Scottish Parliament, 4 May 2006

394 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Official Report 4 May 2006

Replacement of Trident

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3866, in the name of Chris Ballance, on the replacement of Trident.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

The United Kingdom Government is deciding now whether to replace Trident, Britain's nuclear weapons system. The decision will determine whether we will have weapons of mass destruction based in Scotland, at Faslane, for the next 40 years. That is a crucial economic, strategic and moral issue for Scotland, and I am delighted to welcome to the public gallery so many visitors from the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Trident Ploughshares and nukewatch Scotland.

This Green party debate focuses on the recent legal opinion that the use of nuclear weapons is illegal; that the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is illegal; and that the proposed replacement of Trident is illegal. The need to distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians is central to international law on war crimes. Nuclear weapons injure and kill civilians indiscriminately.

It has been suggested that the UK Government will simply agree the replacement of Trident without recourse to Parliament, despite the strategic implications, the £15 billion price tag and adverse public opinion. The decision will be taken not at Holyrood or even at Westminster, but in the White House and at the Pentagon, with number 10 simply signing the cheque. Scotland must voice its opinion on a decision that would make us a target, that would give us yet more nuclear waste and that would be illegal.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Mr Ballance will be aware that, along with many thousands of members of the Labour and trade union movement, I am supportive of the terms of the Green party's motion. For clarity, and for the record, are the Greens going to accept the facile amendment that has been lodged by the Scottish National Party?

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

We will hear the debate and decide which way we will vote at the end of it.

The motion draws on a legal opinion that was provided by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers—Cherie Blair's own firm. That opinion is quite clear: the use of Trident or its replacement would

"breach customary international law, in particular because it would infringe the 'intransgressible' requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants."

Given the fact that the explosive power of each warhead is at least eight times that of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, that point can hardly be in dispute.

Furthermore, the 1998 Rome statute of the International Criminal Court states:

"Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians ... which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage"

is a serious violation of the laws of warfare, as is

"Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings ... which are not military objectives".

More damning, the Matrix Chambers lawyers go on to consider whether even the threat to use such weapons might be illegal. Citing the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", they note:

"If the envisaged use of force is itself unlawful, the stated readiness to use it would be a threat prohibited under Article 2, paragraph 4"

of the United Nations charter. So, it is illegal to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

However, there is more. The legal opinion finds that the replacement of Trident would be likely to constitute a material breach of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That article states:

"Each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Let us be clear about this. If the UK unilaterally extends, enhances or improves its nuclear provision, it will be tearing up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, having abandoned any vestige of commitment to

"pursue negotiations in good faith".

Where will that leave the prospect of negotiating away the nuclear weapons that are already in existence? Where will that leave the prospect of persuading countries that do not have nuclear weapons not to acquire them?

The world is considerably worried at the moment about the nuclear ambitions of Iran. How can we expect to persuade Iran to respect the NPT when we treat it in so cavalier a fashion? How hypocritical are we? If we are serious about nuclear disarmament, we need to do something about it. Let us begin by deciding that we will not seek to replace the Trident system, nor extend its life. For once, let us take the lead instead of following the United States of America.

Nuclear weapons are irrelevant against today's threats. What we need is greater respect for the United Nations, a strengthening of international law and action in support of our treaty obligations. The use of nuclear weapons, the threat of their use and the planned replacement of Trident are illegal and against our international treaty obligations. Let us today, in the Scottish Parliament, send a clear message to Whitehall that Scotland expects Downing Street to uphold the rule of law.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the United Kingdom should not seek to replace the Trident nuclear missile system; notes that in 2005 the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to all its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1967 (NPT), including its legally binding obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament in good faith; agrees with the legal opinion of Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers on 19 December 2005 that any replacement of the Trident system would constitute a material breach of Article VI of the NPT, and calls on the Scottish Executive to seek an early assurance from the UK Government that it will fully comply with our legal obligations in respect of the NPT and that it will not seek to replace the Trident nuclear missile system with another weapon system of mass destruction.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Only four days separate them. One is considered to be more mature and reflective; the other is considered less well developed and always in a hurry. I am not describing siblings or even members in this chamber—I am contrasting motions that have been lodged by the Greens. One was lodged by Mark Ballard on 20 January; the other was lodged by Chris Ballance on 24 January. Both of them cover the subject of Trident. The fundamental difference is that Mark Ballard's motion calls for

"the fullest possible public debate",

whereas the motion in the name of Chris Ballance wants us to decide now.

So, what is the Greens' position? Or do they have several? I do not necessarily mean that as a criticism. There are lots of conflicting views within individual parties, and rightly so. Indeed, many members have not made up their minds.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will Jackie Baillie give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In a second.

What is true is that the decision on whether to replace Trident will be momentous, and I agree with Chris Ballance that it is one of the critical economic and strategic decisions that the UK faces.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I am glad that Jackie Baillie has been perusing the motions so carefully. She will be aware that a motion has been tabled at the House of Commons, calling for the fullest debate. However, there was no opportunity for MSPs to indicate that they, too, wanted to have the fullest debate. As Chris Ballance has pointed out, under the current proposals, that debate will not take place in the House of Commons, which is the first step that we need. The truth is that Trident is illegal to use, is illegal to threaten to use and breaks our treaty obligations. Without a debate being held at Westminster, how can the issue be discussed?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I say to Mark Ballard—who has taken up a substantial amount of my time—that I always study his motions with interest.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I will give you extra time because of that intervention, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Mark Ballard's motion was the right one. I want a full debate. I believe that there is the maturity in our democratic process to enable that debate to take place constructively. I welcome the early input from the Catholic church and the Church of Scotland, which both have a long-standing opposition to nuclear weapons. I welcome the input of trade unions, which have campaigned in the Labour Party against nuclear weapons. Indeed, the Scottish Labour Party conference has adopted a consistent anti-nuclear position. I do not dismiss any of that, but I also want to know the views of communities throughout Scotland, including those in the vicinity of Faslane.

There are questions that we need to have answered and options that we should explore fully. Does Trident need to be replaced? Is the current system obsolete? What will the international context be in 20 to 30 years' time, and what will be the consequences of our actions? People have heard me speak before about the economic impact of Faslane, and I make no apology for doing so again. The 7,000 direct jobs and 4,000 further jobs in the supply chain represent one quarter of the total workforce in the Dumbarton constituency. That is a staggering number of jobs in what is considered to be a deprived area. In the past, I have been accused of using that as some kind of an excuse for keeping nuclear weapons. Far from it—those are the facts; they might be uncomfortable, but they are very real. The hard politics is about having the maturity to get beyond the rhetoric and accept our responsibility to the people who work in the defence industry; that comprises 31,000 jobs at Faslane, Rosyth and across Scotland.

