to terrorist attack. There were five accidents on the Firth of Clyde alone in the years between 1973 and 1987. That risk is not worth continuing with.

The United Nations has ruled that the use of depleted uranium coated weapons breaches the Geneva convention and the genocide convention. Two thousand tonnes of depleted uranium were dropped on Iraq in the recent attacks; that is 2,000 tonnes of radioactive dust. However, there are not just moral and legal imperatives against using depleted uranium. The MOD has fired more than 6,000 DU rounds into the Solway firth. We are told that that is safe, but this week, phosphorous shells were found washed up on the beaches of the Solway. The shells are almost certainly from the arms dumps in the Solway or Beaufort's Dyke where, we were told by the MOD 50 years ago, they would lie safely for the rest of time. Children play on those beaches, which are some of the best sandy beaches in Scotland. We must stop viewing the sea as a military dump. The weapons that were washed up on the beaches this week are proof positive that the haphazard firing of depleted uranium shells into the sea is not safe.

Article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which has been mentioned before, imposes on us an obligation to take

"effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".

We need urgently to give the world a lead. Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the non-nuclear powers promise not to obtain nuclear weapons as long as the nuclear powers take steps to disarm. India, Pakistan and Israel have refused to sign because they see no evidence of the nuclear powers disarming. Two years ago, North Korea withdrew from the NPT for the same reason. How can we argue with those countries that they should stay non-nuclear when we are taking no steps to disarm and, indeed, are considering a new generation of weapons? As we have heard, the Government has announced that it is doing that and it will make a decision in the next two or three years.

The treaty is floundering. We need urgent action from the Westminster Government and the Executive to help to ensure that the ratification meeting in May is a success. Trident has not persuaded one single country to reduce its nuclear arsenal. Scotland should take the lead in this—we must do it for economic reasons and we should do it for our safety and for moral reasons. Most of all, we should take a lead for the sake of the entire world.

I move amendment S2M-2640.3, to insert after "£20 billion"

"; notes that communities and the environment across Scotland are endangered by nuclear convoys, by the dismantling of nuclear submarines at Rosyth and the testing of depleted uranium shells at Dundrennan; furthermore calls on Her Majesty's Government to honour its international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,"

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Once again, the SNP has chosen not to use its time to debate health, housing, council tax, pensions, the deprivation in parts of Scotland's cities or the difficulties that are faced by those in remote rural areas. Instead, it has decided to debate nuclear weapons, an issue on which this Parliament cannot make a decision. I am disappointed that my amendment concerning navy and civilian workers at Faslane was not accepted.

With the greatest respect to Roseanna Cunningham, I am baffled that the SNP wants to debate the future of Trident when, by doing so, it only draws attention to its muddled and irrational defence policy. Fortunately, the SNP's wish to scrap Trident could not be implemented unless it won a majority at Westminster, which is unlikely. Trident has been the cornerstone of Britain's worldwide defence policy, and it has played an enormous part in keeping the peace and providing security for this country. Trident has been a very successful deterrent against invaders or would-be conquerors.

We cannot talk about this subject in a Scotland-only context. I cannot see the UK scrapping Trident, but if Scotland were to become independent and the SNP did scrap it, there would be serious consequences for Scotland and many other nations.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The member attacks the SNP for choosing a reserved issue for debate. If his party does not believe in debating reserved issues, why did it choose to debate nuclear energy during its debating time a couple of weeks ago?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Last week we debated education, which is slightly more relevant to Scotland.

The SNP has admitted that Scotland would have to withdraw from NATO. Imagine the vulnerability of Scotland's position—and, for that matter, the vulnerability of the rest of the UK—were that to happen. I do not accept that the SNP's Scottish army would be able to guard Scotland's vast coastlines.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No.

If the SNP got its way, there would be no British Army, no Royal Navy and no Royal Air Force. The withdrawal of Trident is part of a greater SNP policy that would leave Scotland defenceless. Its idea for creating Scottish defence forces is to take over all serving Scottish military personnel and to move them to such forces. For the Army, that would mean that there would be six infantry regiments, with minimal logistical back-up and support. Our Scottish regiments have done more than punch their weight. Scottish soldiers are feared as fighters and respected as peacekeepers. However, the SNP's policy would condemn those highly trained men from the best army in the world to a career providing a guard outside Alex Salmond's presidential palace, like some low-grade Ruritanian flunkeys. The Scottish defence forces would be unlikely to take part in peacekeeping or to join other forces in missions across the world, because the SNP's policy is to leave NATO.

The economic effects of scrapping Trident would be devastating. Between Faslane and Babcock, some 7,000 jobs would be lost. Thousands of people in Helensburgh and Garelochhead would lose their jobs at Faslane, and many other communities would suffer. What would the SNP do about those job losses and the resulting devastation of local economies? A reasonably prosperous area of Scotland would become a wasteland. On the one hand, we hear that the SNP wants to encourage a vibrant economy. On the other, it is willing to throw away 7,000 jobs at the drop of a hat to increase its appeal to SSP voters.

The SNP would like to get rid of our nuclear deterrent, but I believe that it is fundamentally wrong. It is good for our democracy to have the deterrent to counter the threat of dictatorships with nuclear weapons. Unilateral disarmament by the UK will never bring about disarmament by aggressive dictatorships or rogue states. The best way in which to keep the peace is to promote the spread of democracy from a position of strength. That is what Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan did so successfully when they ended the cold war.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

For most of members' lifetimes, ever since the first nuclear bombs were dropped nearly 60 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear cloud has been hanging over us. It is clear that, as long as countries maintain nuclear arsenals, there will continue to be the threat that a nuclear holocaust will take place one day on the planet.

As Roseanna Cunningham rightly said, there is no need for Bush and Blair to go halfway round the world looking for weapons of mass destruction, because such weapons are right here on our doorstep. As Roseanna Cunningham said, one Trident warhead is seven times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, where 140,000 people lost their lives. A couple of weeks ago, Chris Mullin, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said in the UK Parliament that one submarine with 48 warheads is currently at sea acting as a deterrent. That one submarine—there are four in total—has the power equivalent to 336 Hiroshimas.

We must bear in mind that, although the UK has only 200 warheads, the US, Russia and other countries have thousands between them. The Scottish Parliament has now been in existence for six years, and we must ask ourselves why on earth Scotland, a small country of 5 million people on the north-western periphery of Europe, is home to one of the world's deadliest nuclear arsenals.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am interested in the process that the SNP suggests. It is proposed that we get rid of the American, British and, presumably, the French nuclear deterrents. How would getting rid of Britain's nuclear deterrent advance the cause of removing the nuclear weapons that North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India have? I am sure that the member would agree that nuclear weapons are much more dangerous in those countries than they are here.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We in Scotland cannot call on other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons when we have one of the world's deadliest arsenals on our doorstep. When I last considered the geopolitical situation, other countries round the world were not queuing up to attack Scotland. If they are, that may be because we have Trident missiles here.

I want to consider Scotland and its role in the world. At the moment, we waste a colossal amount of resources on maintaining the nuclear deterrent, or whatever we want to call it. One billion pounds a year—3 per cent of the UK defence budget—is spent on nuclear weapons. If the son of Trident comes about, it will cost a further £20 billion, which is the equivalent of £2 billion a year, to maintain it. We believe that the people of Scotland do not want that cash to be spent on nuclear weapons. They would rather it were diverted to dealing with social and economic issues here in their country. Over the next 10 years, the UK will pay £400 million to help the former Soviet Union to deal with its nuclear legacy. We all support that, but it gives an indication of the global cost of nuclear weapons.

