Scottish Parliament, 14 April 2005

416 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Official Report 14 April 2005

Council Tax

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2693, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, on council tax.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I congratulate the people who have made it in this morning for the earlier start.

When the council tax first came into force in April 1993, the majority of people breathed a sigh of relief that the manifest unfairness and inequities of the poll tax had been put to one side and hoped that they had got something better—something that was simpler to administer and not too inequitable. However, I believe that mature reflection on a lot more than 10 years' experience has led most people to believe that the council tax is neither simple nor equitable. Back then, the impact of the council tax was relatively small and so the lack of correlation between the level of the tax and the taxpayer's ability to pay it was not seen as a huge problem for most people.

However, all that has changed. It changed under the Conservatives and, my goodness, it has changed under the Labour Party and its coalition partner, the Liberal party. It has changed so much that the tax has gone up by 55 per cent since 1997, while inflation has gone up by just over 10 per cent. The sheer size of the tax has transformed what was for most people a tolerable unfairness in 1993 into a real and pressing problem. Poll results from earlier this week show that a large majority of people in Scotland want to move away from the current council tax to a tax based on income. No wonder: under the current system several relatively good wage earners might live in a modest property with a low council tax while at the opposite end of the scale others, particularly those on fixed incomes or pensioners, might live in larger houses, the value of which bears no relation to their present income and might never have borne any relation to that income, depending on the family history and that of the house.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased that the member can see me in the glare from my suit. [ Laughter. ] Does the member accept that the available statistics show that there is a correlation between levels of income and the band set and that in order to make his point he is extrapolating the extremes?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is my point. Because the correlation is neither necessary nor obvious, the tax itself has become so complex in order to out some of the inequities that it is now becoming as bad as the poll tax was—about which the member and his Government had exactly the same problems.

The other selling point of the tax back in 1993 was that it was simple to administer, especially compared to the reliefs that were involved in getting over the inequities of the poll tax. However, the council tax is not cheap to administer. It requires a system of valuing properties, which would not be required if the tax did not exist. It requires a separate system of collecting the tax, which would not be required if the tax did not exist. It requires a complex set of reliefs to address its problems, which would not be required if the tax did not exist. As desperation sets in as an election looms the Chancellor introduces a temporary, one-off set of bribes, which would not be required if the tax did not exist. Finally, we face the prospect of a revaluation exercise, which has already taken place in Wales, which would not be required if the tax did not exist.

Let us talk about the revaluation exercise, which, despite the text of the Executive amendment, is being talked about in Government circles, along with a potential increase in the number of bands, as a way to solve the problem of the council tax, which even the Government admits exists. A revaluation and/or a rebanding would be of assistance only if there were a strong link between the value of one's property and one's ability to pay the tax. The hard fact is that, despite what Mr Monteith says, there is no necessary or sufficient connection between the income of people living in properties and the value of the properties.

In many cases revaluation might even exacerbate the unfairness. Given that the current value of a house has no necessary relation to a person's ability to pay the tax, it follows that changes in property values, which underlie the revaluation, can have absolutely nothing to do with a person's income, particularly where people have been living in a property for a considerable time.

The Welsh experience shows that the impact of revaluation is not negligible—which is the whole point of the exercise. Well over 25 per cent of properties move up one band and just under 5 per cent of properties move up two bands.

We face the prospect that people, particularly those on fixed incomes, who have lived in a house since before the council tax was invented but whose house happens to be in an area where house prices have risen, will find that not only has their council tax increased by the amount of the poundage increase—which I remind members is 55 per cent since 1997—but that they have moved into a higher council tax band as a result of property price increases from which they have gained no benefit whatever and indeed will gain no such benefit until they die.

Unless the Government is telling us that it believes that people have to sell their house and move to a cheaper one in order to pay the tax, it really has to come up with a fairer system of levying taxes for the provision of local services.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I presume that Mr Morgan accepts what is in our amendment, which is that there will be no revaluation—ministers have already decided that.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Yes, well, what is said before an election is often not the same as what happens after an election. It is amazing how all the themes in all elections throughout the United Kingdom tend to cross and are interchangeable. I might read the minister's lips, but I am prepared not to be surprised when something different happens in the final event.

It is time for parties to stand up for what they think is right. To the Liberal party members I say that I do not think there is anything in the Scottish National Party motion with which they should disagree. To the Labour Party members I say, look back at the party's long history in relation to the council tax. There have been innumerable inquiries into the rating system since well back in the 19th century, which is one reason why I am a bit cynical about the latest one. For the Labour Party members I select just one such review, which I remember studying in economics at university. I refer to the Sorn committee report—the report of the Scottish Valuation and Rating Committee of September 1954—which is well down the list of committees that have looked into the problem. The report states:

"In their evidence the Labour Party have stressed the inequalities involved in rating ... property from the point of view of ability, and have suggested that ... the burden of local taxation ... should be raised by a form of local income tax."

I rest my case.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the council tax has increased by 55% since 1997; further notes that the council tax is a regressive form of local taxation which penalises those on low incomes and pensioners and is overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Scotland and that the revaluation of the council tax in Wales has resulted in more than one-third of properties moving up by one band or more, and agrees that there should be no revaluation of properties in Scotland and that the unfair council tax should be abolished and replaced by a fair system of local taxation.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is a great pleasure once again to take part in a debate on local government finance, and the council tax in particular, and to set out the Executive's position on the future of local taxation in Scotland. I appreciate the early start. At least Mr Morgan is dressed soberly, which perhaps cannot be said for Mr Monteith in his suit; however, I bow to his sartorial elegance once again.

After the 2003 election, this devolved Government made a commitment in the partnership agreement to set up an independent review of local government finance. We have delivered on that commitment. Local taxation is an important issue that affects us all. During our lives we will all at some time use the vital services that local government provides. We need to have the right system in place to provide the funds that local authorities need to carry out their tasks and responsibilities. It is no secret that there are different views on what that system should be; there are different views even within the coalition. That is what the independent review that we have established is now examining and we will need to wait to see what conclusions it reaches.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does Mr Scott accept that the history of all the investigations into this subject should not fill the chamber with a great deal of hope that something may come out at the other end?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am not quite as worried or cynical—perhaps it is unfair to use that word—as Mr Morgan, although I accept that these issues are complex. I cannot remember back as far as 1954, but I grant that we have considered the issues in detail in the past. That is not to say that we should not review where we are and examine the issues again.

Sir Peter Burt's review committee has made an excellent start to its work, and the recent consultation has received more than 300 responses. The extended deadline for responses is tomorrow, and I trust that all political parties have grabbed that important opportunity to contribute. The committee has been set a challenging remit. As Mr Morgan rightly said, it is not the first review of local government finance: a number of studies have been conducted both north and south of the border. The Layfield committee, which pursued arguably one of the most far-reaching inquiries, reported in 1976. In the event, however, it could not decide between a property-based tax and a local income tax.

Perhaps that was the point that Alasdair Morgan was making earlier.

More recently, the House of Commons and the former Local Government Committee have concluded reviews of local government finance. The report of the former Local Government Committee, which was published in March 2002, included several recommendations covering council tax, non-domestic rates and the need to strike a balance between Scottish Executive funding and council tax funding of local services. Although it is clear that there are no easy answers, that should not prevent our seeking the best answer, which is what Sir Peter Burt's committee has been charged to do.

Members will know, from the review committee's recent consultation paper, that it has approached its remit in a thorough and comprehensive way. The committee has made it clear that its consideration will cover options for property-based local taxation, including the council tax, domestic rates and land value tax, and options for non-property local taxation, including a local income tax. If the Tories wish, they can re-submit Michael Howard's poll tax—they will find the spirit of openness very welcome. I trust that all members who have views on those or any other options will have responded to the committee, giving their reasons and evidence.

The Scottish Executive acknowledges and understands the concerns about the present council tax system, which reflect the concerns about the previous system. We all want a system of local taxation that is fair, reliable, predictable and stable. Those are the themes on which we will assess systems of local taxation. I will not speculate on what the review may conclude, but I guarantee that we will examine the review committee's recommendations carefully and act on them.

I move, as an amendment to motion S2M-2693, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, to leave out from the first "council tax" to end and insert:

"Scottish Executive has established the independent inquiry into local government finance consistent with the Partnership Agreement of May 2003; notes that, because of the ongoing inquiry, there are no plans for a council tax revaluation in Scotland; notes that the Labour Party has submitted clear and detailed proposals to support changes to the council tax and that the Liberal Democrats have submitted clear and detailed proposals to support a local income tax, and therefore encourages all parties and others to make submissions to the inquiry."

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Some members may think that I have not been home for three days, as it was three days ago that the sun came out and I donned this bright suit. As a Hibs-supporting Tory, I hope that the sun may come out following Hibs' victory last night. However, I must press on.

Given the way in which council tax is often portrayed in the chamber, one could be forgiven for thinking that it is the only tax that pays for local council services and that, were it to be abolished, the complaints about high levels of taxation and its unfairness would vanish. Once those two big lies are confronted and exposed, we see that it is not the type, but the level of taxation that is the problem. The level of taxation for local services is too high, and the proposals for a local income tax will not cut the total tax that is taken from the public; a local income tax will simply concentrate a greater share of the burden on a smaller number of people who will have to pay substantially more. What is needed is a cut in taxes for everyone; so let us confront those two big lies.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way on that point?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to make some progress. I shall take interventions later.

When the council tax was introduced, it was accompanied by an increase in VAT of 2.5 per cent so that the level of local taxation could be reduced. Indeed, we can see from any objective analysis that council tax contributes only between 20 and 25 per cent of local council spending, depending on which measurement is used. The rest of a council's income comes from direct charges, business rates and a very large central Government grant that is paid for by VAT, income tax and other taxes and duties that feed into the Scottish block grant. Nobody can deny that those who earn more contribute more through a combination of their direct income tax and their indirect consumption of goods and services for which they pay further taxes. Furthermore, those who are on low incomes are not only more likely to live in properties that are in a lower band—as the evidence shows—meaning that they pay less council tax; they are also entitled to council tax benefit. That is important.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Does Mr Monteith accept the fact that around 40 per cent of pensioners who are eligible for council tax benefit do not claim it and that an awful lot of people who are living on low incomes in property hotspots such as Edinburgh are penalised twice because of the system?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have two things to say to Margaret Smith. First, if we need a debate about where the line should be drawn for council tax benefit so that more people might realise that they are eligible for it and might benefit from it, I am all for having that debate; I have an open mind as to whether that line should be redrawn. Secondly, even if the member were not to agree with that, I hope that she would agree that the policy of giving a 50 per cent discount to pensioner households would alleviate the problem that she suggests exists and which I believe exists. The Conservatives have come up with the solution that she should support.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will Mr Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I must make some progress before I take more interventions.

There is no escaping the fact that council tax covers only a fraction of local council services, and it is interesting to note that the proposals for local income tax are based on covering that same fraction. They involve the same amount of money and do not offer an underlying cut in local taxes. What is being offered is a different tax that would see hard-working people, who already contribute heavily, paying even more.

The proposals from the Liberal Democrats and the SNP are flawed. The Liberal Democrats have not, for instance, taken account of the millions of pounds in council tax benefit that goes from the Treasury towards council spending. That amount would have to be picked up by the local income tax payer. The SNP at least acknowledges that the gap in funding exists, but it says that we should still receive that council tax benefit. That is self-delusion. We could not expect to get a benefit that is meant for those who are on low incomes if we had a local income tax that was designed to impact less on those who are on low incomes. The Liberal Democrats' solution is even worse, as their tax is based on a transfer of funds that would come from their 50 per cent top-rate income tax on those who earn more than £100,000 a year.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Mr Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that I am running out of time.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You are in your last minute, Mr Monteith.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It has been shown that there is a deep, black hole in the Liberal Democrats' estimate of the tax take from that 50 per cent tax on those who earn more than £100,000 a year. It would not deliver the subvention that would be required.

It is important that we cut taxes for everyone by looking at the job and the responsibilities of local authorities and deciding what amounts should be raised by local taxation. The proposals that the Conservatives have made for funding schools directly—not cutting education spending—could bring a council tax cut for everyone of, on average, 35 per cent. They would address the concerns that are being raised about council tax and return it to a level at which there would be no pain for people in paying it.

I move, as an amendment to motion S2M-2693, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, to leave out from "; further notes" to end and insert:

"and that it is this large rise, and not the tax itself, that has made the cost of local council services a greater political priority and a punishing burden for so many Scottish households; believes that to offer a sustainable and fair solution, therefore, a complete review is required of local authority responsibilities and direct payment of some of these by the Scottish Executive so that council tax may be substantially cut; notes that only the Conservatives are offering such a seismic shift by transferring the full cost of schools to the Executive's Education Department which could result in a 35%, or £384, reduction in Band D council tax for every household, while proposals for a local income tax would maintain the existing total tax take and would only change who pays what amount, and believes that Labour's proposal for the introduction of a new top band will place a disproportionate burden on a small minority, while a new lower band will be of major benefit to the Treasury through reduced council tax benefit payments."

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to the opening speakers of the other parties for missing the opening speeches. I made the error of forgetting that we have moved to a 9.15 start.

In choosing to debate this issue today, the SNP shows that it is a desperate party that knows that its election campaign is in meltdown. It is desperately trying to focus on this issue because it believes that that may win it votes; however, it is mistaken in believing that. It is inept as well as desperate. [Interruption.] We will see, in the course of the election campaign, whether I am proved to be right.

I will start by talking about the problems of a local income tax. Local income tax would be problematic for a number of reasons. First, it would be far more complex and difficult to collect than the current local property-based taxation. It would also introduce large variances.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I would be grateful if Mr Muldoon would spell out what makes a local income tax more difficult to collect than the national income tax that is collected every single month of the year from everyone's pay packet.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Quite simply, there is only one rate for national income tax. Local income tax would mean 32 different rates. Apart from that, it would be easier to evade because it would be more difficult to track down the local authority area in which someone was living.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

No, I have taken an intervention from an SNP member already; I wish to make some progress.

Local income tax would also be less stable than a property-based tax. For example, a couple of years ago West Lothian was faced with the electronics industry crisis and thousands of people lost their jobs overnight. What would have been the impact on local services in West Lothian of the reduction in income from a local income tax at that time? It would have been devastating for that local authority, unless the Government had come in with large sums of money to bail it out.

Another problem is that a local income tax puts the burden onto those people who pay income tax and declare all their income. Those who evade the current income tax system would end up paying no local taxation either.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way on that point?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

No; I have only four minutes.