I hope that the Greens reject the Scottish National Party's "facile amendment"; Bill Butler's wording was spot on. I hope that the Greens realise that the Notting Hill nats would pull us out of NATO, tell us that they have the answers to the questions about the likely economic impact of that action, and—wait for it—base the Scottish navy at Faslane. Meanwhile, Alex Salmond is busy saying that the SNP would base the Scottish navy at Rosyth. Which is it to be? Perhaps the Scottish navy will be so big that it can be based at two different ports. Just in case we were in any doubt about the size of the Scottish navy, it will be seven frigates with 100 staff. What will the SNP do about the other 31,000 jobs that depend on defence?

I respect all views that are expressed in this chamber, but I will continue to argue that if we want to rid the UK of nuclear weapons, we will have to mitigate the consequences of so doing. Real action, not rhetoric, and having the fullest possible debate will give us time to consider all aspects of the issue.

We all want peace and a nuclear-free world. I know of no sane person who wants nuclear weapons to be used. The difference lies in how we try to achieve that. I believe that the Labour Party has a good record. Nuclear Lance missiles are gone. Maritime nuclear capability on surface ships is gone. Air-launched nuclear weapons are gone. Trident is our only nuclear weapons system and it now has a third fewer warheads. We place high priority on arms control and non-proliferation and we would all agree that the two principal ways of achieving those are through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We are unequivocally committed to those.

From the words of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, I am clear that no decision has been taken about the replacement of Trident. I do not want them to make that decision until they have heard what people think. We have an opportunity to influence that decision. Mark Ballard's motion acknowledged the central importance of having

"the fullest possible public debate";

I agree with that. Whether it is the Greens' green paper or the Liberals' white paper is not the issue for me; the issue is whether we reach out and engage with the people who matter most—ordinary people in our communities.

I move amendment S2M-3866.4, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"notes that in 2005 the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to all its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1967; notes the commitment of all three major UK parties to retain an independent nuclear deterrent; notes the comments of the UK Government that no decisions on replacing Trident have yet been taken; believes there should be the fullest possible public debate on any decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, considering all possible options including non-replacement; notes the significant reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons arsenal; is committed to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and wishes to see the United Kingdom continue to work both bilaterally and through the United Nations to urge states not yet party to non-proliferation instruments to become so, to remain committed to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to make further progress toward significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the major nuclear powers."

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

I welcome the debate and the Green party's motion. First, I will deal with the issue of nuclear weapons being seen in today's world as some sort of deterrent. I never accepted the old arguments, which were made during the cold war, that somehow the UK's nuclear weapons capacity helped to keep the peace and avoid further wars. It did not stop General Galtieri invading the Falklands, even though the Argentines never possessed the nuclear bomb. I never accepted the arguments, but at least there was a considered rationale that could be used by those who supported the UK's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The collapse of the cold war has entirely removed any justification for the UK's possession of strategic nuclear weapons. Perhaps they will come in the debate that Jackie Baillie wants, but I have heard no convincing arguments about why the UK needs to spend £15 billion to £25 billion on creating the son of Trident. That money could be much better used for our public services and to help our economy. It would also produce a heck of a lot more jobs than Trident ever did.

Should we replace Trident because two or three other nations now possess nuclear weapons? As far as I know, none of them has either the motivation or the capacity to attack the UK. Should we do it because of the threat of terrorism? Surely that cannot be the case. I would like to know how a suicide bomber who is intent on martyrdom would be stopped because we have Trident on the Clyde. I cannot believe that we would deploy a nuclear weapon against a Muslim city, creating a modern-day Hiroshima, because that truly would unleash an unimaginable conflagration. The truth is that the end of the cold war killed off any intellectual arguments that might have existed in favour of any UK requirement to retain weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, the UK now has a changed position, which was adopted first by the Tories; later, Labour abandoned its principle of no first strike in favour of defending vital overseas interests. That means that Trident could be used pre-emptively and, as Chris Ballance said, the very threat of that could be seen as illegal under customary international law because

"it would infringe the 'intransgressible' requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants."

It is self-evident that such weapons of mass destruction cannot be used against combatants only.

Replacing Trident would breach article VI of the 1996 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which expects all signatories, in good faith, to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and to work towards complete disarmament. Replacing Trident could not be seen as working towards disarmament There is little or no prospect of the UK abandoning its commitment to WMD. It was the Labour Wilson Government of the 1960s that first built, launched and named the Polaris fleet. It was the Jim Callaghan Government that struck the Trident deal in a beach hut in Guadeloupe. The Labour Party's 2005 general election manifesto stated clearly that the party is committed to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent, therefore it comes as no surprise that Labour is intent on deciding during the lifetime of the current Parliament to create the son of Trident. The Tories are wedded to the arguments of the past every bit as much as Labour is, and we can see from the Liberals' amendment that their position is not much different.

It is quite clear—and no facile argument—to say that the only way and the best way to get rid of Trident on the Clyde and to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons is for Scotland to become independent. It is absolutely clear that all the unionist parties are wedded to the idea of continuing to have this weapon of mass destruction on the Clyde. I have heard others talk about Trident being some sort of independent deterrent for Scotland. Well, the US supplies the missile system because we lease it from there. A US satellite system guides and aims the weapons.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It services them as well.

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

The US also services the weapons and produces all the goods that the system requires. No one should kid themselves that this weapons system is independent and that any future weapons system would be in any way independent.

The decision to use the weapons will not be made by the UK; we will have to be the cover for the US if it ever decides to use battlefield nuclear weapons, which it says are more usable and smaller. I say to Bill Butler that the arguments for Trident are facile, not the argument that independence is the only way of stopping it. The unionists are wedded to the idea of new systems coming on; no one should kid themselves any other way.

I support the Green party's motion, but I hope that Parliament will accept the SNP's amendment.

I move amendment S2M-3866.1, to insert at end:

"and believes that the best way to ensure that nuclear weapons are removed from Scotland is for Scotland to become an independent nation."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The remarks that Bruce Crawford made about Labour represent the difference between a party that is in permanent Opposition and a party that is in Government or which has the potential to stay in Government.

It is my earnest belief that nuclear weapons have proved to be the most successful means of peacekeeping that the world has ever known. Since nuclear weapons were used at the end of the second world war—it is questionable whether the US would ever have dared to use them if Japan had had a nuclear weapon—they have been seen as weapons of deterrence. As such, they have worked.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way on that point?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will give way to Mike Rumbles later.

After that, things moved on and we had the cold war and the Cuban missile crisis. As one who was at sea during that period, I can confirm that the build-up in military activity was evident. Many felt that war was inevitable, but the Russians backed down so it did not come about. Their only reason for backing down was that nuclear war would have been inevitable. That was totally unacceptable to them and to all sane individuals.