I turn to the wider debate. Nuclear weapons are a legacy of the cold war, which finished a long time ago. Children who will leave school after the summer were not even born when there was a cold war—that is how long ago it was. Nuclear weapons are no longer relevant in our national security strategies. No matter how many submarines go round our seas loaded with nuclear weapons, they will not stop Osama bin Laden or other terrorists. They do not have a role to play in the 21st century.

Scotland has an opportunity to become a nuclear weapon-free country and to play a role in making the whole world nuclear weapon free. In 1998, the new agenda coalition, which was led by the Irish and launched in Dublin, began a campaign to achieve nuclear disarmament. Small countries can play a role in making the whole world nuclear weapon free.

There is a growing trend towards establishing nuclear weapon-free zones around the world. At the end of April—just a week or two before the UK elections—all the countries that are involved in establishing such zones will get together in Mexico. Would it not be great if Scotland were independent and we could be represented at that meeting, to allow us to play our role in getting this part of the world to become a nuclear weapon-free zone?

In his recent book "A Short History of Nearly Everything", which was a big success, Bill Bryson said that, if we were to translate the history of the world into 24 hours, the human race would appear on the planet only one minute and 17 seconds before midnight. Would it not be an appalling tragedy if the human race abused its technical knowledge to wipe out not only itself, but the planet? That is something that we must avoid. The Scottish Parliament, which represents the people of Scotland, must play its part in ensuring that it does not happen.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

This is slightly reminiscent of groundhog day—another SNP debate, another reserved issue. The people of Scotland will soon begin to wonder whether there is any point in having SNP MPs at Westminster, as today's debate demonstrates that they are incapable of making the case there.

I turn to the substance of the debate. It is fair to say that many activists in the Labour movement, including me, have campaigned over the years for nuclear disarmament. World peace and a nuclear-free world are aspirations that we all share. We may differ on how to achieve those aims, but I know of no sane person, inside or outside the chamber, who wants to see nuclear weapons used anywhere in the world.

The Labour Government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to Britain's obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Together with France, Britain was one of the first two nations to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Practical action has also been taken. There has been a reduction in the number of warheads, which is down by a third. All air-launched nuclear weapons have been removed. That is action, not rhetoric, and the SNP would do well to learn from it.

I make clear that there are no plans for Trident to be replaced and that no decision has been made on any possible successor system. I quote from the recent defence review white paper, "Delivering Security in a Changing World", which states:

"The Government's policy on nuclear weapons remains as set out in the SDR"—

the strategic defence review. The paper continues:

"We are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons".

I stress the word "no".

It pains me to have to make this point yet again, but if the SNP is a serious, grown-up party, it needs to recognise that responsible politicians must think through the consequences of their actions. In that context, I want to talk about Faslane.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No.

Specifically, I want to talk about an EKOS Consulting report that was commissioned a few years ago. The report showed that 7,000 people are employed at the base, 4,000 of whom are civilians. However, there is more. Some 3,700 indirect jobs result from supplier linkages and income multipliers. The base is one of the largest single-site employers in Scotland, and by far the largest source of jobs in the local economy. If we consider that West Dunbartonshire is among the most disadvantaged areas in Scotland, and that Faslane provides a quarter of the employment in the area, the SNP's attitude is nothing short of scandalous. Have the nationalists thought about what will happen to the workers and their families, or are they, too, destined for the scrap heap?

A couple of years ago, I found that the SNP's policy website was blank on this matter. It had nothing to say, except that the matter was under review. I confess that I am not sure whether today's offering is any better. Perhaps, as Ronan Keating would say, the SNP says it best when it says nothing at all.

We remain in the dark about the SNP's policy on these matters. Does it want to be in or out of NATO? Do we need to wait for the vagaries of an SNP conference for such a decision? In any case, we need not worry: apparently, when Trident is scrapped, the Scottish navy and customs and excise will be based at Faslane. At least, that is what the former SNP MSP Lloyd Quinan said. What a relief that news was to the workers. However, geography is not one of the SNP's strong points—Faslane is, of course, on the west coast—and Mr Quinan had obviously not checked with the boss before he made his statement. At the same time, Alex Salmond was on his feet, telling people in Rosyth—which is on the east coast—not to worry, because the self-same navy would be based there.

Do members want to know how big that navy will be? I will tell them: it will consist of seven frigates and the workforce involved will number 100. Is my maths wrong? If not, the SNP needs to tell us what it will do for the other 10,600 people who work at Faslane. Until the SNP can properly answer that question, it should not waste my time and the chamber's time. I urge Parliament to reject the motion.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

We have just heard an example of a pathetic lack of ambition from someone who says that she believes in nuclear disarmament and world peace, but who speaks an entirely different game. Jackie Baillie mentioned the income multiplier. Three years ago, I wrote to Glasgow City Council to ask how many people it employed, directly or indirectly, with the £1 billion of grant-aided expenditure that it had at its disposal. The chief executive at the time replied that, with that £1 billion, the council employed 30,000 directly and another 20,000 to 30,000 indirectly. In short, for £1 billion, Glasgow City Council directly and indirectly employed 60,000 people. Jackie Baillie tells us that we cannot get rid of Trident because it will lead to the loss of up to 8,000—perhaps 10,000—jobs.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

No. The member did not take any interventions.

As I said, Jackie Baillie told us that 8,000 to 10,000 jobs would be lost. What poverty of ambition. The very same people who are currently employed in highly skilled refitting, engineering and technical jobs could be just as well employed on new ferries, new trains, new buses, magnetic resonance imaging or kidney machines and so on. The skills would not disappear, because the workers would be redeployed. The only difference is that 20,000 more people would be employed as a result of that approach than are currently employed as a result of the money that is wasted on nuclear weapons. From the outset, we need to get rid of the nonsense that says that somehow or other we must stick with nuclear weapons because they create jobs. In fact, they create even fewer jobs than would be created with socially useful production.

When I listened to the Tories' arguments, it felt like groundhog day. They never change. Jamie McGrigor did not take an intervention as he told us that getting rid of nuclear weapons would leave us defenceless. He wanted to know who would guard our borders. The question that I wanted to ask him was: from whom are we going to be defenceless? After 1945, people like Jamie McGrigor tried to tell us that we needed nuclear weapons because the Russians were just over the hill and would invade us if we did not have them. I do not know what they were going to invade us for; after all, they have enough rain in their own country. Moreover, throughout the 1980s, they certainly had nothing like the level of unemployment that we had under the Tories.

This is about the politics of fear. We want nuclear weapons because we want to frighten everyone. I have seen no reports that say that the good people of Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland cannot get a good sleep at night, and yet they do not have any nuclear weapons. They are—to come back to Jamie McGrigor's point—defenceless. It is time that we had the guts and courage to stand up in the world and say that we will take action on nuclear disarmament and that we want to be a country that promotes peace, not nuclear proliferation, throughout the world. At the moment, we cannot say that we are a country of peace when every one of the UK's nuclear weapons is on our shores.

We must fight for disarmament; try to promote ourselves as a country of peace; and encourage the people of Scotland to go to Faslane on 4 July to protest for nuclear disarmament. If the Tories think that they are popular enough, we should put it to a referendum. That would show clearly that the people of Scotland would rather have investment in schools, hospitals and pensions than in nuclear weapons.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

One of the great philosophers of the 20 th century, Will Durant, once wrote:

"In my youth I stressed freedom, and in my old age I stress order. I have made the great discovery that liberty is the product of order."