The correct way forward is a review of the council tax system. It has its problems, but it can be made fairer. That is why Labour is arguing that we should increase the fairness of the council tax by introducing additional bands at the bottom and top of the scale. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also acknowledged the impact of the council tax on pensioners with the recent announcement of the £200 payment to assist with pensioners' council tax. We should be trying to make the council tax fairer.

Local income tax would also introduce deviations in the local economies throughout Scotland. Different parts of Scotland have different average levels of income.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will Bristow Muldoon say whether he voted for the Parliament to have the power to vary income tax? How does he square that with denying local councils the opportunity to vary tax through the income tax system?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Of course I did; I voted yes, yes in the referendum, and it is absolutely right that the Parliament should have the power to vary income tax. This is a Parliament. Giving local councils the opportunity to vary income tax and having wide variations in local income tax would produce a lot of problems for local economies. For example, if two local authorities were to have significantly different levels of local income tax, the problem would be not just fiscal flight from Scotland to England as a result of higher income tax, but fiscal flight from one local authority area to its neighbours, denuding many areas of the middle class professionals on which they rely to provide local services and the stimulus to the local economy.

The local income tax would hit working families the hardest. It would increase tax for all Scots who pay tax by up to 5 per cent. Thankfully, the SNP cannot win this election and so cannot introduce the tax now, but I look forward to them campaigning on it in 2007.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Council tax has risen by a massive 55 per cent since the Labour party came to power in 1997. That was caused by the deliberate transfer of taxation from national to local government, the creation of new burdens for local authorities, and the partial funding of new initiatives, particularly by the Scottish Executive. Additionally, for many areas, as Bristow Muldoon so ably displayed, there were added problems with incompetent Labour councils. That has resulted in an average band D council tax in Scotland of almost £1,100 per year, or £110 per month on the 10-month instalment plan. That excludes charges for water and sewerage.

As council tax bills have rocketed, the Achilles heel of the tax has become ever more evident; it takes little account of the ability to pay. As a result, the poorest sections of society—pensioners, low-paid workers, the working poor and those on fixed incomes—are now spending an increasing proportion of their income on their council tax bills.

As I said, council tax takes very little account of the ability to pay, and that brings me nicely to means testing and the rebate system. Twice a year, pensioners, those on benefits, and the low paid are required to complete council tax rebate forms. The system forces pensioners in their 60s, 70s and 80s to fill in multiple page forms, to provide details such as copies of their bank accounts or bank statements, to send proof of their small occupational pensions and to answer inquiries into every aspect of their financial affairs.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No. The member would not take one from me.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I have not spoken yet.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The member's colleague would not take an intervention from me and we have heard enough from Mr McMahon already.

In short, the system treats pensioners as if they were criminals. Many of our senior citizens find the system intrusive and degrading and, after a lifetime of work, our elderly citizens should not be means tested for a miserable rebate.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Does the member agree with his colleague, Mr MacAskill, who said that the SNP should consider targeting benefits in the way that you are now describing?

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am saying that there should be a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay, and at one time the Labour party would have supported us in that aim.

Not all our pensioners receive full or partial council tax rebates. A small occupational pension is more than enough to rule someone out of receiving a rebate even if it only takes them a few pounds over. Indeed, it is not even necessary to have an occupational pension to be ruled out of receiving a rebate. Many pensioners who receive graduated pensions, often for working all their lives, find themselves paying full council tax.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sorry but I need to make some progress.

That is one of the many reasons why the SNP supports the abolition of the council tax and says that it should be replaced by a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay.

Our replacement tax system means that if someone does not pay basic rate or higher rate income tax—and that excludes those who pay tax at the lower rate of 10 per cent—they will not pay local income tax. However, if they do pay basic or higher rate income tax, they will pay local income tax at approximately 4.5p in the pound of taxable income, and there will be higher allowances for pensioners. In all cases, of course, there would be no council tax because it would be abolished by the introduction of local income tax.

Because local income tax is income based and deducted at source, means testing would be abolished at a stroke along with the costs of a separate collection system, administration of the rebate system, and much of the inequality of a property-based system.

I am right out of time, but I would have loved to deal with the fantasy politics of the Tories or the election bribe of the Labour party—described by Help the Aged Scotland as a "grotty little bribe"—but time does not allow.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The council tax is undoubtedly an unfair tax. That is why Liberal Democrats and other parties have been campaigning against it across the country.

Partly because of the gearing effect, council tax rises have consistently outstripped inflation and placed a growing and unacceptable burden on council tax payers. That is why we secured an independent review of local government finance as part of the partnership agreement. We must make sure that any system is fair and efficient, that it keeps decision-making powers and accountability with local councils and that it assists those who are in greatest need. We support the Executive's amendment because it is a simple statement of that fact. Meanwhile, the SNP motion does not even mention a local income tax. The clear fact is that Liberal Democrats secured that independent review, and we have submitted our consistent view that a local income tax that is based on people's ability to pay represents a fairer system than that which we have at present.

In 2003, the Institute of Fiscal Studies said that 70 per cent of people would benefit from or be unaffected by the introduction of a local income tax. Meanwhile, the council tax penalises those who can least afford to pay. Across the United Kingdom, the poorest 10 per cent pay out more than four times more of their income in council tax than the richest 10 per cent. That cannot be right.

A local income tax would be fairer to pensioners and to people on fixed and low incomes. To penalise pensioners living in the family home in which they have lived for many years simply because their home has increased in value is unfair and bears no relation to their income. In 2002-03, the council tax amounted to 3.67 per cent of gross annual earnings, but it represented a whopping 20.5 per cent of the state pension. People who currently do not pay income tax—which includes 50 per cent of pensioners—would not be liable for local income tax either. Our figures suggest that the average single pensioner would pay about £186 a year.

It cannot be right to carry on with the notion that a property tax, based on the price of someone's home, is a fair tax, when people on average earnings, living in average family homes in areas such as my constituency of Edinburgh West, have seen the value of their homes rocket since 1991 in a way that bears little resemblance to inflation and often little relation to salary increases. That is why we disagree with Labour's position. We do not believe that the council tax can or should be reformed—we believe that it should be axed. We do not believe that revaluation or adding extra bands would improve fairness. In constituencies across Scotland, just as in Wales, that would mean massive increases in council tax bills. In Wales, more than one third of homes have moved up a band. Crucially, some of the worst-hit wards, in which as many as 90 per cent of homes moved upwards, were among the poorest.

I welcome the minister's indication that the Scottish Executive has no plans for revaluation. However, I remain concerned that Labour's submission to the review insists on having extra bands, which would penalise people across Scotland. It is estimated that in places such as Edinburgh and Aberdeen every household would move up a tax band, adding hundreds of pounds—in some cases, more than £1,000—to family and pensioner bills. Those rises would not be limited to high earners. Research carried out by the Local Government Committee in 2002 showed that low-income households in places such as Dundee, East Dunbartonshire, the Western Isles and the Borders would be likely to move up a band and to be subject to increases of up to 28 per cent.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree that the introduction of any new bands would require revaluation, because the value at which those bands were set would have to be calculated? Any new bands would have to reflect the change in property prices since 1991, which would have an impact on all the other bands.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

For once, I cannot argue with Mr Monteith's logic. If we were to take the route proposed by Labour, revaluation would be required.

The council tax is also bureaucratic, expensive to collect and much easier to evade than income tax. We estimate that it costs four times as much to collect £1 in council tax as it costs to collect £1 in income tax. As I said earlier, 40 per cent of eligible Scottish pensioners do not claim the council tax benefit to which they are entitled, allowing the Treasury to keep billions in unclaimed benefit every year.

The 50 per cent reduction for pensioners that Mr Monteith mentioned covers only England. We are campaigning across the United Kingdom to axe the tax and to replace it with a fairer local income tax. Our figures take into account the issue of benefits, which Mr Monteith raised, and the extra cost of collecting water charges. That is why we and the SNP have slightly different figures.

By supporting a fair local tax, set by fairly elected local councillors, we are supporting Scottish councils—unlike other parties in the chamber, which do not trust local authorities to respond to local needs. The SSP's Scottish service tax would take decision making away from local councillors and give it to central Government. The Local Government Committee said that it saw no merit in that suggestion. Bizarrely, the Tories would yet again slash public services. They would asset strip local government of key functions, such as education, and centralise them with people such as Tavish Scott, instead of locally elected councillors.

We all agree that aspects of the present system are unfair. That is why it is right that Peter Burt and his colleagues should consider all the options and bring their findings to the chamber, so that we can act on them as quickly as possible. I hope that they will come down in favour of a local income tax, as we do strongly.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I start with a profuse apology to the chamber, because I, too, was not here for the start of the debate. I admit that I had totally, utterly and completely forgotten that the start time for the debate had been brought forward.

In that conciliatory spirit, I start by congratulating the SNP on bringing before us today a policy debate. The best politics is about ideas, and abolishing the council tax is undoubtedly a big idea, although it is not necessarily a good idea. The SNP's parliamentary group should be congratulated on bringing a policy debate to the chamber, because its general election campaign seems to be about anything but policy. On day 1, it was about swords and suits of armour. On the day before yesterday, it was about a fistful of fivers. However, today we have a policy.

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

Another idea is that, fundamentally, tax should be progressive and based on the citizen's ability to pay it. Does the member agree with that idea? If so, in the minutes that remain to her will she outline the progressive nature of the council tax?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I will certainly come to that matter.

I want to make the point that the policy of abolishing the council tax is a touch about telling people what they want to hear. The truth is that no one likes paying taxes. The history of Scottish politics is littered with sagas such as the poll tax, the tartan tax and the Tories' pillorying of Labour's roof tax. Some members are never happier than when they are bleating about the rates—indeed, I have done it myself. Local government taxation is an easy hit for politicians who are interested in hot headlines. However, the punters are not daft and know that services need to be paid for.

Lest I be misunderstood, I make it clear that I have no brief for every aspect of the council tax. However, the problem with the SNP's motion—and some other people's approach to the issue—is that it proposes the abolition not just of the council tax, but of all taxation on domestic property. Why would that be the right thing, as opposed to simply the expedient thing, to do?

We often hear from the SNP about small countries. Interestingly, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland all have some form of property taxation. So why is it right to do away with that completely?

Sadly, when it comes to easy promises on money matters, the SNP has some form. Last autumn I, along with many others, got serious about how we might reform the financing of the Parliament. I challenged the SNP to name just one country that had chosen the form of fiscal autonomy that it advocates as a way of financing the Parliament. The silence has been deafening. We have had 250 years in which to perfect federalism, but the SNP was unable to find one nation that had got it right. When the issue got too hot to handle, it resorted to the politics of oil—the debate was all about how we could save without first covering the overdraft.

In 20 years of opposition, we in Labour learned that people look for candour from politicians when it comes to making tough choices. That is why Peter Burt, a distinguished banking chief executive, has agreed to consider the case for reform, but not the case for abolishing all property taxation. I recall that just five years ago the SNP believed in asking the experts. Now that seems to have gone out of fashion. The big issue for the SNP is for it to stand up and explain from first principles why all other small countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are wrong when they say that a progressive taxation system should include some taxation of domestic property. I fear that, just as we cannot name one country that has opted for the SNP's form of fiscal autonomy, the silence in the rest of the debate will be deafening.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I agree that our present council tax system is not right. However, in my view a system of local income tax would be much worse. The answer is not wholesale abolition and replacement. As Wendy Alexander pointed out, we need a mixed system of taxation that covers land, property and income. The current system should be reformed.

I am concerned that the Liberals and the SNP appear to define the ability to pay not in terms of wealth but solely in terms of earned income. Any system of taxation contains distortions, which is why we need a mixed system of taxation. Stated clearly, the problem that the nationalists and the Liberal Democrats want to address is not ability to pay, but liquidity, and not the absence of wealth but the situation in which wealth is locked up in land and property.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am very interested in the member's focus on unearned income and assets. Given that, does he support the Labour Government's very first tax change which, so far, has taken £42 billion out of pension funds and has been and will be a major contributor to present and future pensioner poverty?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

We are not discussing pensions. I believe in a universal citizen's income, which would include a universal citizen's pension. Let me be clear: we are talking about wealth. Over the past few years, the average British house, which is an unyielding and passive bit of real estate, has made as much money for its owner—

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I am sorry—I have to continue.

The owner of the average British house has made as much money from that property as the average Scottish worker has made in earned income. People's wealth is increasing because of property. For example, in 2003-04, the average house made £20,000 for its owner.

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

Perhaps the member will address my point about the progressiveness of council tax that Wendy Alexander failed to cover. Is the Green party seriously saying to pensioners in my constituency that, because of its support for progressiveness in the council tax, they have to sell their houses and move?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Every system contains anomalies. We need to tax wealth, because the problem is liquidity: pensioners are asset rich and cash poor, while other people are income rich and asset poor. That is why a system that is based solely on property tax or solely on income tax creates massive distortions. We need a mixed system of taxation that balances such elements.

Let us be clear about where those values come from. There has been a huge increase in the value of property, and a certain element of property value arises from the community's investment in roads, fire services and hospitals. It is right that the community should collect back some of that increase in value in the form of a property tax. That is why we need a mixed system of taxation. Bristow Muldoon was absolutely right to point out that a local income tax would create problems of evasion and avoidance. At the moment, some people in Scotland evade paying any income tax. However, although they can move their incomes offshore, they cannot do the same with their land. That is why, in any system of taxation, we must consider people's ability to pay, based on their wealth. Instead of putting all our taxation eggs in the income tax basket, we need a mixed system of taxation. Council tax should be reformed, not done away with.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

It is very rare for me to agree with Jeremy Purvis, but today is a wonderful exception. Undoubtedly, the Conservatives, the Labour Party and—as we have just heard—the Greens have a great desire to tax the various forms of capital such as that accrued in a pension fund or in the artificial inflation of property values. However, people who own large or expensive houses and have small incomes have to live somewhere. If we are saying that we have to dissipate that capital to finance a revenue consequence, that is daft economics.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The member should let me develop the point.

It is the same daft economics that Mrs Thatcher applied to the revenues from the dissipation of capital that came from privatisation. That approach has been continued by the present chancellor with regard to the capital that comes from North sea oil, which is being blown as if it were current revenue. We are being asked to continue the same discredited method of taxation on capital, which is a great disincentive to investment and savings for the future. I am surprised that the Conservatives, who tried to encourage people to think about and invest in the future—at least I thought that they did—want to tax that investment, whether it is in the form of a house or anything else. Not only will there be that tax on capital but there will also be capital gains tax. Indeed, if the Conservatives do not get the money when one is alive, they get it when one is dead, through inheritance tax.