In the 1980s, with the talk of star wars, we saw the arms race gathering pace. Irrespective of that, the situation was found to be too expensive to maintain, even for the major nations. Without a doubt, the collapse of the Berlin wall and the reduction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to a Commonwealth of Independent States were brought about because of nuclear deterrence and because nuclear war was beyond contemplation.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

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

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As promised, I give way to Mike Rumbles.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Phil Gallie's argument seems to be that nuclear deterrence on a global scale has succeeded. Therefore, if every nation had nuclear weapons, the world would be a safer place. Is not such an argument complete bunkum?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That is not my argument at all. I agree with the non-proliferation treaty, which accepted that five nations—China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA—could continue to possess nuclear weapons. Since then, India, Pakistan and perhaps Israel have gained nuclear weapons and others—North Korea and Iran—have made moves to do so. I do not want such an expansion to take place, but I recognise the reality that the world may sometimes be able to do little to prevent other nations from taking control of nuclear weapons. In such circumstances, only a balance in any nuclear stand-off will work.

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

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not have time, as I have only four minutes.

It is interesting that Labour Party members such as Tony Blair seem to have converted totally to the Trident option. Although Tony Blair was a member of CND back in the early 1980s, responsibility changed his mind. He recognised that his commitment must be to the defence of the UK, but our wider worldwide responsibilities for defence were a major factor in the position that he took as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

I believe that we can influence the current world situation and help to prevent further expansion of nuclear weaponry. We have already seen a considerable reduction in Britain's nuclear capacity—I give credit to Jackie Baillie for making that point—and we can lead the way along those lines. However, the arguments of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s for unilateral disarmament are long since passed.

It would be a massive folly if Britain were to turn its back on the retention of a nuclear deterrent. A replacement for Trident does not mean an upgrading or increase in capacity but a standstill situation. I would approve of that.

I move amendment S2M-3866.2, to leave out from "that the United Kingdom" to end and insert:

"it essential that the United Kingdom should continue to play a full and effective role in the world and in NATO and that to do that requires the continuation of an effective defence capacity; notes that as long as other countries have nuclear weapons it is essential that Britain has the capacity to address that threat; supports the principle of replacing or updating the current Trident system with a successor generation nuclear deterrent when necessary; believes that there should be an objective of multilateral global nuclear disarmament, and further believes that, however, that objective can only safely be achieved by ensuring that no rogue dictatorships have the capacity to use nuclear weaponry unchallenged."

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is worth stating at the outset that nuclear weapons are an evil of our time. The day that dawns when the last dreadful such arsenal is dismantled will be a day of deliverance not only for humankind, but for all life on the beautiful blue globe that is our planet.

I am pleased to set out the Liberal Democrat approach to nuclear disarmament. In the 2005 UK general election, Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis. We would maintain the UK's current minimum nuclear deterrent until progress had been made towards multilateral disarmament. Indeed, the terms of my amendment are taken in part from our 2005 manifesto.

As members have said, the considerable uncertainty that surrounds the future of Trident and any possible replacement missile system is, frankly, unacceptable. Westminster must confirm a date for debating a subject that is of such overriding importance. Apparently, the Prime Minister has committed the UK Government to making a decision about the future of Trident during the current Westminster Parliament. We call on him to publish a white paper on the issue to inform the British public of the full background to any such decision.

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

I understand that the Liberals want a white paper to deal with the future of Trident, but do they support the doctrine of a pre-emptive first strike to defend Britain's national interests, which has been adopted both by the Tories and by the Labour Party?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

No, we are not in favour of pre-emptive first strikes. I very much doubt that Bruce Crawford's characterisation of the position of other parties is a true reflection of their views.

As the Trident missile system is a costly part of the UK's defence system, it is crucial that we have an informed public debate on the issue and that a decision is then taken by a vote in the House of Commons. For a fully informed debate to take place, it is vital that the Government publishes a white paper to provide details on, for example, alternative proposals and costs and an assessment of the environmental and economic impact that a replacement nuclear deterrent system would bring.

Any white paper must take into account the possible strategic security context over the next 20 to 30 years. Trident is essentially a relic of the cold war. At whom are its missiles now to be pointed? That is a key question that any white paper must address. The white paper must also consider the different options that are available and the true deterrence capability of any new defence system.

In signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a nuclear-weapon country, the UK made an historic commitment to nuclear disarmament. The UK has contributed to disarmament by cutting its nuclear stockpile by 70 per cent since the end of the cold war. As Jackie Baillie mentioned, that has happened in a number of ways, including the abolition of air-launched nuclear missiles. The Trident submarine fleet has been reduced to four submarines that are capable of carrying the D5 nuclear missile system. Of those, only one submarine is on patrol at any given time. Furthermore, the 48 warheads that are carried on board are no longer pre-targeted and several days' notice is needed for the missile to be fired.

The Green party motion alleges that

"replacement of the Trident system would constitute a material breach of Article VI of the NPT".

However, article VI commits all nuclear countries

"to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".

Indeed, I take issue with the central part of Mr Ballance's motion that there is a legal, rather than political, case against replacement. Given the UK's express commitment to nuclear disarmament and the principle of irreversibility, any replacement for Trident that increased the UK's nuclear weapons capability would be incompatible with our international obligations. The motion refers to

"legal obligations in respect of the NPT"

in the context of an increase in our nuclear capacity rather than a replacement of the current system. In our view, it is inappropriate to include such inexact wording in any motion that is agreed to by the Parliament.

It is disappointing to note the failure of the recent conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the failure of the world summit to make any further progress on nuclear disarmament. We urge the UK Government to initiate international arms reduction talks. In passing, however, I must welcome today's initiative at the UN by the UK and France that aims to restrain Iran's efforts to join the nuclear club. Together with global warming and pandemics, nuclear proliferation must be one of the most severe threats to mankind.

The Liberal Democrat view is that the UK Government has still to make a case for a replacement system for Trident. In any event, the current system and any successor must be part of multilateral nuclear disarmament talks. A replacement for Trident should have no greater strength of fire-power than the present system, but we would much prefer Trident to be phased out as a result of a successful stage-by-stage worldwide disarmament initiative.

I move amendment S2M-3866.3, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"wishes to see the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons; notes the UK Government's commitment, made in June 2005, to reach a decision on the replacement of the Trident system by the end of the current Westminster Parliament; further notes that the Secretary of State for Defence stated in June 2005 that 'no decision on any replacement for Trident has been taken, either in principle or otherwise'; calls on the UK Government to publish a White Paper on the issue in order to stimulate a full public debate; further calls on the UK Government to press for a new round of multilateral arms reduction talks, and believes that the UK's current minimum nuclear deterrent should be retained for the foreseeable future until sufficient progress has been made towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons."

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to the open debate. We have four speakers, each of whom will have four minutes.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

The issue is one of justice, environment, finance, health and communities, to name but a few. However, as yet, no minister has come to the chamber. That shows utter contempt for the subject of the debate, those who support nuclear disarmament, the Scottish Green Party and the Parliament.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The subject is reserved to Westminster.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

I have just said that the debate is about finance, environment and justice and that it matters to communities. The chamber is well attended; the Executive could have had the decency to have a minister in the chamber to listen to the debate. Scott Barrie may disagree, but the Scottish Socialist Party believes that it should have done so.