In my youth, I was a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament because I realised the horrible potential of weapons of mass destruction and wanted to stress the need to be free from that threat, which, during a time of cold war aggression in the 1970s and 1980s, was growing ever greater.

I still acknowledge that threat, but I am a little bit older now and, like Will Durant, I have matured. I now appreciate that this is an incredibly complex geopolitical issue that raises many different concerns. I still believe in nuclear disarmament but, in discussing it, we need to have order as we strive towards that aspiration.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the member's youth, the cold war posed a threat. At that time, he was a member of CND and did not believe in nuclear weapons. However, the member is older and there is no longer a cold war. Why does he believe in nuclear weapons now that no threat exists?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

If the member had listened, she would have heard me say that I still do not believe in nuclear weapons. If she paid attention, she might not waste parliamentary time with such stupid interventions.

Because of our Labour Government, there have been major reductions in nuclear forces. I am proud of that record. Indeed, despite what the Green party said, the UK has relinquished all air-launched weapons; Royal Navy surface ships are no longer able to carry or to deploy nuclear weapons; and the nuclear missile and artillery roles that were previously held with US nuclear weapons under dual-key arrangements have been resigned. That represents real progress towards nuclear disarmament.

Trident is the only nuclear system left and I hope that it will be the last. However, getting rid of it will require an ordered defence policy, not disarray, and gaining freedom from the threat of nuclear destruction will require orderly negotiation. In today's post-cold war nuclear politics, the issue is not as simple as the SNP would have us believe.

However, why should we be surprised that the SNP has a chaotic defence policy? It does not have an impressive record on issues relating to Scotland's defence; indeed, its approach to defence policy is careless and contradictory. For example, it advocates withdrawal from NATO and has repeatedly opposed NATO action, despite the fact that such action has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Moreover, the SNP advocates Scottish independence while arguing for the retention of Scottish regiments in the British Army. As I have said before, at least when the Indians and the Irish gained independence, they had the decency to tell Britain to take its army with it. The SNP wants us to believe that Scotland would be the only country in the world to gain independence—its so-called freedom—and still keep the army of its oppressors.

The most disingenuous aspect is that the SNP would put independence before Scotland's national security and the benefit that we gain from defence jobs. This week, the SNP accused Labour of causing unemployment at Rosyth while advocating shutting down the very defence industry that provides thousands of Scots with employment.

As the election looms, we will see much more of the political opportunism for which the SNP is famous. I am glad that the SNP has again given us the opportunity to expose that opportunism. The money that is currently spent on Trident has been pledged variously by the SNP to the national health service, to increasing the number of nursery places, to improving the lot of pensioners and even to a Scottish Nobel prize. The SNP asks only that we should wait until Scotland is independent to address the critical issue of defence.

I am an optimist and I expect to live to see Scotland free of nuclear capabilities, but I do not expect ever to see Scotland becoming independent. If I ever stop being an optimist, I will become a nationalist.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is always interesting to hear the straw men that are put up by the other parties to represent the SNP's position. Much of the debate has been characterised by members constructing an edifice and then shooting at it rather than addressing the real issues, but I think that there is consensus in the chamber that we wish to see nuclear weapons removed.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I would like to make a frivolous intervention, as there have been frivolous interventions by SNP members. Did the member's dad happen to have a nuclear weapon given to him, which he shoved in his cupboard?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Michael McMahon welcomed the end of air-launched nuclear weapons. So be it. However, it does not matter whether weapons are launched from the air, land or water—what matters is where they land. Weapons cause damage when they land rather than when they are launched, and nuclear weapons in the UK are designed to damage civilians rather than military targets—that is the morality behind the debate.

Troops from our islands—from Scotland in particular—are deployed in conflicts here, there and everywhere throughout the world. They are stretched thin and worked hard—perhaps they are overworked—because we choose to divert our resources to weapons that we hope we will never use and for which we cannot envisage the circumstances in which we would use them.

In 1985, in the fictional "Yes, Prime Minister" television series, James Hacker visited defence chiefs and discussed the nuclear deterrent. Afterwards, in a review of what was happening, he was asked what the deterrent was for and whom it deterred, but he could not say. In the modern world, we certainly cannot say what the deterrent is for and whom it deters. Hacker was asked how the deterrent deterred, but he could not say. He said that he would use it, but certainly not if the East Germans crossed into west Berlin or if the Russians went in to support civil unrest in west Berlin. All the scenarios developed. As he came up Whitehall, he still could not say when he would use nuclear weapons. We remain in the same position today.

Jackie Baillie asked why there are SNP members in the House of Commons. Perhaps she should consult the House of Commons library. All the SNP members in the House of Commons are in the top 10 for activity, but the feeble 50 Scottish Labour members languish at the bottom of that table. In an independent Scotland, Scotland's defence forces would be active and engaged to meet Scotland's priorities just as we now have defence forces—a wonderful five members—defending Scotland in Westminster.

Jackie Baillie, properly, mentioned jobs in her constituency and she favours the elimination of nuclear weapons, of course. What preparation is she making for the elimination of jobs that depend on nuclear weapons? Service personnel should have no fears. Again, I remind members that we are committed to ensuring that every person who is employed in the services in Scotland will have the opportunity to work in the Scottish independent defence forces when there is independence.

We are clinging grimly to immorality, twitching in fear of the advance of rationality and failing actively to support a world order. Eliminating nuclear weapons from the world is a long and difficult job, so we must start to do so now. Where better to start than with ourselves? There is no time to waste.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has provided a significant opportunity to voice our opposition to nuclear weapons. I join a long line of politicians who have taken a stance against such weapons, which includes the First Minister, Jack McConnell, who was active on the streets of Stirling during the 1980s in opposing nuclear weapons. He argued about their illegality, the technology's political redundancy, the economic waste of the billions of pounds that are spent on nuclear weapons and the complete moral outrage of having nuclear weapons systems.

Nuclear weapons are illegal. The International Court of Justice has ruled that they are illegal, and they are illegal under the Geneva convention, the declaration of St Petersburg, the Hague convention and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many members have said that they are politically irrelevant because we live in an age in which wielding a craft knife on a jumbo jet does more to change global politics in the space of a couple of hours than nuclear weapons ever have.

There is an economic case against nuclear weapons. Over the entire lifetime of the Trident system, a sum of money equivalent to 116 times the amount of money that has been spent on the Holyrood building project will be spent. That money could have been spent on tackling antisocial behaviour, putting more police on the streets or creating jobs in our communities, which Tommy Sheridan mentioned.

There is a moral case against nuclear weapons. I wonder whether Jackie Baillie believes that Labour ministers have acted responsibly. A Labour minister, Geoff Hoon, ruled in the potential use of nuclear weapons in Iraq—he did not rule out using them; he ruled in using them. I say to Jackie Baillie that that was not responsible. If the Labour Party at Westminster had any guts, it would implement the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Chris Patten, who is a Tory, has said that, in the past year,

"we have been applying double standards".

He has stated:

"It is very difficult for us to argue that there is something morally wrong with other countries developing their nuclear capacity when we don't ... live up to all our commitments under the NPT".

He is right. Of course, it is easy to say those words when one is not in Government or in charge of the US aircraft carrier that is the UK.