We have had some debate about whether there should be a revaluation. Brian Monteith successfully blew a hole in the amendment in the name of Mr McCabe, in that one cannot have Labour's proposals without a revaluation.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

No, thank you.

Even the current arrangements for valuation are nonsense. In my constituency, properties built by the council in the 1940s and 1950s, in estates where hardly any of the houses have been sold, are given the same valuation as houses in Manor and Logie, or in Ruthrieston on the south side of the city—which is regarded these days almost as a leafy suburb—where many houses have been sold. Those properties all have the same capital value. The system is nonsense and does not reflect the true capital value of the properties—it is impossible for the system to do so. The system is expensive to administer and does not in any way reflect the ability of the people who live in those houses to pay.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

No, thank you.

We need much greater correlation between ability to pay and charges. Successive Governments have shifted the various charges. As Mr Monteith rightly pointed out, there was an increase of 2.5 per cent in VAT, so that we would swallow the council tax rather than go back to the discredited rates system. However, since then both Conservative and Labour-Liberal Democrat Administrations have shifted taxation from central taxes to local taxes. That is why, when inflation has gone up by 10 per cent over the past few years, we have had a 55 per cent increase in council tax. We are back at the same point. Indeed, we have also had an introduction of successive—[Interruption.] Am I running out of time, Presiding Officer?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Yes—you have almost run out of time.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I commend a system of local taxation that reflects ability to pay: that system is income tax, whether or not the words are in the motion.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I am pleased to hear the problems of senior citizens being so thoroughly addressed by this Assembly.

All forms of taxation are highly unpopular. However, the main criteria for all types of taxation, if they are to be generally accepted, are: the ability to pay; a fair rate across the board; and leaving no loopholes for evasion.

We hear a lot of talk about fairness. There are only about 2 million homes in Scotland for a population of 5 million. Forty per cent of the population pay council tax and 60 per cent of the population do not need to pay council tax because they do not own their own home. Why should people who do not own their own home enjoy facilities that are paid for by pensioners who happen to own their own home?

On the collection of income tax and council tax, Andy Kerr last year stated that it cost 2.8 per cent of council tax to collect it. For income tax, the figure is much lower, at 1.41 per cent. However, because 7 per cent of council tax is never collected, the system is almost 10 per cent inefficient. In other words, if it costs 2.8 per cent to collect the tax and 7 per cent does not get collected at all, 9.8 per cent of all council tax never reaches the council. Some efficient councils in central Scotland and elsewhere are still struggling to get some of yon poll tax from citizens in their areas. They have not even collected the poll tax yet, and we all know how long ago that was.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Does Mr Swinburne agree that a huge amount of income tax is avoided and evaded? It is much more difficult to avoid paying tax on a property, which one cannot move out of a local authority area or out of Scotland, than it is to avoid paying tax on an income, which can be moved out of Scotland. A large amount of income tax that should be collected is not collected.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

As I have said before, there is a growth industry in this country among the accountants, lawyers and so forth who enable the very rich to avoid paying their fair share of income tax. If the Government and others would address that problem, the economy of the country would be much richer.

I do not know where members' views are leading. Should we bleed a pensioner who is living on a pittance—someone who has saved hard and bought their own house? When a pensioner is terminally ill, people come along rubbing their hands and the pensioner has to sell their house to pay for residential care. What kind of society are we living in?

Fairness for all—that is what we are looking for. We must have fairness for people who are on fixed incomes or low pensions, and there are 1.2 million pensioners in that category in Scotland. Many of them are unable to pay the regressive council tax. I do not care whether no other country does something similar: it is time that we got rid of a property-related tax and got some reality into the whole set-up.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Yesterday in the chamber, I highlighted a poll that showed that 79 per cent of Scots support greater wealth redistribution. If this Parliament could take one step before all others that would significantly shift wealth from the well-off to those who need it most, it would be to scrap the council tax and replace it with a tax based on income. That would immediately and effectively put hundreds of pounds into the pockets of pensioners and the poor, and it would lift a sizeable burden from their shoulders.

As every member knows, the council tax is hugely unpopular. It is hated out there in the country. Why? Because it is unfair. It is based not on a person's income but on a notional value of their house.

People rightly regard the council tax as the son of the poll tax. It bears no relation to income. The poor pay a greater proportion of their incomes than do the well-off. A low-paid worker on £5 an hour, living in a modest semi-detached house, has to work for six weeks to pay off her council tax demand. However, someone on, say, £100,000 a year—such as a Government minister—works for just five days to pay off their council tax obligations. The bottom 10 per cent of earners pay 12 per cent of their income on council tax; the top 10 per cent pay just 2 per cent. Such disparities are widespread and widely known about.

The council tax system means that the rich are substantially better off than they were before, and the poor much worse off. Under the old rates system, the richest households had to pay 14 times more than the poorest households; now they pay only three times more.

Presiding Officer, you might have seen a film called "Primary Colors" in which John Travolta plays a character—Mr Clinton—who says, "Any idiot can burn down a barn." Instead of just criticising what is wrong with the present system, the Scottish Socialist Party has come forward with a constructive solution. The Scottish service tax is an alternative to the council tax and has been developed by respected academics—the experts whom Wendy Alexander holds in high regard. They suggest that a local income tax should be set uniformly across Scotland. Under the Scottish service tax proposals, 16 per cent of households in Scotland would pay more, but 77 per cent of households would be better off. Nationally, where people live would make no difference to what they would pay. The tax would be easier and cheaper to administer and it would avoid the fiscal flight that others have mentioned, and the possibility of 32 rebates.

I congratulate the SNP on holding this debate. The SNP is on record as saying that we must scrap the hated council tax at the earliest opportunity. That opportunity will come in September, when Tommy Sheridan's bill—to abolish the council tax and replace it with the Scottish service tax—will go before the Local Government and Transport Committee. Will the SNP member who winds up the debate tell us whether the party will back that bill in September?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

An accusation often heard in the chamber against the SNP, and rightly so, is that the party too regularly uses its allotted time to discuss reserved matters and does not—as Wendy Alexander pointed out—debate policy. I therefore find it rather bizarre that, during a general election period when we are all talking about Westminster, the SNP now chooses to debate a devolved matter. However, we should not be surprised that that type of muddled logic should emanate from the SNP benches, although it has been worth having the debate just to hear Brian Adam promise to abolish inheritance tax.

In their rush to weigh in on a populist subject—and populism really is the SNP's only guiding principle—have SNP members, like the minister, taken the time to read the report on local government finance that the Local Government Committee produced in the first session of Parliament? If they have, they might be aware that numerous local councils, including SNP-run Angus Council, recommended retaining the council tax, as did many professional bodies, such as the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—people who, it might be said, actually know something about the subject.

Those people were right to make the recommendations that they made. The council tax retains crucial elements that the SNP has failed to discuss, including accountability between councils and the electorate and the council tax benefit scheme that protects people on low incomes who find it difficult to make payments. The Labour Party remains dedicated to providing financial assistance to those who find the council tax difficult to pay, whereas the SNP just wants to score an easy hit and ignore the difficult decisions that accompany tax-raising powers. Taking its usual line of least resistance, the SNP has decided that a locally set income tax would somehow benefit the people of Scotland. In an effort to court the pensioner vote, the SNP ignores the fact that its proposed income tax would hit working families the hardest. According to its own figures, it would increase income tax by 4.3p in the pound. That does not make the system fairer; it just moves the unfairness around.

Having reintroduced—as Bristow Muldoon rightly pointed out—the Andrew Wilson school of back-of-the-envelope economics, the SNP forgets to tell us how it proposes to institute its new taxation system. Would councils collect the local income tax or would the Inland Revenue have to have 32 different collection rates? How does the SNP address the fact that an income tax would result in higher increases in business tax? How does it address the fact that, although the collection rates under the present council tax system are around 91 per cent, they were only around 67 per cent under the poll tax?

Simply lessening the number of people from whom a tax is collected does not in any way enhance local accountability. That accountability, when setting the tax rate, is absolutely precious.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the member accept that a local income tax will tax more people and increase accountability? Does he also accept that recovery rates exceed 91 per cent in the income tax system?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Stewart Stevenson fails to address a point that even the Green party has made. If we simply change to a local income tax, we take a whole lot of people who currently pay council tax out of the system, at both ends. That is not an enhancement of the system. If Stewart Stevenson fails to see that, I do not see how he could introduce an income tax system locally that would be fair in any way.

The SNP has yet again gone for a populist debate, rather than engaging properly in economic arguments. Its members may like to refer to 50-year-old, outdated reports, but they seem to be unaware of the existence of the local government finance review committee, which is currently reviewing different options for local taxation and the reform of the council tax and is considering the pros and cons of any changes to the taxation system. SNP members clearly believe that they do not need to see the findings of that wide-ranging, extensive and independent review correctly to evaluate local taxation. They already have their minds made up.

It is true that the council tax is not popular, but we in the Labour Party understand that there is no such thing as a popular tax. However, we acknowledge the importance of local government and local accountability, which is why we have to retain the link between people's property and the local government area. To drive people out into surrounding areas would punish cities such as Dundee and Glasgow and would just move unfairness around. That is not the basis on which to conduct a debate on local government finance.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am a wee bit puzzled as to what the SNP was trying to achieve today; indeed, most members seem to be somewhat at a loss. When Alasdair Morgan started off, he said that taxation was not simple or equitable, but he did not say anything about high taxation being the worst thing for our economy and for the people who live in this country. There was no mention of high taxation, so I presume that he favours it and that his proposals are simply about tinkering with the system under which he would like to collect it.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Assuming that tax has to be raised, we must tax either people who cannot afford it or people who can afford it. Which is Mr Davidson's choice?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have to have a fair system, as we do currently. The system is fair and there are no problems with it.

I ask SNP members a question. If they had the ability to move to a local income tax, where would the tax be set? Many people's wages are paid from an office in England, or even in Norway, as is the case for some of my constituents who work in the oil industry. How is the connection to be made locally? Michael McMahon was absolutely right when he talked about local accountability. That is the first thing that I thought of when the SNP started to talk about local income tax. Where is the accountability of the local councillors? That important issue is certainly not being dealt with.

Bristow Muldoon mentioned the interesting concept of fiscal flight and talked about the black economy. When I first raised that issue, I got some strange remarks from Labour members, but the problem exists. What about the uncollected tax that is already out there? In Scotland, we are collecting only 91.7 per cent of the council tax, whereas the collection level in England is 96.4 per cent. An efficiency gain would help to stabilise the council tax. Not long ago, Jack McConnell and Andy Kerr said that there would be no increases over 2.5 per cent, but what have we seen? We all know that the issue for councils is that they face new burdens for which they do not get funded.

The simplest solution is to go back to a statement that I made some years ago and that has been made again by my Conservative colleagues. We have said that, before we look at how we fund local government, we have to decide what it should be responsible for and where the accountability should lie. One of the reasons why we have suggested removing funding of education from councils back to the centre is that that would reduce the need to raise council tax and would give more autonomy to local schools. People simply do not understand that.

The debate has ranged all over the place, but the long and the short of it is that we need a mix of taxation. We need a mix of direct taxation, which, after all, along with all the taxes that the Government collects in Westminster, funds the greatest part of local government. However, there is an accountability factor with having a property-based tax. We need a mix. Indeed, I agreed with the Green members today—it is not often that that happens—when they talked about that mixed bag of taxation. We have to ensure that, within that mixed bag, we look fairly at pensioners and at people's ability to pay. We must ensure that those who should pay do pay and that those who need help get it.

Quite frankly, I have not heard any of that from the SNP members, who appear to be quite happy to have their party run from Westminster by Alex Salmond and to use Westminster's Treasury to do all their collection work for them. I find that amazing from a party that is supposed to be full of bright new ideas, but perhaps today's debate is part of the SNP's general election campaign. Perhaps the SNP wants to remove all taxation powers down to Westminster.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

If we can agree on anything in this morning's debate, perhaps it is that the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest number of feathers with the smallest amount of hissing. So said Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the finance minister to Louis XIV, some years ago, I guess—possibly even earlier than 1954. It is a serious observation that no system is perfect. As Wendy Alexander and a number of other members have pointed out this morning, there is no perfect system of national or local taxation. Different groups will have observations as to the effectiveness, efficiency or fairness of all systems of taxation. The Executive has initiated the review so as to provide an opportunity for those different aspects to be independently assessed and properly scrutinised against a number of important and balanced criteria.

Let me respond to the points that were made this morning. Brian Monteith pointed out that the council tax was introduced by the Conservatives. He also mentioned the simultaneous increase in VAT. If my memory serves me right, the increase was on VAT on fuel, which hit Scottish pensioners, families and businesses pretty hard. We certainly recall the Conservative context of VAT increases.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

If Mr Monteith wants to confirm that, I am happy to let him intervene.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Clearly, the minister seeks to move into an area completely separate to the one that I was talking about. I was talking about an increase in VAT of 2.5 per cent on all the VAT-able areas. Does he agree that we then actually reduced VAT on heating and fuel?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Increased, reduced, increased, reduced—yes, we remember VAT during the Conservative years. The real point about the Conservatives' position is that, because of the James review, which is a product of their current thinking—although not in Scotland, because they do not talk about the James review in Scotland—

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes, we do.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Conservatives talk about the review depending on which question time it is. They are advocating increased spending but lower taxes—one of the more extraordinary positions being taken at this time.

Bristow Muldoon, Wendy Alexander and Michael McMahon argued fairly from their perspective for a property-based tax. Michael McMahon rightly pointed out that the SNP is debating a devolved issue in this chamber; that is a principle that we would all accept. He was also right to point out that Sir Peter Burt's review is open in assessing the different systems; it does not have a presupposed remit to work from and will take a clean-sheet approach. That is an important principle in carrying out the review.

It is also important to point out for the sake of accuracy that, since 2000-01, when this Parliament authorised and approved the annual budget and therefore the allocation to local government, council tax increases set by local authorities have increased by 28.9 per cent, including the current year's increase. I state that for the record as a fact. On the same theme, I point out to Bruce McFee that the Scottish Executive's investment in Scotland's local councils has increased significantly since devolution, rising from 47 per cent to 55 per cent by 2007. Funding for core local authority services will increase by 5.5 per cent in the current financial year.