I thank the Green party for using its time today for this debate. I also thank Scottish CND, Trident Ploughshares, nukewatch Scotland, the churches, Women in Black, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Iona Community, the Scottish Centre for Nonviolence and all those who work towards peace in what is sometimes a very aggressive world. Groups, organisations and individuals that campaign, educate, lobby and take non-violent direct action have held the issue in the public domain for decades. We should thank and pay tribute to them for their work. Without that effort, the public would know nothing about the brutality of weapons of mass destruction.

However, the public do know about that and politicians should note that they have rejected nuclear weapons time and time again. The 2005 Greenpeace MORI poll found that 80 per cent of the public are against the UK using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. It is possible that the Government already knows that; perhaps that is why it pretends that some states have nuclear weapons. It makes it possible for the Government to attack as it pleases—or as Mr Bush pleases.

The hypocrisy on the part of Bush and Blair around the issue is astounding. The current accusations against Iran have again set the war ball rolling. Of course, much of the sabre rattling includes the use of the words "nuclear weapons". It is all reminiscent of the run-up to the attack on and occupation of Iraq. How can Blair, Bush and their followers tell Iran that nuclear power and nuclear bombs will not be allowed when they continue to develop deadly weapons?

We constantly hear that Iran and North Korea should not develop the bomb. I agree: all of us should step back from domination and annihilation. The warnings that are being given to North Korea and, in particular, Iran sound to me like someone saying, "If you even look like you are going to develop nuclear power, we're going to use our nuclear bombs to put you back in your place." However, not so much as a finger has been wagged at Israel, which has now built an arsenal of up to 200 weapons. Where is the outcry about that illegal act? Why has no threat been made of invasion or sanctions against Israel?

Perhaps we do not threaten countries who have the capability to fight back or that do not have oil. Perhaps the weapons that countries such as Israel have are nicely placed to attack neighbouring countries—countries that could get in the way of capitalism—or perhaps Israel's agenda suits the west. We can speculate but, at the end of the day, nuclear weapons mean that the world has become a very dangerous place. The arms race continues to grow.

Jackie Baillie said that an extension of nuclear weapons is not on the Government agenda, but it is. Indeed, on 23 February, part of a British nuclear weapon was detonated underground in the Nevada desert. The test was named Krakatau, after the volcano that killed 36,000 people, and contributed towards the new weapons programme. I see that Jackie Baillie is shaking her head in denial. Instead of doing that, she should keep her eye on the ball and work to block any moves in that direction.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I do not have time. I have only a minute.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We have a little bit of time in hand this morning.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

On you go, Jackie. I understood from Frances Curran that you had said I had only a minute, Presiding Officer.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am impressed with your time-keeping, Presiding Officer.

Does the member recognise the very real issues about employment at Faslane? What does she propose to do about them?

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

There are many issues at Faslane that the community is concerned about, because it is the main employer in the area. I planned to address that issue later in my contribution. We use the skills of workers and invest resources in the base. Why do we not diversify and use the workers and skills in other areas? It is not as if their skills do not need to be used. Also, if we decommissioned, there would be jobs for thousands of years simply in taking care of and overseeing decommissioning. No one would set up a firing squad just to give people a job. We should find something useful for the Faslane workers to do.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

One minute.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

The existence of weapons of mass destruction threatens global security. If anyone decided to attack the UK, they need only hit the Faslane naval base. If that were to happen, we would fall on our sword. The consequences would be utter hell on earth.

The Scottish Parliament could take action if it had the will to do so. Many members were members of CND; indeed, I believe that Jack McConnell was once a member. If we had the will, we could disallow the use of our roads for the transportation of materials to and from the bases. The Parliament could also support the protesters who often go to jail in an effort to protect the country and the planet. As opposed to hiding under a stone, the Executive could ensure that it spoke up and did something about what is happening in Scotland. There are reasons why a minister should be in the chamber today.

Last week, a group of cadets aged between 14 and 18 visited the Faslane naval base. The young people were taken through the stages of a mock war; they were shown how weapons work and taken through the whole scenario. If those young people had been shouting on the street, some MSPs would have had an antisocial behaviour order slapped on them and yet there they were at Faslane, learning to kill on a grand scale. Our children should not be exposed to violence in that way. That is not something to be proud of. Is it any wonder that society is becoming more violent? As part of their daily education, our children should be taught peace and justice; they should not be taken through the motions of hatred and murder.

The Executive and the Parliament should listen to the people of Scotland. We should uphold international law. We should join the many, many countries around the world that do not invest in weapons of mass destruction. We should distance ourselves from aggression and hatred. We should move towards peace, safety and unity. We can do that only through disarmament.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

As Chris Ballance made clear earlier in the debate, we are now approaching decision time on the next generation of British weapons of mass destruction. As we heard earlier, previous Labour Governments have used ministerial powers to put those decisions through on the nod. It is outrageous that that could also happen with the next generation of British nuclear weapons. The reason why it is being done in that way is to avoid proper scrutiny. As Chris Ballance pointed out, it is illegal to use or threaten to use Trident; upgrading it would break our treaty obligations.

I am not sure where Jackie Baillie gets the idea that there is a difference between saying that it is outrageous that the subject is not being debated and saying that it is outrageous that we should even contemplate using nuclear weapons. The reason why the debate is being avoided is because the use of nuclear weapons, the threat of their use or their upgrading would break our treaty obligations and international law.

Euan Robson spoke about the meaning of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is the treaty that we are asking Iran to stick to in asking it not to build up a nuclear weapons capacity. As has been said in the debate, the treaty requires us to cease the nuclear arms race. How can upgrading Trident or spending billions of pounds on upgrading our weapons of mass destruction be a ceasing of the arms race? Clearly, it is a continuation of the arms race.

For those such as Phil Gallie who continue to look at Trident through the lens of the cold war, I say that it is time for some home truths. As Bruce Crawford pointed out, the UK Government has made it perfectly clear that Trident is now a weapon of first use. Time and time again, ministers have refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear enemies.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

No. We have heard enough from you, Phil.

As Bruce Crawford said, that goes against customary international law. Phil Gallie would like those laws not to apply to us, but they do. The NPT applies to us, as does international law. It is illegal to use or to threaten to use Trident.

As for the idea that Trident is a deterrent, I pose the question: a deterrent against what? Osama bin Laden or al-Qa'ida? Perhaps it is a deterrent against bird flu. Nobody has a clue who this weapon is supposed to deter. The cold war is over. There is no USSR and no more mutually assured destruction. Like the generals of old, we are preparing ourselves to fight the last war, not the next one. We have an opportunity to move on and to place ourselves alongside the vast majority of nations in the world that have no desire or need for weapons. We should take a lead in fighting the wars of the next century, against poverty, injustice and environmental destruction.