Robert Brown fails to understand that the west's nuclear arsenal is built on a house of cards. If the UK changed the terms of the mutual defence agreement between the US and the UK, of course that would lead to disarmament through the non-proliferation treaty. If we moved to reduce the nuclear arsenal in the UK, the whole edifice would come down and countries such as North Korea would be brought into a position in which they could disarm.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Given the state of North Korea, how on earth would getting rid of the nuclear deterrent in Scotland or the UK encourage the North Koreans to do likewise?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Countries have lost faith in the non-proliferation treaty, and we must move and show leadership. Countries must be brought back into the moral consensus.

The issue is not only an international issue; it also affects communities in Scotland. Nuclear convoys run through Stirling throughout the night, and there is an increased risk of those convoys breaking down and having accidents. People will be concerned about such issues in the forthcoming election. There is the legacy of nuclear submarines rusting in the dock at Rosyth. The interim storage of laid-up submarines—ISOLUS—consultation recommended that nuclear submarines should not be cut up at Rosyth. Will the Executive take a firm position on that when the MOD submits its plans?

Chris Ballance mentioned the use of depleted uranium weapons at Dundrennan, which is perhaps the biggest environmental scandal in Scotland at the moment. The First Minister, Jack McConnell, should hold true to his Labour movement principles. He should join his colleague Ken Livingstone in New York in May at the discussions on the non-proliferation treaty and give voice to the 85 per cent of Scots who do not want nuclear weapons in Scotland. He should try to force movement on the non-proliferation treaty to get international consensus on getting rid of nuclear weapons.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The debate has been good and worth while. It was fair enough for Roseanna Cunningham to set out the SNP's unilateral position, but I question the worth of having just 75 minutes to debate such an important issue.

Chris Ballance, who was representing the extremist Green Party rather than the cuddly Green Party, supported the SNP's unilateral position; that is fair enough. However, he was completely wrong to maintain that the UK has done nothing in this area. I have news for the Greens. As Mike McMahon pointed out, all the UK's tactical nuclear weapon systems have been taken out of service.

As usual, Tommy Sheridan called for direct action. I am not sure what else he called for. The UK's nuclear force is now limited to its strategic deterrent, Trident. I am not noted for coming to the defence of the UK Government, but Stewart Stevenson—who has left the chamber—failed to acknowledge that we have got rid of the tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons, which are the most dangerous form of nuclear weapons. Those are the weapons that could have been used in a real scenario.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Mike Rumbles mentioned the nuclear weapons that could have been used.

Is he saying that the nuclear weapons that we have cannot be used?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is correct—that is my personal belief.

We have spent huge resources on procuring the Trident system and we now spend about 3 per cent of the UK's annual defence budget on it. The point that I am making is that there is a legitimate argument about whether any UK Government would ever use our nuclear deterrent. I have said that I cannot envisage any scenario in which the Trident missile system could be used. However, members such as Jamie McGrigor believe that the fact that we have such a system means that we have an effective deterrent. Following on from Tommy Sheridan's question, I ask Jamie McGrigor under what circumstances a Tory Prime Minister would order the commander of the one nuclear submarine that we have on patrol to launch his Trident nuclear missiles. I cannot envisage such a situation.

The Liberal Democrats believe that unilateral nuclear disarmament is not the best way forward. We believe that the key to a safer world is to make progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament. We must be willing to take part in the disarmament process. We want the UK Government to press for a nuclear weapons convention at which the commitment of all nuclear weapon states to disarmament could be formalised.

As far as the future of Trident is concerned, it is clear that no effective case for a successor system has been made. In any event, it must be right that the UK Parliament remains the proper body to take any decision on whether to replace Trident.

As the motion represents a unilateralist approach to nuclear disarmament, the Liberal Democrats cannot support it. In my view, the Labour amendment is concerned simply with scoring points off the SNP. [Interruption.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The Liberal Democrats are in favour of real nuclear disarmament to make the world a safer place. We can achieve that by engaging with other countries in discussions on multilateral nuclear disarmament.

I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

When I read the SNP motion, my mind drifted back to a time to which Scott Barrie referred, when the Tory Government decided—mistakenly, in my view—to take away nuclear submarine maintenance from Rosyth. Scott Barrie asked where the SNP was at that time. I can tell him where it was. Margaret Ewing and Alex Salmond were at Westminster with the same shop stewards as Scott Barrie was with to protest against the Government about the removal of the nuclear submarines from Rosyth. Now the SNP wants to remove them from Faslane. Given the importance of the Faslane base to the local economy and its wider importance, what on earth would the SNP replace the nuclear submarines at Faslane with?

Tommy Sheridan said that we should use the resources that we spend on nuclear weapons for more industrial purposes, but I remind him that the skills and training that are available at Faslane are vital to the future of Scotland in other ways. There are no private facilities that offer the skills and training that are obtainable with the Royal Navy or the civil organisations at Faslane.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that the skills to which he refers could just as well be deployed on the refitting and building of passenger ferries, train carriages and new buses?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Regrettably, we are not building boats. The member might not have noticed, but that is not happening. Shipyards on the Clyde are shutting. I repeat that the skills that are available at Faslane have been taught and developed at Faslane; without them, Scotland would be a poorer place.

I want to consider wider aspects of nuclear weapons. Roseanna Cunningham said that she never saw Scott Barrie on CND protest marches, and Scott Barrie said that he never saw Roseanna Cunningham on the marches that he went on. Neither of them saw me because I was not there. I was not there because I believed that the deterrence policy was right for the United Kingdom and the wider world. In my view, that policy has been proved to have been correct.

Before Chris Ballance was out of his diapers, I had experienced the effects of the cold war. I can remember back to the time of the 1939-45 war, when 50 million people lost their lives as a result of the use of conventional weapons, not nuclear weapons. In my view, all war is wrong, but in many instances it is inevitable, because of human nature and jealousies between nations. It is something that must be guarded against.

I believe that the nuclear deterrent has kept the major powers apart over the past 50 or 60 years. It would be a very ill-advised leader of the UK or, indeed, an independent Scotland who would wish to move out of the umbrella protection that nuclear weapons provide.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I give way quickly to Stewart Stevenson.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I am sorry, but Mr Gallie is in his final minute.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will support the Labour amendment. I am tempted to support that of the Liberals, although I wonder why they felt it necessary to break their links with their partners in the Parliament. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that a general election is looming.

I am delighted that the UK can control its own nuclear weapons. As always, I will make a point about the European constitution. If we were to pass over responsibilities for defence to others, I would be a bit more worried.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Anyone who has been watching First Minister's question time for the past two weeks could be forgiven for thinking that there is a crisis in the Scottish health service.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

There is.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

If such a crisis existed, it would be fair to assume that the SNP would put that crisis on the table, put forward a solution and try to effect change at the first political opportunity that presented itself. After all, health is an issue on which we can vote, take action and express differences of opinion. However, the SNP has not taken that opportunity. On the occasion of its first opportunity to choose a debate after Nicola Sturgeon's most recent performance at First Minister's questions, the SNP has chosen to have a debate not on the health service—the issue that matters most to the people of Scotland, according to Nicola Sturgeon—but on nuclear weapons, a matter for which we have no responsibility and on which we have no choice and no veto. But there goes the SNP, once again.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Nicola Sturgeon could not be bothered to turn up for the debate. She cannot come into the chamber now and think that she can nip into the debate in the middle of my speech. If the subject was important to her, she would have been sitting in the chamber for the whole debate, just like everybody else did. We will see what subject she raises at FMQT today.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

No, I think I will just carry on. [ Interruption. ]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Oh well, on you go, Stewart.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I thank the member for giving way. Will she acknowledge that the SNP's last debating day, which was only two weeks ago, was spent on health, which is a matter of importance to the people of Scotland?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Absolutely, but how many minutes did that debate take up? It was not as many minutes as Nicola Sturgeon has taken up at FMQT on the subject.