Margaret Smith pointed out from a Liberal Democrat perspective, first, that the SNP motion does not mention local income tax—the SNP seems to be making overtures to the Scottish Socialist Party by talking more generally of a fairer system of taxation—and, secondly, that there are advantages in a system that is based on ability to pay. I reiterate the point that I made in response to Alasdair Morgan: because of the review, ministers have decided that there will be no revaluation. All that I can say about Mr Ballard's contribution is that my colleagues greatly appreciated his candour. As for Colin Fox's speech, of course the SSP has changed its mind and introduced a Trojan horse bill so that it can get rid of the council tax and then sit around in a nice circle deciding what will replace it. However, the party's real intentions were made clear when it revised Mr Sheridan's proposed bill last autumn: the SSP wants a national tax and is no friend of local income tax. I am surprised that the SNP motion lines up with that position.

I have no doubt that the debate will continue. The issue is important, even fundamental. We look forward to the review's findings.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Not for the first time, the Scottish National Party has brought to the Parliament an issue of enormous importance and relevance to the people of Scotland and is leading the debate. I was struck by the responses to a recent TNS system 3 survey, which asked:

"Would you support or oppose a change from the Council Tax to this proposed new system of a local income tax?"

In response, 70 per cent of Scots said that they would support such a change and 15 per cent said that they would oppose it. I must tell Labour members that 70 per cent of their supporters were in favour of a local income tax and 18 per cent were against it. Mr Monteith should know that 61 per cent of Conservative supporters were in favour of abolishing the council tax and replacing it with a local income tax, whereas 24 per cent opposed the measure.

It was a bit odd that Mr McMahon took issue with the SNP for having the audacity to raise a devolved issue in this devolved Parliament. The SNP is pilloried in the chamber for raising issues that are not of relevance to the Scottish Parliament and it is pilloried again for raising an issue that is relevant. Mr McMahon should be more consistent in his arguments; he should not attack us on such grounds.

Tavish Scott skilfully spoke to a motion that set out the position of two different political parties. It was only fair that he did not spend much time arguing passionately in favour of the Labour Party's position on the council tax; he left that to the eloquence of Bristow Muldoon and others. Bristow Muldoon seems to live in a country that has no postcodes, because apparently it is impossible for the Inland Revenue to work out where people live in this country, to determine where they should be liable in relation to a system of local income tax.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

rose—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

If Mr Muldoon has remembered his postcode, I will happily give way to him.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Mr Swinney seems to fail to understand that his party's proposals would lead to 33 different variations on income tax and that it would be easier to evade his proposed tax, because people could put down postcodes at which no one was living to achieve lower levels of tax.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The last time that I looked at my correspondence from the Inland Revenue, it had my postcode on it. I cannot imagine that many members of the Parliament receive information from the Inland Revenue that does not have their postcode on it. Mr Muldoon's line of argument is pathetic.

Mr Muldoon also claims that the council tax is fair and takes into account the ability of individuals to pay because a person's income is in some way related to the value of their property. He suggests that the impending revaluation that the Labour Party will undertake if the council tax system continues will be okay, because people's circumstances have changed. What about the many individuals—my constituents and, I am sure, those of many members—who have stayed in the same house for 40 years? They brought their children back from the hospital to their house and watched them grow up there. Now their grandchildren visit them in the same house, but they may have to sell it, because property values have increased and they cannot afford to pay the council tax. The situation will become even worse under the Labour Party revaluation that Mr Muldoon described.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given that the Inland Revenue writes to members of the Scottish Parliament because it has a special section that deals with us, will the member tell me whether the Inland Revenue would use the postcode for this address or for his home address? Would he pay local income tax where he resides or where he works?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

My correspondence with the Inland Revenue comes to my home address in Perthshire and I cannot imagine that the situation is different for anyone else. Mr Monteith's intervention was very odd; perhaps he is doing something with his tax returns that he should not be doing.

Mr Monteith said to Mr Morgan that there is a correlation between income and property bands. Inflation has increased by 10 per cent and council tax has increased by 55 per cent since the Government came to power, whereas there has been a 200 per cent increase in average property prices in Scotland during the past 15 years, so the member's point has no substance.

The Conservatives also argue that difficulties can be solved by centralising control of education spending in the Scottish Executive, which is a bizarre proposition. Do we want to hand even more control over local education spending to a Scottish Executive that we in the Opposition constantly say has failed to deliver on its promises?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will not give way, because I am running out of time. Mr Davidson should remember that he who pays the piper calls the tune. We could get into a dangerous position if we handed over control over education spending.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

This is an SNP debate and I regard John Swinney as a man of principle. We have heard about poll watching and the Opposition. Why is it right in principle to abolish all taxation on domestic property? Why is every one of the small nations that the SNP usually lauds wrong to regard taxation on domestic property as part of the taxation system?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is right in principle to abolish taxation on domestic property because we believe in fairness and in a progressive taxation system, in which what people contribute is based on their ability to contribute. Wendy Alexander talks about small countries. In 1997, 12 of the 29 countries that are members of the Council of Europe had systems of local income tax: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Norway, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland. The member should stop repeating absolute nonsense. She asks us for an example from a country that is in the settled financial position that we would like Scotland to be in. I want Scotland to be in the same position as Denmark, Sweden and Finland, which are small independent countries that take responsibility for their own affairs.

The local income tax is a fair and progressive system that is based on people's ability to pay. It strikes a chord with the principles of fairness and justice that exist in Scottish society. Although the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform can talk about and perhaps even hide behind the independent review of local finance, he cannot hide for ever. Politicians must make choices and stand on their principles. The Scottish National Party will stand on the principle of its demand for a local income tax that is based on fairness and the ability to pay. I hope that other parties will do likewise.

Nuclear Power

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2691, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on nuclear power.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

During the previous debate, I noted the complaints that were made against the Scottish National Party for choosing to debate a devolved issue during a Westminster election campaign. I hope that all members are happy with the topic for this debate, because we have lodged a hybrid motion that covers devolved and reserved issues. That should ensure that we keep everyone on the Government benches happy.

The debate is important. It is about protecting the future of our people in Scotland and our environment and it is about securing a safe and affordable source of energy to meet our future needs. Most of all, the debate is about creating a non-nuclear Scotland. The SNP was interested to note that, in the manifesto that was launched yesterday, Labour refused to rule out a new nuclear power station for Scotland. The Labour Party's obsession with everything nuclear continues, whether it is considering weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde or more nuclear power stations, which will create mountains of nuclear waste. As a result, all the signs are that Scotland has been lined up to become the United Kingdom's nuclear dustbin. Allan Wilson and his Labour colleagues might raise the spectre of new nuclear power stations for Scotland, but it is for the Scottish Parliament to oppose such plans, which is why we are having this debate.

In recent years, many authorities have scouted for sites in Scotland in which they can store deadly radioactive waste. We have to lay down a marker today by rejecting the prospect of more expensive, polluting and dangerous nuclear power stations for Scotland. We have to say that this nation will not be used as a nuclear dustbin.

It has been reported that 18 million cubic metres of soil and rubble are contaminated by leaks, spills and discharges over the past 60 years from the 30 sites throughout the United Kingdom. It is no wonder therefore that the vast majority of the public in Scotland are opposed to nuclear power. Only last week, the most recent opinion poll stated that 83 per cent of Scots oppose the nuclear option.

One of last night's news programmes featured a tourism conference in Aberdeen at which many of the overseas delegates praised Scotland. They said that more and more people want to come to this country because of our reputation for having a fantastic environment and for being a safe place to visit. What on earth would those people think if they knew that, of the 33 sites that are earmarked in the UK for high-level radioactive waste disposal, 22—or two thirds—are in Scotland? Those include sites in Caithness and Sutherland, in Argyll and Bute, in Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, in Banff and Buchan, in Gordon, and in North Ayrshire and Arran. Those communities deserve the support of the Parliament in order to ensure that they are not turned into nuclear waste dumps. A further seven sites have been identified in Scotland for low to intermediate level nuclear waste disposal.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management estimates that 470,000m³ of radioactive waste will have to be stored, two thirds of which could make its way to Scotland. That dangerous radioactive waste would have to be transported on our road and rail network and in our sea lanes and so would pose many risks to our local communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

If Scotland is turned into a nuclear dustbin, waste could be brought here not just from the rest of the UK, but from overseas. Under another Labour Government, Scotland faces the prospect of becoming not only the nuclear dustbin for the UK, but an international nuclear dustbin. Of course, the best way of dealing with nuclear waste is not to produce the stuff in the first place.

Over the past 60 years, the civic nuclear industry has been a hugely expensive drain on the public purse. When we inherited the industry from the defence sector, which is where it started, we also inherited that sector's culture of open-ended budgets and secrecy. The Royal Society said last year that the cost of dealing with existing waste throughout the UK could amount to £85 billion. Another authority said that it could cost £50 billion to decommission the 19 UK sites over the next 25 years.

According to a recent parliamentary question at Westminster, in the five-year period between 1997 and 2002, the Department of Trade and Industry subsidised the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and BNFL alone to the tune of £11 billion. The public purse has had to pay a price tag of £150 billion over the past few years to run the nuclear industry and yet we have not even begun to look at the construction costs of existing nuclear facilities in Scotland and the rest of the UK, never mind the cost of building new nuclear facilities. Let us not forget that Sizewell, which was the last nuclear facility to be built in the UK, took 15 years to build and cost way over budget. It is estimated that the life-cycle costs of a new nuclear power station in Scotland would be £2.5 billion. In an age of security concerns, do we really want to build new targets for international terrorists in Scotland, especially as it would cost an arm and a leg to protect those sites?

Some members on the Government benches and some Tory members have said that nuclear power is needed to fill the energy gap. We should be talking not about an energy gap, but about a window of opportunity for the development of Scotland's renewables sector, which has enormous potential in relation to meeting our energy needs in the near future. Taking that opportunity would also help us to tackle climate change.

This country possesses 25 per cent of Europe's wind and tidal resource and 10 per cent of Europe's wave resource. There is also fantastic potential for biomass, solar and other renewables technologies. If, over the coming decades, we were to spend even a fraction of the money that is used to subsidise the nuclear industry on renewables, Scotland could become Europe's energy powerhouse within a matter of years.

It is unfortunate that the minister who is responsible for developing the renewables sector in Scotland is also the minister who is responsible for the promotion of nuclear power. The minister should get his eye back on the ball and start promoting renewable power so that Scotland can become a clean, green country. He should ensure that we develop the fantastic potential of renewable energy.

The purpose of the debate is to let us speak with a united voice to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the ultimate say on whether new nuclear power stations are built in Scotland and on whether this small nation is turned into an international nuclear dustbin. Once we get that say and get that power, we must say no to nuclear; we must say no to more nuclear power stations in Scotland and to turning Scotland into a nuclear dustbin. I urge the Parliament to support the SNP motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) is due to make its final report in July 2006; notes that the decision on where to locate sites for the long-term storage of nuclear waste is likely to be taken shortly after that date and that a number of potential sites in Scotland have been identified; notes that the UK Government is clearing the way to build new nuclear power stations; further notes that the UK Government has agreed to accept and store nuclear waste from overseas; agrees that only the Scottish Parliament can take the decision to locate any sites in Scotland for the long-term storage of nuclear waste, and rejects the need for a new nuclear power station in Scotland.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We will now get back to reality. We must get away from ridiculous and childish scaremongering and look at the development of a safe, reliable and balanced energy policy. The Executive position on nuclear power is set out absolutely unambiguously in our programme for government. Although we are not averse to yet another debate on nuclear power, we have made it clear in the various consultations that have taken place that, as long as we do not have a solution to the issue of the safe disposal of nuclear waste, we should not build new nuclear power stations. I am not sure how I could make that position any clearer.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When will the minister consider the issue of waste storage to be resolved? Will it be when a disposal method has been identified or when a site has been put in place?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The issue will be, of course, a work in progress and I will address it in due course. I am sure that the member is familiar with the consultation that is taking place on the matter. I am also sure that he will be making his contribution to the consultation in due course.

The Scottish Executive is working with other UK Administrations to identify the long-term radioactive waste management options. We are working in partnership through the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which is entirely independent, to consider how we might best dispose of our nuclear legacy.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

If the member does not mind, I would like to make some progress. I have only five minutes.

The Executive places a great deal of importance on the committee's independence and on the need to engage with the public and stakeholders in Scotland. The CORWM process is the right way of building confidence, trust and respect in the decisions that need to be taken on the way forward in the UK.

CORWM represents a fresh start: its establishment marks a new approach to tackling the long-term management of radioactive waste, which takes into account the consequences of the 1997 Nirex planning inquiry failure. The so-called Nirex list, which Richard Lochhead did not mention by name but which he quoted extensively, is an historic document. It does not in any way form part of the Executive's policy on radioactive waste management.

The criteria for radioactive waste management options are being assessed by CORWM in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. On 4 April, CORWM announced its shortlist of four options for the long-term management of higher-activity waste. The options are deep disposal, phased deep disposal, shallow burial of short-live waste and interim storage. CORWM has begun the next phase of public engagement and consultation on the four options and on the methodology that it will use to assess them. I encourage all members and people around the country who have an interest in the management of radioactive waste to get involved in the consultation.

After CORWM has reported, ministers from the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will decide whether to accept its recommendations, which will be the subject of stakeholder consultation and wide engagement with the public. It is at that stage that siting will become an issue. The criteria for such decisions are yet to be determined and I say to Mr Lochhead that his list of sites in Scotland is entirely spurious.

Under its terms of reference, CORWM will have to consider issues such as compensation, volunteering and veto. Consent for a waste facility is a separate issue. We have said consistently in the Parliament that any proposals for such facilities in Scotland would be subject to environmental and planning regulations, responsibility for which is devolved to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. All such decisions will be taken by members following due process.

CORWM is due to present its final recommendations to ministers in July of next year. I stress that it is not looking at sites, contrary to what Mr Lochhead's scaremongering indicated. The identification of sites will be undertaken separately, once ministers are confident that they have a publicly acceptable management solution. Public consultation is an essential part of the process. CORWM's recommendations will inform Executive policy on the future management of radioactive waste in Scotland.

The people of Scotland, including MSPs, have a genuine opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. Given that we have a waste legacy, we need everyone's commitment to face up to the responsibility of dealing with that environmental challenge. We need the nationalists to grow up, join the rest of the adults in the communities concerned and get involved in the process.