In the meantime, we continue to transport nuclear warheads the length of the country, in great lumbering convoys that are like dinosaurs in more ways that one. From Aldermaston to Coulport, we continue to expose millions of people to appalling risks as the convoys travel up the A74, the M74, the A1, the M9 and the M80. Each convoy carries 8kg of plutonium, which is one of the most dangerous substances known to man. I ask members to imagine what would happen if there was an accident. The risks of an accident might be small but they are still far too high for Scotland's population.

Throughout Scotland, there is opposition to new generations of weapons of mass destruction and to the convoys that would transport those weapons through Scotland. If we value the rule of law and expect to lead by example, let us show that Scotland takes seriously its international obligations, the rule of law and the NPT. We need a proper debate to air such issues, which is why I urge members to support the Green motion. Scotland neither wants nor needs more weapons of mass destruction.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have heard nothing in the debate from any of the British unionist parties that convinces me that they will uphold article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Only an independent Scotland can rid Scotland and the British isles of nuclear weapons and it is imperative that we do so—[ Interruption. ] Members are laughing, but when Labour members say that nuclear weapons are a Westminster issue, I become even more convinced that only an independent Scotland can get rid of Trident.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Sandra White said that an independent Scotland could rid the British isles of nuclear weaponry. How on earth could that happen? An independent Scotland would have no influence over the rest of the British isles.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I said that an independent Scotland would rid Scotland of nuclear weapons and could help to rid the British Isles of them—[ Interruption. ] Members are demonstrating their unionist principles, which proves that the unionist British parties will stick together, regardless of the fact that 80 per cent of the Scottish population want to get rid of Trident. Members might laugh, but Trident is not just a Westminster issue; it is an issue for everyone in Scotland.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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

The fact that four Trident missiles are based just outside Glasgow at Faslane is a Scottish issue and not just a Westminster issue. We should consider the reality of Trident's capability, which is thousands of times greater than that of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, which members have mentioned. However, some members think that this is a British, unionist, Westminster issue. Nuclear weapons are an issue for humanity and a moral issue. A Trident missile can be launched silently and reach places as far away as Russia and China—and everywhere else in the world—but members say that that is a Westminster issue.

We should be honest about the fact that, as Bruce Crawford said, we have no say in where weapons of mass destruction are deployed. However, America will have a say, because when Bush tugs at the leash, Blair follows. Nuclear weapons are not just a British issue; they are an American issue. We have nuclear weapons in this country because Aldermaston relies on the Americans for nuclear technology and training and for all the parts of Trident missiles. Bruce Crawford made that point very well. We do not have an independent nuclear deterrent and other people have said so, including Labour politicians, one of whom will be turning in his grave. Harold Wilson said that our nuclear weapons are neither independent nor British and are not a deterrent. Roy Hattersley has written:

"No one seriously imagined that the British bomb ... could ever be used ... without American assistance."

It is time that we realised that Trident is here to aid America in its aim of world domination. We are being used and Scottish people are suffering.

Jackie Baillie talked about employment. The maintenance of the Trident system currently costs us £1.5 billion every year and it would cost up to £25 billion to replace Trident. What could an independent Scotland do with that kind of money?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

rose—

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will tell members what we could do with that money. We could provide an extra 5,000 intensive care beds every year for 10 years. We could pay for an extra 16,200 qualified dentists every year for 20 years. We could pay for 62,500 extra police officers every year for 20 years. The Scottish people want decent services; they do not want Trident. We should not kid ourselves about the British unionist parties; only an independent Scotland will get rid of Trident, which is what the Scottish people truly want.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I thank the Green party for securing this debate in the Scottish Parliament.

We have heard the reasons in international law why we should not replace Trident. Trident is a legacy of the cold war and I have not heard of a logical scenario in which it could or should be used as a weapon of defence or offence.

Trident and Faslane represent a genuine threat to people who live in the central belt of Scotland and beyond. The Trident system is a target for terrorist groups and no one should try to tell me that there is 100 per cent security at Faslane. A few years ago, three older pensioner ladies broke into the Faslane complex and wandered about for about six hours before they were apprehended. If lady pensioners can do that, the mind boggles at the thought of what terrorists could do if they broke into the complex and at the danger that people face in the central belt of Scotland and beyond. Accidents happen. According to Sod's law, if something can happen, it will.

If the funds for Trident's replacement were thrown at nuclear waste disposal, nuclear power stations could be built and waste could safely be contained. We would also be able to get rid of Trident, because the biggest problem is that no one knows what to do with the waste, which is not disposable. We should throw the money at waste disposal, build safer nuclear power stations and get rid of Trident, which might please some CND members.

Phil Gallie's description of the early days of the cold war and the stand-off strength of nuclear weapons is probably right, but he was talking about the situation nearly 50 years ago and it is time to move on. We should make Trident, not nurses, redundant.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Members will have four minutes for winding-up speeches, with the exception of John Home Robertson, who will have five minutes, and Patrick Harvie, who will have seven minutes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis. Although the replacement of the Trident missile system is a reserved issue, it is absolutely right that the Scottish Parliament should debate the matter. However, I wish that we could have had a real debate, because the few minutes that we have been given make a mockery of debate. Today's debate seems to have been designed to generate publicity for the Green party rather than as a genuine attempt properly to debate a hugely moral issue.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Let me get started.

I could not agree more with the Catholic Bishops Conference of Scotland, which said in a statement on Trident on 11 April:

"The Church teaches that it is immoral to use weapons of mass destruction in an act of war: 'Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.'"

A war that was engaged in such a way could never be described as a just war. I believe in the concept of a just war, or I would never have spent 15 years of my adult life in the Army. My war role was as a nuclear, biological and chemical warfare warning and reporting officer in the British Army of the Rhine. I trained to help to fight a conventional war on the north German plain, in which we always assumed a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Thank God, the nuclear threat from the old Soviet Union has gone, but Trident and other strategic nuclear weapons remain.

I was particularly taken with the address that Cardinal Keith O'Brien gave on Easter Sunday, when he urged Scots:

"Enter this debate and demand that these weapons of mass destruction be replaced, but not with more weapons. Rather, replace Trident ... with projects that bring life to the poor."

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Like Mike Rumbles, I was moved by some of the comments from our faith communities. However, does the member agree with comments from his Liberal colleague Alan Reid, MP for Argyll and Bute, who says that a replacement for Trident is vital?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No, I do not. On moral grounds alone, we should not spend billions of pounds on a replacement for Trident. On military grounds, the money would be a complete waste. Can any sane person believe that there are any circumstances at all in which a UK Prime Minister would order the release of our strategic nuclear deterrent to rain mass destruction on innocent lives on a global scale? No; the theory of mutually assured destruction is indeed mad. However, I am not a CND supporter, because I draw a distinction between strategic nuclear weapons of mass destruction such as Trident, the use of which would be completely indefensible, and other tactical low-yield weapons that are designed for defensive use on battlefields.