Since that debate, another two weeks of Nicola Sturgeon telling us about the crisis in the health service have elapsed and yet, once again, we come to the chamber for an SNP debate and there is no debate on the issue. The truth is that, when the issues are difficult and the chips are down, it is not Nicola Sturgeon who runs the SNP but the Notting Hill nats and Alex Salmond—Nicola dances to Alex Salmond's tune. Issues on which the Scottish Parliament has responsibility and on which we can change things are sidelined. Once again, the SNP ducks the real challenge, which is to grasp their role as MSPs. It seems that they would rather act as a support band to their London bosses. [Interruption.]

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Order.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The SNP sees a note of truth in what I have said.

All of us are committed to achieving world peace and nuclear disarmament. We may differ on how best to do that, but all of us are committed to doing so.

My colleagues Scott Barrie, Jackie Baillie and Michael McMahon exposed the difficulties of a party having a policy that is built on a slogan. I expected that from Tommy Sheridan—the Trots have been doing that for 30 years, and never have they had the aspiration of Government. However, the SNP tells everyone that it is a serious party of Government. Therefore, we could be forgiven for expecting from it today a slightly more thought-through policy and a bit more detail on how jobs would be redeployed.

Stewart Stevenson said that he guarantees that every single job at Faslane would be transferred to the Scottish defence force. How many people is he talking about? How many people are in the marines, the air force, the navy, the army and all the special operations forces? How would all of them be transferred and how would they be employed? How many people are employed on Ministry of Defence contracts?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The number of jobs in the defence industry has been reduced because of the jobs that have been lost since Labour came to power in 1997.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

That response gives me a very useful in to an example that exposes the contradiction on the issue. The SNP's parliamentary candidate for the Rosyth area has claimed that the awarding of the contract to refit the Ark Royal to Rosyth was a pre-election sweetener and that it was not awarded on merit; yet, this week, the same person said that more jobs should be given to Rosyth. The SNP cannot have it both ways. Either Rosyth deserved the Ark Royal contract or it did not, and Rosyth should either get the jobs or it should not. Perhaps Tricia Marwick should have a wee chat with the SNP's man in Rosyth and put him straight on what SNP policy is.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

Tommy Sheridan talked about a referendum. There will be a referendum and I imagine that 5 May will be the day when the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom elect a new Government. People will give their verdict on many different issues, one of which will be defence policy.

Perhaps the real reason why we are having this debate is because the SNP has finally realised what the Labour Party already knew—that, if or when decisions come to be made on these issues at the UK level, there will be no SNP MPs to debate them at the House of Commons.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The SNP motion concentrates on ensuing that there will be no replacement for Trident and that the £20 billion plus is spent on peaceful uses in our country, such as the creation of jobs of a peaceful nature.

All our opponents attempted to talk about everything except Trident and I turn first to Scott Barrie, who seemed to have to hide behind a smokescreen by diverting the debate on to other reserved matters. For Labour, Trident is about Britain having a seat at the top table in the Security Council. Without Trident and without our nuclear weapons, Labour's aspirations for Britain would fail—we would be removed from the top table. Whenever the subject of nuclear weapons is debated, Labour members become extremely concerned; they feel that they have to disguise the issue. The SNP will not disguise the subject. It is clear that Scotland has a different perspective on the issue from the Labour Party's.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Not at the moment.

The global elimination of nuclear weapons is something that many of us believe must happen. I say to Scott Barrie that thinking globally is one thing, but what the SNP suggests we should be doing is acting locally.

The Liberal Democrats' amendment shows them to be the masters of irrelevance and obfuscation. The party was set up on the principle of having a policy in favour of nuclear weapons—that was Charles Kennedy's stance at the joint Social Democratic Party and Liberal Party discussions. One wonders why, after all those years, the Liberal Democrats have not moved on and why Scotland is not yet in the position of having a voice at the tables in the world at which non-proliferation and the like are discussed. One also asks why the Liberal Democrats continue to lodge amendments of the sort that we see today and refuse to debate a motion on the stopping of the replacement for Trident. Why did its members who spoke in the debate not concentrate on the specifics of the motion?

The Greens told us—as the SNP believes—that 85 per cent of Scots want rid of nuclear weapons. The SNP has provided the chamber with the opportunity to debate the issue today. We hope the debate will show the people of Scotland that as many members of the Parliament believe that we should get rid of nuclear weapons and that the first and best way in which to do that is to refuse to replace Trident.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will the member answer the question that I asked earlier? How will Scotland or the UK ridding the country of nuclear weapons help to deal with the North Korea situation?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The fact is that the UK's Trident submarines are centre-stage. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is dealt with by the sovereign nations of the world and Scotland, as a nation, would have a role in that. As a successor nation to the existing UK, we would have a seat at the tables at which the discussions are held. The point of the exercise is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in this country. Replacing Trident is the first opportunity to do so.

It was interesting to hear that the Tories will support the Labour Party's amendment at decision time. Indeed, it was interesting to hear how close the arguments made by Jamie McGrigor and Jackie Baillie were. It is clear that the Tories accept Labour's argument.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Not at the moment.

It seems that Jackie Baillie is incapable of using the internet. If she had looked up the SNP's website, she would have found the answer to the question she posed on the SNP policy on defence, which states:

"the SNP will pursue a non-nuclear defence policy. Our armed forces will initially be equipped with Scotland's share of UK defence resources. The Scottish Defence Force will be all professional, supported by part time volunteers. Defence policy will be made in Scotland's national parliament."

At present, defence policy is made in the UK Parliament. By lodging the motion, the SNP is trying to influence that process.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member explain how seven frigates and 100 jobs will take care of the 10,600 people who currently work at Faslane?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The member will have noted that I said that our armed forces will initially be equipped with Scotland's share of the UK defence resources. That means that the work will continue.

Attitudes in Scotland to nuclear weapons have long been one of opposition; from the most middle-class areas to the most working-class areas of the country, 85 per cent of Scots are opposed to nuclear weapons. At the SNP conference, the loudest cheer is always for the speech on the motion that says that we will get rid of nuclear weapons from our soil.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Rob Gibson give way on that point?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, thank you.

The motion before us puts the SNP in a position to ask members to consider the moral argument and to set an example by arguing that no replacement to Trident in Scotland is the best way forward for the Parliament, and is the best way forward for all Scots. Trident is a relic of the UK's past. It has no part in Scotland's future, and the SNP's motion makes that perfectly clear. I am glad to support it, and I ask others to do so too.

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before questions to the First Minister, members will wish to welcome Bojan Kostreš, President of the Assembly of Vojvodina, in Serbia, and an accompanying parliamentary delegation. [ Applause. ]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1547)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting with the Prime Minister.

I take this opportunity to thank publicly the Clydesdale Bank for being the first private sector company in Scotland to make a donation to Scotland's Commonwealth games team's preparations for Melbourne next year. Its donation, which was announced this morning, is very welcome, and I hope that it will be the first of many. [Applause.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I echo those remarks.