I move amendment S2M-2691.2, to leave out from "that the Committee" to end and insert:

"the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; welcomes the Scottish Executive's study into present and future energy supply and demand in Scotland; endorses the Executive's position of not supporting the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved; supports the Executive's continuing commitment to the development of renewable energy in Scotland, including wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydrogen, biofuels and biomass power, as a key element of a balanced energy supply portfolio; supports the Executive's commitment to achieving 40% renewable electricity generation by 2020, and welcomes the ongoing review of the Scottish Climate Change Programme and the priority being given to strengthening the contribution of energy efficiency and renewables to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I welcome the debate and will take the opportunity that it presents to run briefly through the Conservatives' position on nuclear power again.

The Conservatives believe that the future development of Scotland and the economic growth that is essential to maintenance of our public services must be fuelled by availability of reasonably affordable electricity supplies. Without such supplies, we will not have an economy to talk about or to tax in the future. Half of our electricity is generated by nuclear means, so it is essential that we address the future of nuclear power and decide what place it has in the structure of our economy.

We must also consider climate change—which is at the top of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's agenda—and how we can reduce the emissions that contribute to climate change. Nuclear energy is one option for greatly reducing CO2 emissions over time. Even if we do not choose that option, it must remain on our agenda because it is being actively pursued by a number of other countries.

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

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No—I just do not have time.

Today we are talking about not only nuclear power, but issues surrounding nuclear waste, on which Richard Lochhead went into great detail. Let us address those issues. In this country, nuclear waste is essentially an historical problem. Such waste was generated in large quantities by our early nuclear power stations, which were designed basically to generate fuel for our atomic weapons programme. Since then, nuclear power stations have gone through several generations of development and, at each stage, the amount of waste that has been produced has been significantly reduced. When they generate nuclear energy, the most modern nuclear power stations are capable of producing as little as one tenth of the waste that was produced by the original Magnox reactors.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I cannot.

Waste is an historical problem and we must not confuse that problem with the problems of this country's energy needs and its requirement to address CO2 emissions.

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

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I just do not have time.

I want to deal with the position that is taken by the Scottish National Party and, to some extent, by the Liberal Democrats in this Parliament. It is essential that we understand that although there are matters to address, we must progress the argument over time.

The "Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs" report was published by the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee and set out in great detail the discussions that need to take place. I praise Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, for what he said both before and after publication of that report.

The debate must be engaged now, which is why the Conservatives have lodged an amendment that sets out that our position is that we need a balanced range of options for meeting Scotland's future energy needs. Although we accept that renewables are one of those options, we are clear that there is more to renewables than simply covering Scotland's hills with wind turbines. There is, for example, the option of using technology to generate electricity through cleaner use of our existing coal reserves. Nuclear energy must play an important part in generating affordable electricity for Scotland in the future. Richard Lochhead stated that it is a heavily subsidised form of power generation, but the cost of nuclear power pales into insignificance when we calculate the real cost of supporting development of wind energy.

If we are to address the issue properly, we must be concerned about the fact that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is a Liberal Democrat. If his opinions on Scotland's future energy requirements are coloured by his party's policies, perhaps it is time we had in charge someone who understands the issues.

I move amendment S2M-2691.1, to leave out from first "UK Government" to end and insert:

"House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee concluded in its report, Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs, that it is 'vital that decisions are taken now, to obviate the possibility of, quite literally, the lights going out in Scotland in the foreseeable future'; further notes that nuclear power is currently estimated to save the United Kingdom annual emissions of eight million tonnes, and therefore urges the Scottish Executive to support any plans brought forward by the UK Government to replace current nuclear power stations with new nuclear power stations in order to protect our energy supply, protect existing jobs and reduce our CO2 emissions."

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

We have already invoiced our grandchildren for an incalculable amount—the cost of clearing up the waste that the nuclear electricity we have burned so far has produced. I welcome the opportunity for a realistic and mature debate, which the minister spoke about. Let us have such a debate on cost, on the AP1000 and on climate change.

First, I will deal with cost. The Department of Trade and Industry has set aside £4.4 billion for the first two years of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's work. It is projected that the job of decommissioning Hunterston A, which was the first major nuclear plant in Scotland, will take 90 years. To date, only £4 billion has been set aside from the sale of nuclear electricity to clear up the mess that Hunterston A left behind. That is not enough to fund the first two years of a 90-year programme. The nuclear industry has so badly underestimated the cost of clearing up that waste that it has set aside enough money to pay for only two years of a 90-year process. The rest will be paid for by generations to come. How immoral and irresponsible is that? How dare we consider increasing the figure on the invoice to our grandchildren by even £1?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It is all very well for Chris Ballance to make such arguments in Parliament and in the leafy suburbs of Edinburgh, but why does he not show the courage of his convictions and raise those matters with the people of the community of Annan by putting up a Green candidate in that constituency for the general election?

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Mr Mundell knows perfectly well that I have been to Annan and have discussed the issues with the workers at Chapelcross.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would you care to draw to Mr Mundell's attention the document that the Scottish Parliament has produced on candidates who are standing at the approaching general election, which refers to their inability to raise general election issues in the Parliament?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I note what the member has said.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

In the case of Hunterston, the timeline assumption is that most of the cost of decommissioning will be spent not in the first two years of the budget, but in 60 years' time. According to the NDA, that is because the eternally optimistic nuclear industry hopes that the decommissioning costs will be cheaper in 60 years. What a legacy we are leaving.

Fifty years ago, the industry that is so optimistic about future costs promised us electricity that would be too cheap to meter, and 25 years ago, during the inquiry into the dumping of waste in Mr Mundell's Galloway hills, it promised us that a waste solution was just round the corner. Hunterston A alone will produce 6,384m3 of intermediate-level waste. Where will that go? It will also produce 33,000m3 of low-level waste. Where will that go? The low-level waste depository at Drigg is almost full—there is no room there and there is no store anywhere else. It is estimated that the current decommissioning programme will produce enough material to fill 15 Drigg-sized depositories. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is not even considering that problem.

As my speech has been so heavily interrupted, I must turn quickly to the AP1000, which raises significant safety issues because it has only one containment vessel and minimises the scope for operator intervention. As regards security of supply, if we build 10 such reactors—not one of which has yet been built anywhere in the world—we will have only the word of our happy-go-lucky nuclear industry that every part of their intricate systems will work. If a problem occurs, we might overnight have to close down every single one for months. Where would that leave security of supply?

As for climate change, if one examines the full life cycle of a nuclear power station—including uranium mining, fuel enrichment, construction and decommissioning—one finds that nuclear power produces five times more CO2 than wind power and almost as much as gas.

Health and safety should have destroyed the nuclear industry decades ago but economics is now killing it, so let it rest in peace. Let us look to the renewable future. Let us see the Executive investing £500 million in marine renewables. Let Scotland lead the world.

I move amendment S2M-2691.3, to insert after the fourth "waste":

"notes that the industry proposal to base electricity supply on identical reactors of the unproven AP1000 design would undermine the security of electricity supply; notes that the amount set aside from nuclear generation revenues over the last 50 years to pay for decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations is only sufficient to fund the first two years of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency's 30-year programme and therefore that the multi- billion cost of decommissioning existing nuclear power stations will have to be paid for by future generations of tax payers and therefore considers that nuclear power is economically unsustainable; further notes that, over its whole life cycle, nuclear power is not carbon-neutral and agrees with the Chief Executive of the Energy Saving Trust that 'to present nuclear power as one of the main ways of combating climate change is short-sighted'; believes that renewable energy and energy efficiency offer a truly secure and sustainable energy future".

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I am pleased to support the Scottish Executive amendment, which states categorically that we will not support further development of nuclear power stations in Scotland. I was especially delighted to hear the deputy minister repeat that. The commitment not to support further development of nuclear power stations will also be contained in our Westminster manifesto, which is launched today.

I would have thought that ahead of the SNP's manifesto launch tomorrow, its members would debate some of its policies and the choices that it will put before the Scottish people because—as Wendy Alexander pointed out in the previous debate—we have heard very little from the SNP about its policies for the forthcoming election. The SNP has had a number of chances in the past few weeks to debate the issues; today it could have debated them in detail. We have heard from SNP members about Trident, and today the debate is about nuclear power. They might have been able to tell us how they will fund the £7 billion-worth of transport pledges that they have made.

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

I assure George Lyon that when we launch our manifesto tomorrow it will be full of promises to have no more nuclear power stations. Will George Lyon rule out entirely the Liberal Party's support for any new nuclear power stations or nuclear dumps in Scotland in the future?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As the amendment in the minister's name makes clear, right now we have ruled out any further development of nuclear power. As the minister made clear, Parliament will take the final decision on whether there will be any waste sites in Scotland. We are committed to ensuring that there is none.

Tomorrow, the SNP will launch many promises, but the question is this: How will it pay for them?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I have read carefully the amendment in Jim Wallace's name, and it refers to

"not supporting the further development ... while waste management issues remain unresolved".

That means not yet, does it not?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It means that there will be no new nuclear power development in Scotland while this coalition Government of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats is in power, because there is no answer to the waste problem.

The SNP must answer the question about how it would pay for the promises that it has made. I believe that tomorrow it will use its opposition to Trident and nuclear power to explain its spurious proposals for filling the huge spending gap in its proposals.

Parliament will take the final decision on the sites to bury waste. We fully support the Executive's commitment to development of renewables. It is good to see that a BBC poll showed that the general public are fully behind us—73 per cent support wind power and only 17 per cent support nuclear power. That knocks on the head the myth that there is widespread opposition in Scotland to further sensitive development of wind power. That support will give comfort to my constituents in Campbeltown who are employed at Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology Ltd.

In conclusion, the Scottish Executive is taking the right approach by ruling out nuclear power development while there is no solution to the waste issue. It is right to pursue a target of 40 per cent renewables and it is right to pursue clean coal technology and gas technology with gas sequestration as the right energy mix for Scotland. It is not, however, right to say that the answer to the energy-gap question is nuclear power. There are other options, and we are pursuing the right mix, which is why we will support the Executive amendment at decision time.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Time is very tight. I will try to call four speakers.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss nuclear power again, not least because nuclear power generation has made an important contribution to the local economy of my constituency over the past five decades. The SNP's reasons for bringing the issue to the chamber at this time are twofold: to perpetually attack the constitutional settlement and to drive a wedge between the coalition partners, which the general election could do more successfully than any debate in Parliament.

The Labour policy is a balanced energy policy that keeps all options open. The SNP, on the other hand, rejects the need for a new nuclear power station in Scotland. We heard a lot of scaremongering from Richard Lochhead, but he consistently refuses to support the alternatives, such as wind farms. The actions of people such as Roseanna Cunningham and Fergus Ewing, and particularly of Christine Grahame in the Borders—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Every time there is a wind farm planning application, Christine Grahame opposes it. The SNP cannot have it both ways.

The SNP's target is that 25 per cent of our energy will be generated by renewables by 2010, and 50 per cent by 2020. At the same time, the SNP wants Scotland to rule out nuclear power while countries such as Finland, Canada, France, Romania, Japan, Russia, China, the USA and many others throughout the world are either planning or proposing new reactors. Those countries will be able to replace carbon-emitting power stations with non-carbon-emitting nuclear power stations. However, in the UK, which currently uses nuclear power for 25 per cent of its needs—indeed, Scotland uses it for 32 per cent of its need—if we rule out the nuclear option we will be in danger of using the emerging renewables technology simply to replace nuclear power stations that are coming to the end of their lives, rather than using them, as we would all wish them to be used, to reduce carbon emissions.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

No, I will not.

I acknowledge that the general public have many fears that are based on problems with the old technologies to which Alex Johnstone referred and—in particular—because of the link to nuclear weapons. Indeed, Chapelcross is one of the older generation of nuclear power stations that had some of those problems. However, the nuclear waste problem exists now because of the current stations. The issue is not what might happen in the future; we have to deal with nuclear waste now. In doing that, we can deal with nuclear waste issues that may emerge if new nuclear power stations are built in Scotland or the UK.

We are now on the third generation of nuclear power stations and research is being done on the fourth generation. Chris Ballance is wrong to describe the AP1000 as unproven; it is one of the technologies that is being developed throughout the world. Third generation power stations produce far less waste. The AP1000 would have five times the power generating capacity of Chapelcross and, over its 60-year life span, would produce only 2,000m3 of low-level waste and 700m3 of intermediate-level waste. It would also use passive safety measures using gravity, natural circulation and compressed gas and would avoid many of the safety problems that are associated with pump failure and overheating. The new systems will be 60 times more efficient and will therefore require far less subsidy than current systems. The discussion that we are having is based on the past, not the future.

I will support the Executive amendment. Decision time is coming, because options to resolve the nuclear waste disposal issue will be suggested and, when the time comes, we will have to make decisions that are based on logical, sensible, scientific and factual discussion, rather than on opinion polls or scaremongering. When the time comes, we must have sensible discussions and debate.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

This debate covers decommissioning of nuclear installations, the question of how waste storage is dealt with, and the SNP's total opposition to the creation of new nuclear power stations. We have not heard a defence of the Government's renewable energy system, or a discussion of the problems that might arise in the decommissioning process.

I would like to dwell on a couple of those matters. In the far north of Scotland, the decommissioning process—a £2.7 billion exercise—has been under way at Dounreay for some time. The UK Government splashed out a whole lot of money on nuclear investment. Since then, energy markets have been liberalised—I will come back to that. The Government must not skimp on ultra-safe dismantling measures and waste storage in order to handle what has been produced. However, it has been shown at Dounreay that far more waste is created during decommissioning; indeed, there is not enough storage space at Dounreay for the low-level waste, and for the gloves and other trivia that are used for dismantling. That waste will have to be shipped to Drigg, which was referred to earlier.

The SNP's policy is to deal in Scotland with the nuclear waste that is created in Scotland. There should have been plans ahead of time to have enough monitorable above-ground storage, but storage is not in place. The costs of nuclear decommissioning are far greater than has so far been estimated. The SNP believes that the kind of programme that is required must be made clear to the public in order to show how expensive and dangerous decommissioning is. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is steadily tackling the Dounreay nuclear legacy, but if the nuclear decommissioning agency comes into play it could use a tender process to bring in Bechtel, AMEC or other companies, which may cut corners on the way in which the job is done.

The staff at Dounreay are dedicated unionised public servants. This is a public problem, and the SNP believes that we should deal with the matter in the public domain. Nuclear waste is the unsolved public problem; we must therefore find a way of dealing with Scottish waste in Scotland: we must not export waste or import anybody else's.