Given that we would never use the Trident missile system, why are we even contemplating replacing it? The reason can only be politics. It would be unfortunate if the UK Government felt that, to be a world player, we need to be in the strategic nuclear club, but I cannot think of any other reason—certainly not a military one—why the Government would even contemplate meeting the huge cost of replacing Trident.

Of all the amendments before us, members should support the Liberal Democrat one. As Euan Robson said in moving it, nuclear weapons are an evil of our time. The Green motion, rather than point to the important political or moral case, argues that a legal case can be made against replacing Trident. The Liberal Democrats do not support the Greens on that. The use of Trident is not a practical, political or moral option in any circumstances and any Prime Minister who authorised its use would indeed be mad. I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I make it absolutely clear that, despite Bruce Crawford's comment about pre-emptive strikes, we are totally and absolutely opposed to pre-emptive strikes in all circumstances—our policy has been based consistently on the use of deterrents. We believe that the United Kingdom should continue to play a full and effective role in NATO, which requires the continuation of an effective defensive capacity. For as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, it will be vital that NATO has the capacity to address that threat. Therefore, we endorse the principle that we should prepare to replace the Trident system with a successor generation of nuclear deterrent.

Of course, we support multilateral disarmament. We supported the test ban and non-proliferation treaties and other measures to that end. However, as Churchill stated, the problem is that

"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

I say to Mike Rumbles that those who claim that conventional weapons are sufficient defence against a threat from a nuclear power risk wishful thinking.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

rose—

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will take a quick intervention from Mike Rumbles, and then I must get on.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Lord James say in what circumstances he would authorise the use of a strategic nuclear weapon if he were Prime Minister?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Happily, I will never be Prime Minister, but I can tell Mike Rumbles straight away that, for a deterrent to be credible, the potential aggressor must believe that it is capable of being used.

The 2003 defence white paper stated:

"the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of ... countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability ... represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element".

Churchill summed up the matter when he said:

"Once you take the position of not being able in any circumstances to defend your rights against aggression, there is no end to the demands that will be made nor to the humiliations that must be accepted."

What should our policy be? Phil Gallie referred to the Cuban missile crisis, when the world came closer to nuclear war than at any other time. President John F Kennedy hit the nail on the head when he said:

"we prefer world law in the age of self-determination, to world war in the age of mass extermination"

and that

"if a beachhead of co-operation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."

It follows that, in all possible circumstances, we should avoid wars, through the involvement of the United Nations, which Kennedy called

"the protector of the small and the weak and a safety valve for the strong".

However, I challenge those who wish to give up our nuclear weapons unilaterally with an unanswerable question: who would follow our example?

I will end with a comment by Dean Inge, who told his congregation that it is no use for sheep to pass resolutions about vegetarianism when there are wolves about that like mutton. He was right because, for evil to succeed, it is necessary only for the good man to do nothing. I submit that the renewal of Trident is extremely regrettable but essential.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As usual, the debate hinges on the belief among the British parties that, somehow, the greater the debate, the more likely we are to have a decision at Westminster. In this case, we are talking about a decision that would lead to the reduction and removal of nuclear weapons. However, the evidence of the past 30 or 40 years shows that Britain has no intention of removing nuclear weapons with the current state of the world. However, the state of the world as analysed in London is different from the state of the world as seen by people in other places. Britain's role as a world power with vital interests increases the threat for those of us who live in this country, in England and Wales and in many other countries, because it increases the danger that nuclear weapons will be used at some point.

The threat of the illegal use of nuclear weapons is against the UN charter. We cannot allow the rules of that most important of international bodies to be flouted. Someone must take the initiative and start to follow the rules. It would be much more honourable for members of the Parliament to support the view of the churches, particularly the Church of Scotland, which has stated frequently that nuclear weapons are immoral. Many members agree that they are immoral but then call on Her Majesty's Government to replace the Trident missile system with a new generation of weapons of mass destruction. Why cannot the members who represent the British parties grasp that initiative and accept the potential?

Jackie Baillie talked about having the fullest possible debate. It is important that we ask the Labour Party why the Prime Minister and his Cabinet refuse to have that debate at Westminster. The reason is that they are not prepared to have a public discussion on an issue on which they know that they do not command the support of the majority of people in the British isles. As Mark Ballard said, that is typical of the way in which Labour makes decisions. We are told, "Leave it with me, son—we know best." That attitude is at the root of the decision at Westminster. I hope that the members of the Labour Party in Scotland will start to distance themselves from that approach to politics.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Rob Gibson claims that the people of the British isles, including those in Scotland, are against replacing Trident. If so, why do the majority of them support the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, which advocate the replacement of Trident?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The reason is that we do not have an electoral system that allows a balance of views and which can, therefore, show exactly how people feel. The situation that Phil Gallie describes is what we get with the first-past-the-post system for Westminster.

Malcolm Rifkind has said that Trident is used to support Britain's vital interests, which increases the need to upgrade the system. Geoff Hoon has said that Britain is prepared to use nuclear weapons to protect Britain's vital interests. However, the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to act and to be a catalyst for change.

The SNP amendment is about a simple matter: if we in Scotland decide to be independent, the difficulty of maintaining a nuclear deterrent here will act as a catalyst for the UK to rethink its position.

The SNP amendment makes it clear that one of the ways to break the deadlock of all this debate that never gets anywhere is for Scotland to be independent and for the issue to be faced. There has been plenty of learned debate on the subject, but can any member tell me of any other catalyst that will make the British parties see sense and change their minds? The Green motion, with the SNP amendment, is the route to progress and to a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons for ever.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Rob Gibson and his colleagues in the SNP have been expressing their undying opposition to nuclear weapons. I seem to recall that, not long ago, nationalists joined some of the rest of us in protesting vehemently against Malcolm Rifkind when he took the Trident refitting contract away from Rosyth to Devonport. If members are opposed to having the submarines, there is a whiff of hypocrisy about their wanting the jobs that are associated with refitting them.

There is a colossal distinction between civil nuclear power, which generates electricity to sustain life and civilisation, and nuclear weapons, which are designed to obliterate entire cities. Nuclear missiles supposedly are retained to ensure that they are never used. We heard that argument from James Douglas-Hamilton. I confess that I have never been entirely comfortable with the logic of nuclear deterrence.

As I will not be able to take part in the next debate, which is on the storage of nuclear waste, I will refer to an obvious link between the two debates. I will be happy when the time comes to decommission Britain's four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. However, I do not want to add to the fleet of nuclear hulks that are already tied up at Rosyth and Devonport. Redundant submarine reactors should not be corroding in the water of the Firth of Forth; they should be in safe, permanent storage on dry land.