The First Minister's usual excuse for not cutting overall hospital waiting times is his focus on the three big killer diseases, including cancer. Is he aware that that excuse has been undermined by the news this week that the target for breast cancer treatment has not been met and that, according to Audit Scotland, the target for bowel cancer treatment will not be met? On the subject of bowel cancer, the Executive has said that one requirement of meeting its target is "sufficient numbers of beds". Has the number of specialist cancer beds in Scotland gone up or down since 1999?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We have established some challenging targets on cancer in Scotland, many of which have already been met—others are still to be met. The targets are challenging because cancer is one of Scotland's key killer diseases. We were absolutely right in making our priority tackling cancer waiting times and improving cancer treatments and diagnosis the length and breadth of the country. We do that in ways that use the best equipment and the best of our skills in the health service and we do it in ways that use not only hospital beds, but services in the community.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The missing ingredient from that reply was an answer to the question that I asked. Let me give the First Minister the answer. The total number of acute in-patient beds in Scotland has fallen by 5 per cent since 1999 and the number of specialist-staffed cancer beds has gone down by 11 per cent. That might be one reason why the treatment target is not being met. Is he aware that, as well as treatment delays, Audit Scotland found delays in first out-patient appointments for bowel cancer patients, of whom only 45 per cent see a consultant within two weeks of their referral? What is the corresponding figure in England?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As members will be aware, I do not think that we should automatically compare what happens here with what happens south of the border. In this case, however, I am very happy to do so, because, in relation to beds, in-patient waiting times and the treatment of killer diseases, we in Scotland compare favourably with the health service south of the border. We need to ensure that we have the facts in front of us when debating such issues. Ms Sturgeon might be willing to try to distort the picture in relation to hospital beds, but the decline in the number of specialist beds is a result of our hospitals and our health service making better use of hospital beds—they are using them in more flexible ways and it is right and proper that hospital staff should do that.

It is also the case that acute hospital beds are not required for individual treatments for as long as they used to be. For example, the average hospital stay for a gall bladder operation has dropped from 10 days to three days. A four-day stay was once required for cataracts, but now patients are treated with no overnight stay at all. With changes in the birth rate, the need for obstetric beds has also reduced. Our hospitals do not need rows and rows of empty beds; they need more staff, more treatments and more equipment. The needs of the health service must be properly reflected in our expenditure priorities, which is precisely what we have ensured is happening.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister that I asked about specialist cancer beds, the numbers of which are going down precisely because of a lack of specialist staff. Yet again, the answer to my question was missing in his rather long-winded response.

Is the First Minister aware that the most recent figures show that, in England, 99.2 per cent of bowel cancer patients see a consultant within two weeks of urgent referral, whereas only 45 per cent of such patients do so in Scotland? Given that cancer care is a chosen priority on which the First Minister regularly boasts about Scotland outperforming England, why do more than half of bowel cancer patients in Scotland wait more than two weeks to see a consultant while less than 1 per cent of such patients do so in England? Does he not have some serious explaining to do?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As we debated last week and the week before, those figures are precisely due to the situation with out-patient waiting times in Scotland. That situation, after much delay, is now finally starting to improve. It is right that that is now happening in our health service, given the priority that should perhaps have been given in the past to out-patient waiting times but is certainly being given now. Changes are being seen, with dramatic reductions both in out-patient waiting lists and in out-patient waiting times. Those reductions in waiting times are to be seen right across the specialities.

I remind Ms Sturgeon that the report from which she quoted does not say only that the targets for cancer treatment will be challenging and difficult to meet. The report also states:

"Bowel cancer services in Scotland are performing well against clinical standards and waiting times are improving."

It states:

"Scotland's managed clinical networks for bowel cancer have made good progress in auditing clinical practice and promoting high quality care."

It also says:

"Most bowel cancer patients in Scotland receive high quality, well co-ordinated care."

However, Ms Sturgeon did not want to quote those parts of the report, which recognise the efforts of health service staff and the investment that we are providing.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Last week, the First Minister said in the chamber that all targets were being met and that Scotland was doing better than England, but I have shown that both those assertions are false. All patients wait too long in the national health service in Scotland. Is it not the case that we now know that cancer patients also wait too long? When will he stop offering excuses for failure and start delivering some results for Scottish patients?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I said last week very clearly, the targets that were set for in-patients have been met in Scotland ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom and we remain the place for the best and fastest levels of such treatment in the United Kingdom. On out-patients, we are far behind England, but we are now reducing out-patient waiting lists and waiting times, which reduced dramatically in the final quarter of last year and will come down towards our target of six months, which we intend to meet by the end of this year.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1548)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet will not meet next week, but at our next meeting we will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I hope that the Cabinet will get round to discussing its enterprise strategy. As the First Minister will be aware, the Scottish Executive's stated aim is to create a smart, successful Scotland in which, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has stated,

"We need ambitious, innovative people in our small, medium and large companies".

Does the First Minister think that a top rate of income tax of 50 per cent would help or hinder the meeting of that Scottish Executive policy objective?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Some members on the Executive benches may take a different view from me on those matters and I recognise their right to do so. Very fortunately in this Parliament, we do not have the powers to raise income tax beyond 3 pence in the pound. We know what the characters on the SNP benches would do. They would have taxes in Scotland go through the roof to pay for the promises that they make every week in the chamber.

In Scotland today, we are not just pursuing the right policies for a smart, successful Scotland and using our resources effectively to help to create a smart, successful Scotland, but putting in place the right culture for a smart, successful Scotland. That was recognised last week by the chancellor when he announced that our enterprise in schools initiative—ahead of the game and the best in the United Kingdom—would be copied elsewhere. We hope that the rest of the UK does not catch up with us and that we stay ahead of the game in the years to come.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister seems curiously reluctant to offer an opinion on what I thought was a simple question. Does it seem odd to him that we have a Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning whose responsibility is to encourage entrepreneurs and businesses in Scotland but whose party's policy is in direct conflict with those ministerial aims? Does the First Minister think that a 50 per cent tax penalty would encourage a new generation of entrepreneurs like Tom Hunter, Ann Gloag and Tom Farmer? Does he think that a 50 per cent tax rate would encourage dynamic young graduates to stay in Scotland or enterprising executives to come here under his fresh talent initiative? We may well ask the First Minister why, given the views that he holds, Jim Wallace is in charge of enterprise in Scotland when he is very much anti-enterprise.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Jim Wallace is doing an excellent job as Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, as evidenced by the announcements in the past month of significant investment in Glasgow and in Stirling by top-quality international firms that are coming to Scotland because of the skills and culture that we have in place and the infrastructure that backs up those skills and that culture. If Mr McLetchie wants to talk about the choices that might exist in an election campaign, I am happy to do so, too. He can debate 50 per cent tax rates with the Liberal Democrats in another place and at another time, but I remind him that the top tax rate was higher than that for most of Mrs Thatcher's period in office.

I also remind Mr McLetchie that he has yet to answer the point that I put to him last week in the chamber. His party said on the record just six weeks ago that it would publish its proposals for cuts in Scotland's budgets before the general election. However, it promised last Thursday not to do so, but to keep them secret until after the general election. Let us not have Mr McLetchie debating with me a proposal by the Liberal Democrats on tax. Let us have a debate about his proposals for cutting the Scottish budget and let us explain to the people of Scotland the impact that those proposals would have not just on health, education and tackling crime, but on our enterprise strategy.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Once again, we seem to be back at leader of the Opposition's question time instead of First Minister's question time. I reiterate the points that we made last week. Under a Conservative Government, there will be no cuts in the Scottish budget, but there will be cuts in Scottish taxes paid by Scottish taxpayers.