I turn to the argument about nuclear energy as a possible way of dealing with the problem of climate change. Climate change is a lifebelt for the nuclear industry because that industry believes that it can argue that nuclear energy would reduce emissions. However, it has been argued that if we take the money for a new nuclear power station and spend it on energy efficiency, five to seven times the amount of carbon dioxide would be removed from the atmosphere than if we built a nuclear power station. If experts are saying that, the Government had better tell us whether it agrees. The arguments that stack up in the SNP motion show clearly that if we have a mature and balanced debate, there can be no place for nuclear power and that if the Government is going to take climate change seriously, it must ensure that energy efficiency is a large part of that.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

The argument that climate change is a "lifebelt" for anybody is frankly absurd, as indeed is the motion. The nationalist motion

"rejects the need for a new nuclear power station in Scotland."

The concept of rejecting a need may have been all very well for a penitent medieval monk in a hermitage, who thought that it was a good idea to go without food, heat or any kind of creature comforts—on reflection, I might like to inflict that version of hair-shirt independence on Richard Lochhead—but it would be grossly irresponsible to reject the basic needs of the people of Scotland. We need secure supplies of electricity. We need electricity to cook our food, to provide heat and light, and to power our fridges, televisions, computers and just about everything else. It would be the ultimate dereliction of responsibility if we were to fail to plan to provide for those basic needs for people in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. We must think in the long term.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry—I have only four minutes. There will be other opportunities to discuss the matter.

It takes up to 10 years to plan and construct a power station. Failure to plan ahead could lead inexorably to power cuts and blackouts, which have already happened in California, New York and Italy. The motion is a good example of the sort of blinkered vision that could take us into economic chaos and environmental disaster in the UK. Let us face it: there are three imperative responsibilities that responsible politicians should face. First, if we are serious about the global environment we must drive emissions of greenhouse gases down to the absolute minimum. Secondly, we must plan to provide our share of the UK's energy needs from sustainable, secure and affordable sources. Thirdly, Britain requires a secure permanent repository for its waste radioactive material. That last point is a big political problem, but it is not a big deal in engineering terms. There are safe repositories for radioactive waste in many countries. One is being built in Finland. We will have to build such a repository for Britain; at the very least it will have to accommodate a bulky legacy of material from old civil and military nuclear programmes, and I argue that it could in due course perfectly well accommodate material from new nuclear plant.

I agree with the Executive's position that it would be irresponsible to build new nuclear installations before we address the big issue of storing radioactive waste, but when that is addressed—as it certainly will be—there will be a compelling case for consideration of new nuclear generators on sites in Scotland. The time has come when we should consider the options for electricity in Scotland after 2010. The peak demand for electricity on cold winter nights in Scotland is about 6GW. At present, we have a safe margin of generating capacity that enables us to export power to other parts of the UK. The electricity supply industry employs 7,000 people in Scotland. It provides for all our domestic needs and exports 16,000GW hours. That is fine for now, but we will lose 2,340MW of capacity when Cockenzie and Hunterston B reach the end of their design lives in about five years, which will mean job losses and possible shortages of electricity.

We no longer produce deep-mined coal. We should be very worried about emissions of millions of tonnes of CO2 from Cockenzie and Longannet, and it would not be very clever to become even more dependent on imports of gas from the middle east or central Asia. The options for replacing decommissioned generating stations are becoming rather limited. I support the Executive's ambitious target of 40 per cent of our power coming from renewables, but we will have to take account of public opposition to wind turbines. Even if we achieve that target, that will leave 60 per cent of our electricity to come from base-load generators. We must begin planning new base-load power stations, in addition to our renewables programme, to replace the generators that will have to come out of commission quite soon. I hope that that will include a Torness B power station.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I want to deal with one or two issues that have arisen in the debate, from a scientific viewpoint.

Alex Johnstone would not allow me to intervene to tell him that it is good news that the modern generation of power stations is producing only a tenth of the waste of previous ones. If we consider that the half-life of caesium and strontium isotopes, which that are at the heart of the waste that is produced, is 30 years, that reduces the period until such waste is safe by 150 years. That sounds quite encouraging until we realise that that period is a million years, and 150 years off a million years ain't a big deal, Alex.

The waste is unsafe in two ways. Proximity to the waste is the main problem—the half-life and decay after a million years deal with that—but escaping waste is the most immediate and continuing danger. The ways in which we store waste at the moment do not protect communities from escaping waste. Elaine Murray suggested that the SNP never supports wind farms. She has said that before in debate, and I have told her before that I supported the wind farm at Boyndie in my constituency. I ask her to acknowledge that the SNP supports wind farms where they are appropriately sited; where they are inappropriately sited, the SNP does not support them. I would be surprised if Elaine Murray took a different view.

We have been told that the numbers do not add up. Well, I say to quite a few people—including Elaine Murray—that on Monday I lodged 31 questions, out of a long list of possible questions I could have lodged, asking the Executive to correct number errors in its parliamentary answers. If anyone is on the record as being unable to make their sums add up, it is the ministers in the Executive.

To be positive, I point out that the key opportunity that arises from the situation in which we find ourselves is the significant amount of waste that we have produced in Scotland from our nuclear industries. We have a brilliant set of technicians working in the far north of Scotland to learn how to deal with that waste, so let us create industries that will support international efforts to deal with nuclear waste throughout the world. In future, that could be a revenue earner for Scotland, but there is also a moral issue, because there are no boundaries to the contamination that nuclear industries can cause. In the south-west of Scotland, we still have sheep that cannot be harvested for the food chain as a result of the Chernobyl incident. The time that has passed is a blink of an eye compared with the lifespan of radioactive heavy metal isotopes.

We also have opportunities to take new initiatives in renewables industries. We have lost the initiative that we had for many years in Scotland in hydroelectric power, but there are initiatives that we can take and should be taking to become world leaders in the development of wave and tidal power. We should invest in and support such initiatives now.

We must also consider low-level waste, which is based around deuterium and tritium isotopes of hydrogen, which are particularly dangerous because they can be bound with carbon and enter the human body.

There are many challenges in which we should invest. Today's debate has been useful, but I have to say that there has been much heat and very little light.

I urge members to support the SNP's motion.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the SNP for lodging the topic for debate, because it will not go away until we have an energy strategy and an energy efficiency strategy for Scotland, have a clear route map for how we will achieve at least 40 per cent of our electricity production from renewable sources and have resolved the issue of nuclear waste storage. There is a lack of clarity between the minister's position, that of his colleagues in the Labour Party and that of the Liberal Democrats. Where is the clarity in the partnership agreement on when the waste storage issue will be resolved? Will it be resolved when CORWM reports on potential options or when a site is identified? The minister needs to clarify that.

The real myth is that nuclear power can somehow play a role in tackling climate change, which I find bizarre, given the fact that even the International Atomic Energy Authority does not believe that it has a role in tackling climate change.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Will Mark Ruskell give way?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry; I do not have time.

We must be clear that there is a timescale issue with regard to tackling climate change: we need to tackle it quickly. If the energy review reports in 2008 and we decide to go down the nuclear route, we will have five years during which the AP1000 reactors will have to be licensed—assuming that the Tories do not want to speed up that process by reducing some of the red tape surrounding it—three years to find sites and deal with planning issues and, potentially, another six years for construction. That means that it would be around 2020 before we could get a nuclear programme up and running.

Members should contrast that with what the Government's energy technology support unit says about renewable energy, which is that, by 2025, two thirds of the UK's electricity production could come from renewable sources. What is missing is a route map from the Executive or the Department of Trade and Industry for moving towards realising that potential and getting in place the full mix of renewable sources.

The other issue is cost, which very much relates to renewables. The private sector will not touch nuclear energy with a barge pole, which means that the state will have to support it. Ten AP1000 reactors would cost £50 billion. Where would that £50 billion come from but from the funding for renewables and energy efficiency?

It was interesting that Elaine Murray talked about the experience of Finland. The Green Party there was in a coalition Government but left it because of the decision to approve a new nuclear power station. That poses a serious question for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland: what will their position be when they face a similar quandary to the one that the Finnish Green Party faced? The reality is that CO2 emissions in Finland have gone up since the Finns built their new nuclear power station. That is because investment has been switched from energy efficiency and renewable energy into nuclear power and dealing with its legacy. As Rob Gibson pointed out, for every pound that we spend on energy efficiency, we get up to seven times the reduction in CO2 that we get for every pound that we spend on nuclear power. That is the choice that we face.

We need to start to phase out nuclear power in Scotland and phase in a diverse mix of reliable renewable power sources. We need wave and wind power, biomass and hydro power and we even need to consider combined heat and power. That will produce a base load and deliver the CO2 reductions that we need to make. The parties that favour nuclear power are the parties of real waste, creating a legacy of nuclear waste for future generations and the financial waste of blowing taxpayers' hard-earned money on a 1950s fantasy that will never be realised.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

As the SNP motion states and Allan Wilson clearly outlined, the Scottish Parliament has control over whether nuclear waste storage facilities—or, indeed, new nuclear power stations—are sited in Scotland.

Scottish and UK Liberal Democrats oppose the development of new nuclear power stations. The Scottish Executive's position is not so unequivocal but is clear that further development of nuclear power stations cannot be supported while waste management issues remain unresolved. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was set up to re-examine all the options. Its final report is expected to be published in July this year, after which the Scottish Parliament will decide how to proceed in Scotland.

The Tories want us to embrace nuclear power to save emissions and to stop the lights going out. They cite the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee's report "Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs", which says:

"The Committee heard from UKAEA about the possibility of nuclear fusion ... rather than nuclear fission ... being used to produce electricity in the future. Nuclear fusion technology ... would be safer, cleaner with no waste produces and with no possibility of the technology having a military application."

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Will Nora Radcliffe give way?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I ask Chris Ballance to let me continue the quotation.

"The major problem with nuclear fusion ... is that ... it is 30 years, at least, before a commercial fusion reactor would be available."

Therefore, the arguments that are usually deployed against renewable technologies apply to nuclear generation in spades. Nuclear fusion will take three times as long to commercialise as wave and tidal power will.

Climate change and the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been seized on by those who are pro-nuclear, but nuclear power is found not to be a carbon-free source of electricity when we factor in the significant emissions from uranium mining, transport, the construction of power stations, the construction of waste storage facilities and decommissioning.

Nuclear energy is also extremely expensive. We have not finished paying for the nuclear energy we have had. Decommissioning existing nuclear power stations will cost us an estimated £48 billion on top of the billions that have been poured into the industry. If we add the potential for nuclear energy as it stands today to cloak nuclear arms production and the industry's vulnerability to terrorist attack, it is clear that—let's face it—we should forget it.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Nora Radcliffe give way?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I am sorry, but I have four minutes left and four minutes' worth to say.

The massive sums of money that are needed to build new nuclear power stations would be far better spent on commercialising the many emerging renewable technologies that would meet our energy needs without creating damaging emissions, which we could export to developing countries and which would give us a profitable industry to boot. A fraction of that money, if not spent on new nuclear power, would pay for clean coal technology that could be exported to China, for example, for it to use to fuel the burgeoning demands of its growing economy without pouring carbon into the atmosphere.

There is no doubt that climate change is a serious and present threat and that concerted and immediate action is needed to deal with it, but building new nuclear power stations is not the nice, simple, big-bang answer—it might be a big bang, but it is not the answer—because there is no simple answer. The answer is the cumulative effect of doing many things differently by changing our profligate attitude to energy and taking forward on all fronts and with increased urgency and determination the measures that we have started to take.

I quote the Scottish Affairs Select Committee's report again. It says:

"the best way of ensuring that Scotland's energy supply is maintained is by conserving energy."

I ask members to support the amendment in Jim Wallace's name, which outlines the Executive's sensible commitments and priorities.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will try hard not to be political in my speech, but I believe that people who argue against the nuclear industry should have the courage to do so in communities that the nuclear industry has benefited and not just in the Parliament, where it is easy to attract applause. It is much more difficult to do so in communities that the industry has benefited.

As a member of the Scottish Parliament, I have been one of the most long-standing advocates of the nuclear industry. I have been an advocate of it not because 72 per cent of people in an opinion poll said that they were in favour of it, although that is what drives SNP policy today. The SNP picks up a ragbag of issues in the hope of being on today's policy. As Dr Elaine Murray said, opinion polls are localised, and although nationally the SNP is against nuclear power, somebody somewhere will be for it. Local issues explain why Councillor Bob Higgins, the leader of the SNP group on Dumfries and Galloway Council, is one of the staunchest supporters of the nuclear industry. That is the reality of the SNP's position.

The debate highlights that the SNP has no real aspiration to govern, because the nuclear debate and the energy debate require leadership. I applaud Allan Wilson, John Home Robertson and others in the Labour Party, such as Brian Wilson, who have been willing to lead the debate in their party. We in Scotland have led the debate. It is important that people understand it, because the issues are serious.

The questions in the energy debate do not all have solutions with which everybody is happy. The Communities Committee recently had a lengthy discussion about another issue on which some people express opinions but do nothing—opencast mining. Such mining will provide clean coal, but it is not easy to achieve a balance on the issue. Similarly, it is not easy to satisfy all stakeholders in the nuclear industry. We require leadership and to argue for the industry, and Conservatives will continue to do that in the Scottish Parliament.

The one issue on which I disagree with John Home Robertson, as he knows, and with the minister, is double-tracking, for which I believe scope exists. As the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management continues its work, we should begin the process of commissioning new stations, because that will take a long time and many procedural issues must be overcome. We must start now.

It is clear that the existing licensed sites here in Scotland will provide the best opportunity for new nuclear development, but I will not promote a particular site. I am heartened because the leadership that has been shown in the Parliament is having an effect and ultimately we will have nuclear development in Scotland. I am heartened because I read in my local paper the comments of a leading Liberal Democrat politician, who said:

"Having seen various programmes and reports on global warming, I have come to the personal opinion that in the future there will be a place for nuclear power in our energy provision."

I am clear that when the moment comes, the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament will back nuclear power and that we will have it in Scotland.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I call Allan Wilson to close for the Executive. Try to do so in four minutes, Mr Wilson.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will do my best, Presiding Officer.

I have dealt with the SNP's scaremongering about the role of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management in informing future policy on radioactive waste management and I will move on to energy policy more generally.

In their own way, Mark Ruskell, John Home Robertson and David Mundell referred to the critical issue that is under debate. Energy is an essential commodity for Scotland's society and economy. As John Home Robertson said, it heats our homes, lights our schools and hospitals and powers our factories and offices. We must address the need. Unlike the SNP motion, which runs away from addressing that need, serious politicians and serious political parties—I exclude the SNP from that—must address the issues.