I must challenge the Greens and their nationalist fellow travellers on their absurd position on the storage of nuclear waste. We have inherited a legacy of difficult and dangerous material, whether we like it or not. The independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has just concluded that it can and should be put into safe, permanent geological storage, but the political zealots in the Green and nationalist parties do not want that solution to be achieved.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I look forward to John Home Robertson's interventions in the next debate, even if he is unable to make a speech, but does he intend to address the motion for this debate?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I was just moving on to that. The Greens' top priority is to obstruct civil nuclear power stations, regardless of the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Their logic would leave the nuclear hulks that I mentioned to rust in the water at Rosyth docks indefinitely. That is an abdication of responsibility to future generations.

I am a veteran of House of Commons Defence Select Committee annual reviews of the Trident programme back in the 1990s. We reported on how the programme suffered delays and cost increases that make the Holyrood building seem like a bargain—although our wonderful British media did not seem to care about military overspending. Such is life—it's aye been like that.

I was opposed to Margaret Thatcher's Trident programme because I was not convinced by the logic of mutually assured destruction when the Soviet Union was collapsing. I came to that issue from the left, but I recommend the devastating critique of the theory of nuclear deterrence that was made by none other than Enoch Powell on 7 June 1987. I did not think that Trident made sense at the end of the cold war, and I cannot for the life of me see how al-Qa'ida can be deterred by ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads now.

As Jackie Baillie and others have said, these issues will be addressed by our colleagues at Westminster when the four Vanguard SSBNs—ship submersible ballistic nuclear submarines—reach the end of their lifespan. The decision will not be made here, and it will not be made anytime soon. We will all have our say in the public debate in due course. Today, I suggest that the Green motion should be amended so that we can make sense of what is really just an opportunistic stunt.

If we in this Parliament want to be taken seriously, we should not pass silly motions.

We might begin to take the Scottish Green Party seriously on these issues when its members agree about the need for safe, permanent storage of nuclear waste. Of course, protest groups do not really want solutions; they thrive on frustration. I am not interested in frustration. I want to help achieve real solutions to these big problems for our nation and for the wider world. That is the big difference between the Labour Party and some of the other groups that are represented in the Parliament. I strongly urge the Parliament to support Jackie Baillie's amendment.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thank members for their contributions to the debate, which I have found stimulating. I admit that my mood shifted markedly when I listened to John Home Robertson, who decided to attack the Greens for even bringing the debate to the chamber, despite many members saying that they welcome an open, full debate on replacing Trident.

I recognise that there are people in all parties, not just mine, who agree with us about the replacement and retention of Trident, and who have worked on the issues for many years. I refer not only to members of those parties that will support the motion or the amendment against replacement, but to people in the Tory party who reject replacement. This matter is not cut and dried down party lines; there is debate in all parties.

The previous time the Parliament debated the matter, in January 2002, the focus was on the retention of Trident. This time, we have lodged a motion specifically on the legal issues around replacement. I say to Mr Rumbles that that is not a rejection of the moral or political case; it is simply a different take on the issue.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

No, thank you. I want to talk about Jackie Baillie's amendment, which seems to provide the only serious criticism of our motion. It raises serious issues, which is why we are having an open and full debate. Having such a debate does not mean having no position and simply asking everybody else what they think; it means saying what we think. That is why Mark Ballard's and Chris Ballance's recent motions are entirely compatible.

On jobs, I do not pretend that there are simple answers, any more than I would pretend to farmers in Afghanistan that there were simple answers about how they might make a living if, as we want, poppy production for heroin ceased. The principle is the same. I am not prepared to accept that jobs alone justify an immoral act—in this case, the retention of nuclear weapons.

I support the Enterprise and Culture Committee's holding an inquiry into how areas such as Jackie Baillie's constituency can diversify their economies. I ask her whether any Labour members on that committee have proposed such an inquiry to consider the issues in the detail that they merit. Jackie Baillie said that the Labour Party is unequivocally committed to the non-proliferation treaty. In the previous debate, in January 2002, she spoke about "action, not rhetoric". Today, we have an opportunity to say no to replacement and yes to the non-proliferation protocol. When we come to decision time, we will have the option to make action, not rhetoric, the priority.

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

Will the member comment on the part of the Labour amendment that

"notes the significant reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons arsenal"?

Does he accept that there was a reduction but that, although particular weapons were removed, Trident ended up being a lot stronger, more powerful and much more penetrative than previous nuclear systems?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Certainly, and any attempt to replace it would, by definition, given technological progress, also upgrade at least some systems.

Bruce Crawford has been attacked over what some members have called a facile amendment. Not only did he focus on the legal issues that we have raised, but he defended his amendment. Scottish independence is not the only conceivable way to achieve disarmament, but independence would make it far more likely. The UK could choose to get rid of or not replace Trident but, given the climate in UK politics, I do not think it will. If Scotland as an independent country were to get rid of Trident, I would have a double celebration.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

No, thank you. I wish to turn to Phil Gallie's points. He said that nuclear weapons have worked and have been successful in keeping the peace. There may not have been the massive conflagration that many people feared, but there has not been a day of world peace in the entire history of nuclear weapons. A fictional Labour Prime Minister said that he wanted to dismantle the absurd and obscene idea that our freedom must depend on the fear of annihilation. It would be blissful if we had a real Prime Minister who spoke with such passion.

Phil Gallie argued that this country should lead the way in working towards disarmament, but do our current defence and foreign policies mean that we do so? Of course they do not. Members should consider the proliferation incentives that have been created for India, Israel, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea and compare the number of proposals for sanctions against or invasion of Iran with those that have been made with respect to North Korea. We know that North Korea already has nuclear weapons, which is why no one proposes to invade it to dismantle its capabilities.

Euan Robson said that members should support the Liberal Democrats' amendment. I would welcome a white paper from the United Kingdom Government, which would be a useful contribution to the debate, but while white papers often precede new legislation on which members of Parliament are permitted to vote—sometimes even according to their consciences—that would not happen in this case. The UK Government has said that MPs will not yet be allowed to vote on the matter. That is why I cannot support the Liberal Democrats' amendment. Mike Rumbles spoke in support of it and talked about how much he disagrees with replacing Trident, but the amendment calls for retention of our nuclear capability for the foreseeable future, which I cannot support.

Rosie Kane mentioned the Executive's non-attendance at the debate. I am happy to give ministers their lie-in, which I hope they enjoy. However, I will ensure that they are represented in at least one way by quoting what Cathy Jamieson said as a candidate for election to the Parliament in 1999 rather than as a member or a minister:

"For me, and many others in the Parliament, the continued production of nuclear weapons and the potential dangers, is a moral issue. A challenge for the Parliament, and the political Parties would be to have a genuinely open consultation with the people of Scotland on the question of Trident, and allow MSPs to vote according to their conscience."