Having reflected on "A Smart, Successful Scotland" in relation to a disastrous policy of increasing taxes in Scotland, I now turn to an area in which that strategy is being undermined by a specific proposal in the chancellor's budget last week. As the First Minister will know, "A Smart, Successful Scotland" was meant to be reinforced by the creation in Scotland of some 140 enterprise areas to benefit the most deprived wards. In order to assist that and to promote economic growth in urban regeneration, stamp duty on commercial property transactions in those areas was abolished in 2003. However, that relief has been ended prematurely in this year's budget. Is that not a blow to some of our most deprived and disadvantaged communities? What steps, if any, is Mr McConnell's Executive taking to compensate for that loss?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We seem to have moved from leader of the Liberal Democrats' question time to Chancellor of the Exchequer's question time. I took the liberty of not commenting on the Liberal Democrats' proposals on tax for the election, but I am certainly prepared to defend the chancellor's decisions. Last week, the chancellor announced a doubling of the threshold for stamp duty across the country. People in the House of Commons said that that would be of no use to Scotland whatsoever, when in fact it will be a direct benefit to many people in Scotland—not just to first-time home buyers, but to many others, too.

Mr McLetchie might want to divert attention on to another part of his set of proposals, but the reality is that the budget last week will not only encourage enterprise and ensure that the amazing stability in the United Kingdom economy over the past eight years, which was never matched at any time in 18 years of Conservative government, and the amazing investment in public services, which was never matched at any time in 18 years of Conservative government, are both in place, but introduce measures to encourage home buying and to ensure that young people can, with support from the chancellor, enter the housing market for the first time. The chancellor is right on that issue and he has my full support.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We will have one constituency question.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The First Minister will be aware of the 176 job cuts that are proposed at BBC Scotland headquarters, which is in my constituency, and the economic impact that that will have on Scotland. Does he share my view that the impact of such cutbacks can only be to undermine the quality of output and the case for public service broadcasting, which has been so important in promoting devolution and Scotland's distinct culture? Does he share my concerns about plans to move to more local news at the expense of national programming? Will he assure me and the Parliament that, in so far as those issues are devolved, he will resist any detrimental economic and cultural impact on Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Those are decisions for the BBC to take in the light of its judgment about what is best for Scottish viewers. However, I believe that it is vital that we seize—across the BBC and, crucially, the private independent television production sector in Scotland—the opportunities that might be available as a result of BBC reorganisation, because there will be a significant increase in production in Scotland in years to come. That is an opportunity for our creative industries and I hope that they take it.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister what representations the Scottish Executive will make to the Israeli Government requesting it to allow world peace campaigner, Mordechai Vanunu, to visit Scotland to take up his role as rector of the University of Glasgow. (S2F-1566)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Scottish Executive has had no representation from the University of Glasgow on the matter. Any response to such a representation would involve consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I hope that the First Minister accepts that Mordechai Vanunu is recognised across the world as a man of peace, a man of principle, a man who demands justice for the Palestinian people and a man who, after being kidnapped by the Israeli state, spent 18 years in jail for exposing Israel's nuclear weapons programme. Given that the Parliament has discussed nuclear weapons this morning, I am sure that the First Minister understands the importance of that. Is the First Minister aware that Mordechai Vanunu's bail conditions are up for their six-monthly review on 21 April? Will he make representations to the United Kingdom Parliament and to the European Parliament to urge them to make every effort to ensure that Mordechai Vanunu's human rights to speak and to return to Europe are recognised?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In general, those are issues for the UK Government and for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If we receive representations from the University of Glasgow about the representation of students there, we will be happy to discuss the matter with both the University of Glasgow and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

I am disappointed that the First Minister cannot be more forthright. That is the second time that he has opted out of giving an opinion on the matter. What does he think of the decision by University of Glasgow students to elect Mordechai Vanunu as their rector? Mordechai Vanunu is a potent symbol of hope, of peace in the middle east and of justice in the world. Will the First Minister encourage all Scots to e-mail or write to the Israeli embassy in London or the Minister of the Interior in Jerusalem, or to sign the petition that has been organised by The Herald newspaper, to demand Mordechai Vanunu's release from the new prison outside a jail that his bail conditions in effect create? Finally, does the First Minister accept that there would be no better sight to greet the arrival in Scotland in July of hundreds of thousands of visitors, who wish to see peace in the world and to make injustice history, than Mordechai Vanunu standing at the head of the march?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Government have made regular representations on the matter to the Israeli Government. I am sure that they will continue to do so.

If I had been a student at the University of Glasgow during the recent rectorial election, I suspect that I might have voted for the Labour candidate for rector. She was a good candidate and she would have served the University of Glasgow well. However, given that the students at the University of Glasgow have chosen to make a public statement in support of human rights in that part of the world by electing Mordechai Vanunu, it is important for us to recognise that they have made that statement and to listen to any representations that they make calling on us to make representations on their behalf.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the First Minister how reforms to the justice system will meet the needs of victims of crime. (S2F-1561)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Earlier this week, the Minister for Justice announced our proposed reforms to the summary justice system. The reforms will ensure that justice is carried out, and is seen to be carried out, more effectively throughout Scotland. If they are successful, there should be less delay, more effective punishment and more confidence in the system on the part of victims.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The First Minister referred to the Minister for Justice's announcement this week on reforms to the summary justice system, which include fiscal compensation orders. How does the Executive intend to engage with communities to reassure them that such alternatives to custody do not constitute a soft option and can meet the needs of victims of crime, given that there will be no formal court process?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is important to stress that the reforms are not alternatives to custody; they are measures that will ensure more prompt and effective justice for victims, but only in cases that would not normally result in a prosecution plea for a custodial sentence. When the new sentences to toughen up our justice system are used, the victims and the communities affected by criminal behaviour will be able to see that justice has been carried out. For that reason, we will provide more information to communities than ever before about the way in which the justice system is defending them. We are already producing more information for individual victims than ever before on the decisions that are taken on their behalf in our courts. As was announced this week, more information will be available to victims in future.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I draw the First Minister's attention to a gap in provision for victims in the immediate aftermath of a serious crime. There is great variation in the service provided to victims of crime, particularly by some police forces. For example, victims of crime are not provided with information on counselling and other support services that are available to them. Furthermore, they are not kept sufficiently abreast of progress on investigations or told when someone is being brought to justice for their crime. Will the First Minister examine that gap and determine whether we can find a better way of providing those services, especially in the immediate aftermath of a crime, when victims are at their most vulnerable?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I agree entirely with Alex Neil's objective. We have seen significant improvements in this area—among the very best improvements in any public service in Scotland over the past five years. With the reforms that we have introduced to court procedure and to the way in which the police operate at a local level and—crucially—with the clear direction and new legislation that gives rights to victims in Scotland, victims get more information more often than ever before. However, too many victims throughout Scotland are provided with patchy and incomplete information. That is why we are persisting not just with the implementation of the many decisions that we have already taken, but with further measures. The measures that were announced this week will ensure that victims receive more information more quickly, which can only be the right thing for us to do.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The measures to which the First Minister refers will effectively air-brush criminals out of the criminal justice system—no record, no conviction. Victims in Scotland will no doubt be open mouthed at that. The proposal is to increase greatly the burden of the imposition of fines, but the existing system for the collection of fines is failing lamentably, so how on earth does he expect collection to improve?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Annabel Goldie has had an honourable reputation in the Parliament as someone who deals with issues in the proper manner—until recently. The exaggeration and misrepresentation of our reforms to the justice system by her and the Conservative party in recent weeks are shameful and will wrongly scare victims throughout Scotland. The reforms will improve the justice system and ensure that people are dealt with more quickly and effectively and that they are less likely to reoffend.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Answer the question.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We will not take people out of custodial sentences, but ensure that people are dealt with through the fiscal compensation fine in a way—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Answer the question.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order, Mr Gallie.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Mr Gallie perhaps does not like the answer to the question, but he must listen to it.