It is clear that nuclear power is an important zero-carbon form of electricity generation that will make a continuing contribution to minimising carbon emissions from electricity generation for some years to come. However, nuclear power is just one available form of energy supply. We will find in the diversity of sources the balance to which David Mundell referred that will suit Scotland's needs.

That brings me quickly to climate change, to which many members referred. We are committed to tackling climate change and to finding ways to reduce energy consumption—I say to Nora Radcliffe that that is not in dispute. Moving towards low-carbon generation must be part of the solution.

Britain leads the way in global efforts to tackle climate change and in showing what action can be taken. Scotland is playing and will continue to play its part in that wider context. We will continue to work in close partnership with the UK Government to ensure that the Executive contributes fully to UK climate change targets.

Chris Ballance made a couple of interesting technical points. I will not go into the detail, but it is untrue to suggest that the AP1000 is untested. It is based on the existing AP600 model and is designed to retain most of the existing specifications. While optimising power output, it reduces generation and increases efficiency. I make it clear that I am not aware—perhaps the member is—of any proposal to build a nuclear power station in Scotland. As Nora Radcliffe and others said, powers to approve new nuclear power stations are a matter for the Scottish ministers. No proposals have been made to rely completely on electricity from nuclear power generation. As the amendment in Jim Wallace's name says, we believe in diversity of supply to maintain security of supply.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one minute.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As I have only one minute, I do not have enough time to deal with Dounreay issues or low-level waste, but I will be happy to respond to members later.

I will conclude with a point that Elaine Murray made and which Stewart Stevenson did not address. The SNP formerly demanded publicly in the Parliament that the Executive should have a target of generating 25 per cent more electricity from renewables. Not unreasonably, the wind power industry could presume that the decent people of Alyth or Angus, for example, should know that that was an SNP demand. However, all the SNP elected leaders in Alyth and Angus—MSPs, MPs and councillors—have omitted to tell the decent people of those areas that they believe in more wind power.

The SNP consistently talks green then turns yellow in Alyth and other parts of Scotland. To hide that deceit, SNP members choose again not to talk about energy policy, the indigenous coal industry or the increasing cost of importing gas, but to reheat old anti-nuclear scare stories, which have been consigned to history by Mr Lovelock—the father of the green movement—Professor King and other distinguished environmentalists and scientists.

I ask members to support the Executive amendment.

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

I will nail some of the disingenuous and dangerous positions that some members adopted on new nuclear facilities and the suggestion that the lights will go out. We know the Tories' position, but we find increasingly that most in Labour adopt that position and even the Liberals accepted today that we might yet have more nuclear power in the future. George Lyon accepted that that is his position.

Some people—either deliberately or because they are too lackadaisical to go beyond the shallow and superficial—are only too willing to accept the arguments of the new nuclear facilities lobby. I hope that David Mundell accepts that I visited the former nuclear plant at Chapelcross to talk to staff about the SNP's policy. When I was there, I was surprised to find that the plant only ever produced 190MW of electricity; it was intended to produce weapons-grade material for nuclear weapons. The position that has been adopted is a disgraceful one for any party in Scotland to take.

Scotland can produce 9,500MW of electricity on any day, but during times of peak demand in the winter—as John Home Robertson said—only 6,000MW are needed. Therefore, there is spare capacity of 3,500MW. Only 2,500MW will be lost when Hunterston B nuclear power station closes in 2011 and Cockenzie closes in 2010. John Home Robertson should do the sums. Even with the loss of Hunterston B and Cockenzie, we will have a spare generating capacity of 1,000MW.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Does that mean that the member is happy to lose the jobs in question and that he is not in favour of exporting electricity from Scotland?

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

I will give John Home Robertson at least some credit on this occasion. His argument is always consistent, but it is a pity that he is consistently wrong. The report that was produced for the Scottish Executive in 2001 by the Garrad Hassan outfit clearly showed that 60,000MW of capacity in renewable energy in Scotland can be achieved, 25,000MW of which would be from wind power. The SNP has led on that issue for some time. The spare capacity that exists is the reason why the lights have stayed on when the nuclear power stations at Torness and Hunterston have gone offline, which they have done more and more in the past few years. As they have gone down, the lights have not become dimmer and the kettles have not stopped boiling. The simple fact is that we do not have the gap that people, including those in the new nuclear brigade in Scotland, are talking about. Their arguments are utterly spurious and empty and do not stand up with any credibililty.

That does not stop the myths that come from new Labour politicians. Allan Wilson recently asked:

"does it make sense, at the very time when climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases have shot up the political agenda, to be planning the elimination of nuclear power?"

Of course, he conveniently forgot to mention that the very ethos of the Kyoto protocol, which deals with the reduction of greenhouse gases, is to pursue advanced and environmentally sound technologies. The idea of phasing out environmentally damaging methods of electricity production by increasing the use of other methods that are equally environmentally damaging cuts right across the ethos of the Kyoto protocol and represents neither good environmental nor sustainable practice. In short, the idea is plain daft and shows that those who support new nuclear production are not doing so for altruistic reasons. The minister can be sure that the SNP council leader—who is the local councillor—voted in favour of the wind farm at Alyth. The minister should not come here and peddle untruths about what is happening in other parts of Scotland.

According to the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which the Government established, even wastes from the existing power stations are conditioned and packaged. As Richard Lochhead rightly pointed out, there will be 470,000m3 of deadly intermediate-level and highly radioactive waste in the UK and millions of tonnes of concrete and soil materials will be contaminated by low-level waste although warnings have been issued for 30 years that we must have a nuclear repository that will deal with intermediate-level radioactive waste. There have been delays after delays and consultations after consultations simply because the Government knows well that the argument about nuclear power is being lost in this country and that it needs time to soften up the people to accept new nuclear production in the future.

In the circumstances, I am glad that an opinion poll that the BBC issued this week clearly showed that 83 per cent of Scots do not support new nuclear production in Scotland. Members should be absolutely sure that there will be the mother of all battles if the UK Government decides either to foist new nuclear power stations on Scotland or to give us new nuclear dumps to deal with all the UK's waste. The SNP will not allow that to happen in Scotland.

Members should support the motion.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — General Questions

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assistance is available to national health service boards to ensure that people inappropriately accommodated at the state hospital, Carstairs, can be returned to their home areas. (S2O-6090)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Patients are transferred to the state hospital because they need clinical care and treatment in a secure environment. In most cases, following treatment, it is expected that their state of health will improve sufficiently to enable them to move to supportive and appropriately secure settings outside the state hospital. Some patients will be transferred to other hospitals and others will be managed in the community with appropriate support from social work and local health services.

During 2003-04, 57 patients were discharged or transferred from the state hospital—32 went to other NHS hospitals, 14 went to the courts, 10 went to prisons and one went into the community. We are currently working with NHS boards and the State Hospitals Board for Scotland to ensure that arrangements are in place so that patients who are assessed as no longer requiring care and treatment at the state hospital can be returned to their home areas with the minimum of delay.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I thank the minister for her comprehensive response.

The minister may know that there are currently six patients from Fife who have been placed in the state hospital who no longer need to be there and for whom the hospital no longer offers appropriate accommodation. Continuing care at the state hospital is viewed as detrimental to their health and care. I am sure that there are examples of such people from other parts of Scotland. How can health boards be encouraged, or perhaps forced, to provide adequate community resources? When will investment be made available so that such people will no longer have to remain at Carstairs? Does the minister agree that much needs to be done, perhaps with the Executive's leadership, to reduce and—I hope—eradicate the prejudice towards and stigma that is attached to former patients of the state hospital?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am aware that some patients are inappropriately placed at the moment. NHS boards' responsibilities for and commitments to mentally disordered patients have been made abundantly clear to them through policy documents and the performance management process.

On provision and where we are with medium secure units, the east of Scotland is well catered for by the 50-bed Orchard clinic in Edinburgh. Work is expected to begin on the 76-bed unit at Stobhill in Glasgow in the coming months, and the business planning process for the 36-bed unit at Dykebar in Paisley—which will serve patients from the west of Scotland—is progressing well; it is expected that that unit will receive patients in 2007. Discussions are under way for the development of a medium secure unit for patients in the north of Scotland.

I agree that there is a need to reduce the stigma that is associated with patients with mental health problems who have offended. Scott Barrie will be aware that the anti-stigma work that the Executive is funding is beginning to show results. We continue to commit ourselves to such work.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what powers the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has over sewage pollution. (S2O-6029)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

SEPA has statutory powers to regulate water pollution under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, as amended. The entry or discharge of sewage effluent to controlled waters is illegal, unless it is authorised by a consent that is issued by SEPA. Consent standards are established from the requirements of a range of legislation. SEPA also has statutory powers to issue notices to prevent, minimise, remedy or mitigate the effects of polluting discharges on the environment, and powers to report offences under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and other legislation to the procurator fiscal, with a recommendation for prosecution.

Rosemary Byrne (SSP, South of Scotland)

In the light of the non-stop flow of e-mails and letters that I receive that highlight continued instances of sewage pollution, and in the light of the number of pollution incidents with which SEPA must deal, does the minister agree that SEPA's current powers are insufficient to deal with a problem that is increasing? As a result, will he increase SEPA's powers to deal with such problems? Will he increase the level of monitoring and regulation of sewage pollution? Will he increase the levels of fines for companies that have been found to cause sewage pollution?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I do not agree with the fundamental proposition that SEPA lacks adequate powers. Rosemary Byrne will know that under the provisions of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, SEPA has an overview of the pollution of waters. That is clearly significant, as is the act to which I referred earlier. The water investment programme that we outlined in Parliament last month provides for significant investment in improving the standard of waters around Scotland's coastline and of its internal waters.

The solution is to maintain activity in the way that SEPA has done. SEPA maintains a close watching brief and is effective in dealing with issues when they arise.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As the minister is aware, I have proposed to his colleague Ross Finnie that pollution prevention and control regulations should be amended to require a specific waste recovery licence that would allow SEPA to conduct much more rigorous control over sewage sludge disposal on land and which would be paid for by the operators under the polluter pays principle. What consideration has he given to that proposal?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Adam Ingram should be aware that waste management licence exemptions are required for the kind of spreading that has been discussed. It is worth restating that when it comes to how we deal with sewage, recycling it and using it for constructive purposes, such as on land or for burning for energy, are far preferable options to landfill and other forms of disposal. Rather than seeking to inhibit the proper use of sewage sludge for recycling, we should seek to enable it to happen in a way that is controlled and monitored—as it is by SEPA—but which allows that waste to be disposed of in as environmentally beneficial a way as possible.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

SEPA has identified more than 2,000km of rivers and coastal waters that are being affected by sewage or contaminated surface water discharges and some 600km of our rivers and coasts as an absolute must for investment. SEPA is already set to be underfunded to the tune of £20 million for meeting the water framework directive requirements. Why is the Executive, through its under-resourcing of SEPA, undermining its own Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, to which the minister referred in his answer to Ms Byrne?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The simple answer is that we are not underfunding SEPA; we are making provision for SEPA to carry out its statutory duties, in relation to the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 as well as its other statutory duties. As I said in my earlier answer, the provision that we have indicated for Scottish Water over the coming investment programme period will allow the investment of significant sums to improve water quality in our rivers and around our coasts.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister referred to the burning of waste products. He will be aware that a block has been put on burning at Longannet power station, which produces a pelletised, treated sewage product. The alternative method is to bury untreated sewage around the country. Surely the minister must take a stand on that matter and address it promptly.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am glad that Phil Gallie agrees that landfilling of sewage sludge is not a preferable option. That is why we support other forms of disposal, including its proper use on land and in burning for energy. The decision to which Phil Gallie referred has been made in court and it is not for me to comment on the merits of judicial decisions. However, that decision does not prevent Scottish Power from burning sewage sludge at Longannet. Although it puts new regulatory requirements on that process, it does not prevent disposal of sewage sludge by that method.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action has been taken following the debate in the Parliament on institutional child abuse on 1 December 2004. (S2O-6237)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

We are actively taking forward the wide range of work that I outlined in my speech during that debate and my subsequent letter to the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, and we are seeking to do so in collaboration with survivors of institutional abuse wherever possible.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are almost five months on from that letter, in which the minister made commitments to redact files for public inspection and provide support for those who wished to access them; to hold discussions on the law of limitation; to establish a short-life working group, which was supposed to be set up early in 2005; to appoint an independent analyst; and to provide financial support for the in-care abuse survivors group.

It was agreed unanimously in the chamber that the survivors of institutional child abuse had been ignored for too long—for two years, in fact—by the Executive after they submitted their petition. Will the minister confirm that action will be taken soon and that those people will not be ignored any longer?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Far from seeking to ignore the people to whom the member refers, we seek to engage them actively in the work that we are undertaking. As members know, we take such issues seriously; that resulted in the First Minister making an apology on behalf of the people of Scotland for what happened to some survivors of institutional abuse.

As I said, we have a comprehensive work programme. All the files that we said would be redacted have been redacted and they are open for inspection. A web page advertises how they can be accessed and a helpline has been established, run by Who Cares? Scotland, which makes referrals to counselling services as appropriate. We are helping the In Care Abuse Survivors/In Care Abused Support group—INCAS—to advertise access to that helpline. As we promised, the information commissioner is auditing our practices to ensure that we opened up those files properly. The short-life working group to which the member refers is about to start work in the next couple of months. INCAS has been involved in the remit of that group and in recommending membership for it. We expect INCAS to be represented on that group.

As for the independent expert, we have identified candidates, we are making approaches to individuals to ensure that they are available to do that work and we hope to make an announcement soon. Although I see the Presiding Officer indicating to me that I am going on too long, I must say that we are taking a number of actions to which I could continue to add. I know that Linda Fabiani has lodged nine written questions on the matter and she will receive full answers to them all in due course.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to improve opportunities for schoolchildren to participate in outdoor education. (S2O-6072)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Learning and Teaching Scotland has been asked to undertake a development programme to promote and support the development of outdoor education in Scotland. It is in the process of employing a development officer to drive forward progress in that area.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sure that the minister will agree that outdoor education has a number of benefits for young people, particularly with regard to their health and in understanding the environment, as well as in teaching them leadership skills and team building. Does the minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that there should be an opportunity for all children of secondary school age to have a week's outdoor education?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am always happy to see other parties catching up with the Labour Party. It is evident that Iain Smith has been reading the Labour Party manifesto that was published only yesterday and I am glad that that is the case. However, he has no need to convince me of the benefits of outdoor education, which are apparent to me. I am a strong supporter of outdoor education for exactly the reasons that Iain Smith mentioned. It can have life-changing effects for young people, it can contribute to their learning across the curriculum, it provides new lifelong interest for them, and it helps them to understand sustainable development and the impact of change in our environment on our lives.