Our measures will improve the execution of justice in Scotland. More people will see more action against criminals who commit crimes in our communities and more victims will be informed as a result.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made to encourage pupils to eat healthy food during school hours. (S2F-1552)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am proud that Scotland is leading the way in the United Kingdom on improving school meals. Our flagship programme, the hungry for success initiative, is delivering much-needed improvements to the school meals service across Scotland.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Many people welcome the fact that the issue is higher up the agenda in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the UK, where it has taken the sterling efforts of a celebrity chef to spur the Government into action. However, does the First Minister accept that Scotland has a long way to go to defuse the ticking time bomb that is the poor diet of many children in Scotland, especially in the light of last week's figures that showed that obesity is on the rise among under-18s in Scotland? Will he explain to parents in Scotland why, six years into devolution, nurseries that are funded by Labour councils in his back yard of Lanarkshire are teaching children how to buy burgers and fries at McDonald's? Does that ludicrous situation not make a mockery of his efforts and what is he doing about it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

We are unlikely to improve the diet of Scotland's children through stunts in the parliamentary chamber. However, we will ensure that, across the length and breadth of Scotland, not just in primary and secondary schools, but—as the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People made clear yesterday—in our nursery schools, the hungry for success programme is implemented and there are healthier meals. We will also see the provision of free fruit in the early years of primary, the provision of water and milk, the reduction in advertising for commercial products and the efforts to increase physical exercise among young people, all of which are making a difference. Year by year, piece by piece, those changes will ensure that the next generation in Scotland will be significantly healthier than the present one is.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thought for a minute that the First Minister was suggesting pieces all round.

Will the First Minister examine the parallel between the situation that led to the Executive's policy change on the recruitment of specialist physical education teachers—a gap had arisen—and the situation in relation to home economics teachers? Is he aware that, in 2003, only 14 home economics teachers graduated and, I think, only 1.1 per cent of highers applicants took home economics? We should follow the same path as we took with the recruitment of physical education teachers. The whole subject must be considered, but specialist home economics teachers are needed in schools now.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not sure what the current situation is, but I am sure that the Minister for Education and Young People would be happy to write to Margo MacDonald on the issue. As part of our comprehensive programme of improving diet and exercise in Scotland, we need not only to have the 400 new PE teachers that we are committed to providing and the hungry for success programme to improve school meals, but to ensure that, as part of the curriculum in schools, youngsters are taught life skills that will help them to provide healthier food for their children in years to come. We need a comprehensive programme in relation to exercise, diet and skills for the future and we are working on all three.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the First Minister whether faith-based schools are able to discriminate against teachers because of sexual orientation. (S2F-1558)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Local authorities cannot discriminate against teachers solely on the ground of sexual orientation, in faith schools or in any other schools. Teachers should be chosen on their ability in the classroom, not on their personal relationships.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Does the First Minister agree that there would be a concern about public funding going to schools that were not conforming to requirements that had been enacted under the European convention on human rights?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I hope that those circumstances would not arise. Schools in Scotland should be choosing their teachers on the basis of people's ability to impart knowledge and to inspire confidence and a desire for learning in young people and they should be ensuring that teachers conduct themselves in the most professional manner in the classroom. Those are the qualities according to which teachers should be chosen.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Given the large number of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who are doing a fine job teaching in Scottish schools but feel themselves to be under a direct threat of a purge based on bigotry, not faith, what reassurances can the First Minister give that under no circumstances will that threat be realised? What reassurance can he give that their contribution to the education of Scotland's young people is valued highly?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I think that I have just given those reassurances. I hope that they are sufficient on the matter.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

During First Minister's question time, we were joined by four members of the United States of America's House of Representatives: Congressmen Oxley, Duncan, McIntyre and Scott. We welcome them to the Scottish Parliament. [ Applause .]

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — Environment and Rural Development

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it can provide to reduce the cost to producers of delivering livestock to markets from island and remote communities. (S2O-5963)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Any direct support to producers in island and remote communities is governed by the European Union's agricultural state-aid rules, which are very restrictive. The Executive is currently exploring options in that area.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I understand the restrictions, but since it has been widely reported that Liberal Democrat leaders have failed to convince the European Commission of the case for keeping ferry fares down, is not it time that we took a cross-party approach that could deliver practical and political sustainable results in the form of an historic commitment to producers in the islands that they will receive social and economic justice? If the minister were able to respond in the spirit that my question describes, I think that we would convince the EU.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

That is an interesting tack to take. I was at the convention of the Highlands and Islands in Shetland on Monday and I have had discussions with people in the northern isles. I am regularly apprised of particular issues there by the two constituency MSPs, Tavish Scott and Jim Wallace. I am surprised that Rob Gibson would think it particularly partisan of the two local members to take the trouble to go on their own account to meet the commissioner. To try to persuade the Commission on ferry fares seems to be a perfectly proper move for a constituency MSP to make. The members raised a number of issues and Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel responded with a number of suggestions, which are being considered. It is not necessarily a question of persuading the commissioner on ferry fares. Rules and regulations have to be adhered to. They are not easy, but as I said in my opening answer, we continue to explore the options.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to encourage waste reduction and recycling. (S2O-5982)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We are providing substantial resources through the strategic waste fund to improve recycling facilities. We are also funding the waste and resources action programme—WRAP—for waste prevention work in respect of home composting, real nappies and retailers.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

What moves are being made by the Scottish Executive to reduce the amount of packaging on goods? In particular, what discussions are taking place with manufacturers and supermarkets?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We have a framework for packaging regulations and a recovery target within that. In November 2004, we launched the innovation fund that is run by WRAP. It is designed to help retailers to minimise waste from packaging and products. We have regular discussions with retailers. The amount of packaging that is used during transportation of goods from retailers to their stores has reduced, but I continue to be disappointed by the level of in-store product packaging that remains and we continue to pursue that with the retailers.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Liberal Democrat MP Sue Doughty stated in a Westminster debate last month that

"Liberal Democrats have been debating zero waste strategy for some years, and it is now party policy."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 February 2005; Vol 431, c 67.]

What will the minister do to ensure that his party's policy of zero waste is put into practice here in Scotland where the Liberal Democrats have the power to do that?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

With all due respect to my colleague down south, simply to state that we have zero waste does not mean that we have no waste. I appreciate that the member might believe that, but I do not. To wave a magic wand and simply say, "Abracadabra! We have no waste" would be an interesting policy, but one has to take action on the policies, although I am grateful that the member thinks I have such powers.

To be serious, it is fine to make a statement, but whatever the statement, policies must be in place if we are to reduce waste. As I said in response to Sylvia Jackson, the packaging recovery targets and the legislation that applies to them and the innovation fund are directed at seriously reducing levels of waste. They are essential components of a move to much lower levels of waste in this country.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Has the minister given thought to the grievances that owners of small businesses often express? They think that Government policy puts in place many measures that help householders in collection and disposal of waste, whereas small businesses are left to pick up their own costs. Are there plans to give more help to small businesses for collection and disposal of waste?