That is why we are making efforts to improve outdoor education. Curriculum reform will try to open up more space in which young people can participate in outdoor education and additional teachers should give more opportunity for that. An outdoor education development officer is being appointed by Learning and Teaching Scotland this month and that will contribute to good practice. We have recently issued health and safety guidance for outdoor education to encourage those activities to take place safely. All that is being done, but I am always willing to listen to what more we could do to promote outdoor education even further.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is supporting the development of eco-schools. (S2O-6063)

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Executive is providing significant funding to the keep Scotland beautiful campaign to develop its capacity to support and assess schools that are engaged in the eco-schools programme. That funding amounts to £350,000 a year for the next three years, which is more than double the funding for the previous years.

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

The minister is aware of the additional funding for the development of three new high schools in Berwickshire, in both his and my constituencies, as well as the imagination of Borders pupils in responding to the eco-schools initiative. Will he ensure that he works closely with ministers with responsibility for enterprise and Scottish Borders Council so that, as the council moves towards the tendering stage for the building of those new high schools, every consideration is given to their environmental sustainability, including their heating and power by biomass, which is a renewable source of energy that is in abundant supply in the Borders?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

As Mr Purvis knows, the eco-schools programme encourages young people to think about a sustainable future and promotes active citizenship through a pupil-centred approach. There is no doubt that children and young people can make a significant contribution where schools are being redeveloped.

I am intimately familiar with the situation in Berwickshire, as Mr Purvis will understand. There are major opportunities, both in Berwickshire and in schools in other areas that are being redeveloped, for energy-efficient systems to be put in, for developmental work to take place and for us to share good practice in that regard throughout Scotland.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will the minister join me in welcoming yesterday's announcement of a new-build school at Greenwood Academy in Irvine as part of an £80 million school investment programme in North Ayrshire? Does he agree that North Ayrshire Council's commitment to making the school eco-friendly is an excellent example of partnership between local authorities and the Scottish Executive, which is delivering for the children in my area? Given that Greenwood Academy is Nicola Sturgeon's former school, perhaps, for a change, the Scottish National Party will welcome the initiative as well.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Indeed the initiative is welcome, as is the opportunity that will be provided by the development for the provision of modern systems in the new school building. Nicola Sturgeon's former school might still be able to teach her something years later.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Is the minister in a position to update the Parliament about breaking down some of the barriers that perhaps do not exist in North Ayrshire Council but which seem to be affecting the ability of schools in my constituency to break through the restrictive rules of public-private partnerships and ensure that sustainability can be built into the heating systems of schools such as Breadalbane Academy? That has been an issue for a considerable time. Will the minister give us specific evidence to show that the Government has resolved the difficulties?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am grateful to the member for raising the issue again; he has been assiduous in doing so in the past. Other ministers had a meeting with the local authority about it, which I would be pleased to discuss with the member outside the chamber. I am not intimately familiar with all the details of that meeting. I have said before that opportunities, such as that at Breadalbane Academy, should be taken where possible.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will adopt the recent Department of Health guidelines contained in "The management of health, safety and welfare issues for NHS staff" on handling infected cadavers. (S2O-6081)

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call the First Minister—sorry, I meant Mr Kerr.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

A shock was felt around the chamber there, Presiding Officer—my shock was the biggest.

The guidelines on handling infected cadavers will be referred to an expert group to consider whether they should be adopted for use by NHSScotland.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The minister has indicated that he will set up a group. Will he assure me that that group will pay appropriate attention to the health and safety of health professionals, relatives of deceased persons and funeral workers? Will the outcome of the group's work be applied uniformly throughout Scotland?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The expert group will consider all those matters and I hope that that would be its conclusion. We want to ensure that the advice is appropriate to Scotland and takes account of Scotland's needs and that Scotland's professionals are involved in the process. The group will include occupational health physicians and nurses as well as health and safety representatives. NHS Tayside has undertaken good work in developing its advice to its staff. The advice will protect health professionals, funeral workers and relatives. The expert group will consider what we can learn and from where, as well as building on the best practice that exists in Scotland.

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We come a few seconds early to questions to the First Minister.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1567)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At the next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet, we will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland. At yesterday's meeting, we congratulated Charles Kennedy and his wife on the birth of their baby son.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I, too, take the opportunity to congratulate the Kennedy family.

I draw the First Minister's attention to the publication that I have in my hand. It looks a wee bit like the Labour manifesto, but it is not. It is another wee red book called "Labour's achievements". I advise the First Minister that it is written by two Scottish Labour MPs and that it is being distributed here in Scotland, yet all the facts and figures that it lists about health are English, not Scottish. Does the First Minister think that that is because his colleagues are ashamed of his record on waiting lists and waiting times?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have never seen that publication and I do not know which MPs Nicola Sturgeon is referring to, but I am happy to talk about our record on health. Here in Scotland, the numbers of people who are waiting longer than six, nine and 12 months are lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The median wait here is shorter than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and there are fewer people on waiting lists per head of population than there are anywhere else in the United Kingdom. However, those statistics are still not good enough for us. That is why we are driving forward to ensure that we have not only shorter waiting times for in-patients, but—as we now have—shorter waiting times for out-patients, too. We are making real progress in the health service and we are using contractors to help us to do that—something that the Scottish National Party would cancel, leaving thousands of people still on the waiting lists without their operations.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I find it funny that none of what the First Minister has just said finds its way into his Scottish colleagues' list of Labour's achievements. When the First Minister sees this publication, I wonder whether he will agree that it is a disgraceful attempt to pull the wool over the Scottish public's eyes. It tells them that waiting lists have gone down, although in Scotland they have gone up; it tells them that bed numbers are up, although in Scotland they are down; and it tells them that more patients are being treated, although in Scotland fewer patients are being treated. Will the First Minister demand that the publication be retracted and that his Labour colleagues—no matter how embarrassed they are about it—start telling the truth about his record on health?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is interesting to note that Ms Sturgeon has stopped trying to find an obscure statistic to produce at First Minister's question time and is now trying to produce obscure publications instead. That publication is not produced by our office or by anybody in the Executive. The truth is that the Scottish health service has the lowest number of people waiting longest anywhere in the United Kingdom; the shortest waiting lists per head of population anywhere in the United Kingdom; and commitments to go even further on that for in-patients. We also have not only a commitment but a delivery of shorter waiting times and shorter waiting lists for out-patients. Changes are taking place in the health service, not just because of the investment that is being made but because of the reforms that are taking place. Every one of those reforms is opposed by the SNP and, if the SNP were ever in charge, every one of them would be cancelled, leaving more people on the waiting lists waiting longer for their operations.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The First Minister talks about commitments. I turn to one fact about the English health service that Scottish patients will be interested to know. Yesterday, Labour promised that no patient will have to wait more than 18 weeks from seeing their general practitioner to having their operation—except if they live in Scotland. If the First Minister is doing so well, can he tell us why his target is 36 weeks—double the target in England? Is it just his incompetence that means that Scottish patients have to wait twice as long under Labour as patients in England do, or is there some other explanation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The target to which Ms Sturgeon refers is for 2008. Our targets in Scotland are for 2007. In 2007 not only will we have a target but, because we have met every other target in the areas that we have identified, we will meet that target of 18 weeks for out-patients and 18 weeks for in-patients. We will then outline, in 2007, where we will go next.

We will also ensure that Scotland has not only a ban on smoking in public places, which will make a difference to Scottish health, and a health improvement strategy, which is making a difference in our primary schools and elsewhere, but many other measures, including improved school meals. We in Scotland are proud to be ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom and are determined to ensure that we have a better health service and better health for our population.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the First Minister, who in six years has failed to bring down waiting times, expect anyone to believe that he will halve those times in 12 months? Is it not the case that he has let down patients in Scotland and that, with targets that are double those south of the border, he is set to continue failing patients in Scotland? Why do Scottish patients have to pay as much for the NHS as English patients do but get so much less?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

For the umpteenth week in a row, Ms Sturgeon insults the people in the Scottish health service who produce the statistics to which I referred. In Scotland, we have the lowest number of people on waiting lists per head of population anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have the lowest number of people waiting longer than six months for in-patient treatment. Because of the hard work of doctors, nurses and other professionals in the health service, out-patient waiting lists and waiting times are coming down. When we achieve those targets in 2007, we will go further in 2008 as our colleagues in England are doing, but we will assess the situation properly at that time.

At the same time, we will persist with a wider programme of health improvement for Scotland. The health service is getting the investment and the reforms that were opposed by the SNP and which are now making a difference. We will also have health improvement so that our primary school children, our smokers and many others across Scotland can see that a better way of looking after themselves helps the health service, the individual and the community.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1568)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not sure when I will next meet the Prime Minister, but I suspect that it will be sometime during April.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister will recall that, when he was in Dundee last month, the Prime Minister said that if people thought that the health service was better under the Conservatives than it is under Labour, they should vote for Michael Howard. Of course the national health service in Scotland was better under the Conservatives. There were more than 9,000 fewer patients on our waiting lists, 7,000 fewer out- patients had to wait more than a year for treatment, and 15,000 more in-patients were being treated compared with now. Is it not therefore the case that in health, as in so many other areas of our national life, Scotland is going backwards and not forwards under Labour and, of course, its Liberal Democrat allies?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am not too sure where to start—there is so much information in front of me that I can use to compare the records of Mr McLetchie's party and our party and coalition on the health service in Scotland.

There was a 20 per cent increase in waiting lists under the Tories in Scotland during their final seven years; that is four times higher than the increase during the past seven years. Because we concentrate on waiting times and not waiting lists, we now have a waiting times target that people will have to wait only 18 weeks by 2007. Under the Tories, not just the target but the reality was 18 months. That is the difference between the policies on the health service of the Executive and the Tories.

We saw what the Tories did to the health service: they demoralised doctors and nurses, raised waiting times and made a mess of the health service. We must continue with our programme of investing in and reforming the health service in Scotland. We must also ensure that next month, we do not get a Conservative Government that will cut our health service, cut the resources that are available and ensure that our health service goes back to where it was in the 1990s.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I know what the Conservatives did for the health service in Scotland. They opened hospitals and established locally based services that the Executive is closing and running down the length and breadth of Scotland. If members do not believe me, they need only go to areas such as the Vale of Leven, Argyll and Clyde and the Highland NHS Board area to speak to campaigners the length and breadth of the country who are complaining about the centralisation of services that is taking place under the Scottish Executive. Today, in his answers to Nicola Sturgeon and me, the First Minister has compared Scotland with England. Does he not think that it is rather pathetic that the best that he can do is compare the inadequacies of the health service under a Labour Government in England with the inadequacies of the health service under the Executive in Scotland? Does that not betray a total poverty of ambition?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Let me go back to our record. Fifty-six hospitals have been built, modernised or upgraded, and 114 primary or community care facilities have been modernised. The number of dental staff is up. The number of medical and dental consultants is up. The number of medical and dental doctors who are being trained is up. The number of nursing and midwifery staff is up. Is Mr McLetchie hearing what we are hearing? Deaths of under-75s from coronary heart disease, cancer and strokes are down. Those are the improvements that have taken place in our health service. Of course it is not as good as we all want it to be—that is why we will make it even better. However, the worst thing that the people of Scotland could do in the next month is put Mr McLetchie's lot back in charge, because then the health service would go back to the 1990s, rather than forward into the 21st century.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The First Minister can bluster all that he likes, but I am afraid that facts are chiels. Waiting lists and waiting times are up. The number of people in Scotland who lack a dentist is certainly up, up, up. It is ridiculous that the First Minister has the temerity to suggest that everything in the health garden is rosy. The truth of the matter is that the First Minister, like the Prime Minister, has lost the plot when it comes to health and that, by international standards, he is failing miserably to deliver the health care that people in Scotland need and deserve. Why is there no proper target and ambition to end the waiting lists that are Scotland's international disgrace and over which the First Minister presides?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Every party that is represented in the chamber demanded that the waiting list targets should go and that waiting time targets should come in, because that was the right way in which to improve the health service in Scotland.

As a result, the number of people who have been waiting for more than nine months is down. The number of people who have been waiting for more than six months is down. The number of out-patients who have been waiting for more than six months is down. Nobody is waiting for more than eight weeks for angiography or for more than 18 weeks for coronary revascularisation. Those are the improvements that have been made in our health service. Every one of them is opposed not only by the Conservatives—because of the cuts that they have promised and to which they will not admit, although there is a document that proves where they will fall here in Scotland—but by the SNP, which would cancel the contracts and leave thousands of people waiting for their operations. The SNP wants to choose the hospital that people should go to, instead of letting the patients choose so that they can get the operations that they need and deserve.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There is one urgent constituency question.

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

This morning, I gave the First Minister's office notice of the question that I wish to ask. It concerns the Ardtoe marine research institute, which is based in Ardnamurchan in west Lochaber. Just yesterday, the board of the Scottish Association for Marine Science announced that SAMS Ardtoe Ltd would be placed in liquidation. The liquidator arrived today. The staff learned of the decision yesterday.

There are few jobs involved, but they are essential to this remote rural part of Scotland. The workforce believes that it has a future and wishes to explore every possible option for survival, so that it can continue to provide its expertise, possibly to the university of the Highlands and Islands. This morning, the workforce instructed me that it wishes to send a delegation, led by me, to meet ministers in both the Environment and Rural Affairs Department and the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department in order to explore a future for Ardtoe. Can such a meeting take place as a matter of urgency?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The minister will be happy to meet Mr Ewing on that matter. Indeed, the ministerial team is well aware of the important skills that exist in that area and the importance in a rural part of Scotland of good skills and highly paid jobs not only to the individuals concerned but to the whole local community. However, it is important to discuss the matter further, and the minister will be happy to have such a meeting.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1575)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

With apologies in advance to my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I met the Secretary of State for Scotland this morning to discuss the best small manifesto in the world.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Five weeks ago at the sustainable development conference in Edinburgh, the First Minister said:

"For the past three centuries, too many people simply didn't ... look to the future, and ... concern themselves with the impact their actions might have on the future of our planet ... too often many decisions makers take short term decisions rather than the right action for the long term."

However, just two weeks later, the Executive gave the M74 the go-ahead. Friends of the Earth Scotland, of which he is a member, described that as

"probably the worst environmental decision ever taken by the Scottish Executive".

This road will damage local communities and the environment. Even his own response says that climate change pollution will get worse as a result.