I agree with one thing that Mike Rumbles said: this is a moral issue. I get bored and sick and tired of people who say that moral issues in politics are about finger wagging and who people go to bed with. That is narrow-minded nonsense. There are great moral issues of our age, for example the degradation of our environment, the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in our communities and the treatment of prisoners. Retaining or replacing Trident is one of the great moral issues. It is disappointing that all three parties that dominate Westminster politics are committed to retaining nuclear arsenals. As a result, none of the many voters in Scotland who reject nuclear weapons has a real choice. Westminster, as Martin Luther King once said of the western world, has guided missiles and misguided men.

Nuclear Power

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4329, in the name of Shiona Baird, on a pledge against new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The Executive has stated:

"We will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 August 2004; S2W-9846.]

In the face of the pro-nuclear signals coming from the Prime Minister, that might look like some sort of barrier to nuclear power from Jack McConnell's Executive. However, in reality, the word "unresolved" is, unfortunately, a deliberately ambiguous smokescreen that is designed to give Executive members of all persuasions something to hide behind. People who are opposed to nuclear power can say that the issue of waste management will never be resolved and that new nuclear power stations will therefore never be permitted, while the pro-nuclear side can say that all they are waiting for is the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to recommend how best to deal with nuclear waste before the go-ahead is given for new nuclear energy.

I specifically asked Mr McConnell at First Minister's question time to clarify what the word "resolved" means, but he ducked the issue, which he clearly finds difficult. If he came out as anti-nuclear, pro-nuclear members of his party—including the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—the nuclear workers union and industry lobbyists would be on his back. If he declared support for nuclear energy, he would risk alienating the majority of the Scottish voting public, who are against nuclear power and favour renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does Shiona Baird accept that the National Union of Mineworkers, among other trade unions, supports a balanced energy policy that includes investment in nuclear energy, clean coal and renewable energy?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I will address that later in my speech. There are serious issues around having a balanced policy.

Political fudge is by no means a new tactic, of course, but exposing the fudge that I am talking about is important, because it is crucial that in the approach to a Scottish Parliament election—which is less than a year away—the intentions of all political parities, if they are to have a role in Government, are made clear to the Scottish public. It is unacceptable for Executive parties to be deliberately ambiguous to curry favour with the electorate ahead of an election, only to reveal their true colours after it.

Last week, CORWM published its interim report. For the third time, deep geological disposal appears to be the least bad option of Government advisers. It is like a recurring dream from 30 years ago. It is hardly a new solution.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

No, I want to continue.

Crucially, CORWM stated:

"the process of implementation will take several decades. This period could last for as long as one or two generations".

Management issues are therefore not quite resolved. CORWM recommends more

"research and development aimed at reducing uncertainties ... in the long-term safety of geological disposal".

That is hardly conclusive. On the basis of the interim report—the final report in July is unlikely to be much different—there is no way in which anyone can claim that the issue of nuclear waste management is anywhere near being resolved.

I ask John Home Robertson to listen to what I am about to say: the Greens repeat our call for existing radioactive waste to be managed in monitorable and retrievable stores that are secure against attack and near to the point of their generation in order to avoid the hazards of unnecessary transportation. We also repeat our call that no further nuclear waste should be deliberately created.

Nuclear waste management is only one issue. Of course we will need to find a way to protect people and the environment from existing nuclear waste as best we can, but reaching a decision about how to manage the existing nuclear waste legacy cannot be used as justification for building more nuclear power stations. CORWM is clear about that. It states in its report:

"CoRWM takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build ... The public assessment process that should apply to any future new build proposals ... will need to consider a range of issues including the social, political and ethical issues of a deliberate decision to create new nuclear wastes."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The health service is a major generator of nuclear waste. Is the member suggesting that there should be a freeze for the health service if we follow her demand for no more nuclear waste?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

That is a totally different subject. Phil Gallie is undermining the seriousness of what we are discussing.

Today, the Greens are asking all parties, no matter their stance on nuclear waste management, to pledge that there will be no new nuclear build in Scotland. The justification for ruling out nuclear power is available right now. The Government's sustainable development advisers have ruled out nuclear power in favour of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Westminster's Environmental Audit Committee has stated that nuclear power has no place in meeting future energy needs. The Executive's research into the potential of renewable energy in Scotland shows that it far and away outstrips the minimal contribution to energy needs that nuclear power could make. Independent experts have shown that there is plenty of time to bring in renewable energy and greater energy efficiency.

A majority of parties in the chamber and of MSPs are against new nuclear power. Even the Tories—at least in some parts of the United Kingdom—are beginning to question nuclear, based on the facts. Sadly, although he is outspoken in his opposition to nuclear power, Nicol Stephen has refused to say whether it would be a non-negotiable issue for the Lib Dems in any future coalition. The motion and the debate seek to clarify for the Scottish public what the political parties that are represented in the chamber would do if next year they were given the responsibility of government. Let us remove the smokescreen of waste management, recognise all the reasons that should make new nuclear build an impossibility and pledge to make no deals with any party that would bring in new nuclear power. I call on all parties to support the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the interim report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) which states "CoRWM takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build. We believe that future decisions on new build should be subject to their own assessment process"; further notes that government advisors on sustainable development have reported that there are issues other than waste management that should rule out new nuclear power, including risk of accident, terrorist threat, security of supply, economic cost and the availability of safe, clean and economic renewable energy and energy efficiency measures; recognises the opposition to nuclear new build in Scotland by the Green, SNP, SSP and Liberal Democrat parties; notes in particular that Nicol Stephen MSP recently stated "The Liberal Democrats have a tough, clear and consistent position across the UK ... We oppose new nuclear power ... the Liberal Democrats remain determined to oppose this year, next year and every year", and calls on all political parties opposed to new nuclear power stations in Scotland to pledge that they will not be part of, or support, a Scottish Executive that allows new nuclear power stations to be built, even if the issue of nuclear waste management may be considered to have been resolved.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome the opportunity for Parliament to debate the important issue of how Scotland should deal with its radioactive waste. Our amendment is not about whether we should or should not have nuclear power as part of our energy mix. Clearly, that is a matter for another day. The Parliament and Scotland need to address how we deal with the legacy from historic practices that we have in our country. That legacy cannot be left—we must manage it now and in the long term.

We should remember that we are talking not just about highly active and long-lived waste; we must also deal with large volumes of short-lived, low-level waste, much of which will be generated by decommissioning and cleaning up our existing sites. Radioactive waste is a devolved responsibility. The Scottish ministers decide how we should deal with our waste, and we have done so. We should be clear that we have the power to act and to take decisions on how we in Scotland deal with our waste.

I turn now to the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which we set up jointly in 2003 with the UK Government and the devolved Administrations of Wales and Northern Ireland. CORWM has been engaged in a lengthy process to identify options for the long-term management of higher-activity waste and has consulted widely on those options with the public and stakeholders.

CORWM is now nearing the final phase of its work. Last week, it made a statement on the recommendations that it proposes to put to the Scottish ministers and ministers elsewhere in the UK at the end of July. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on specifics until I receive CORWM's final recommendations. To reach this stage, CORWM has taken advice from, consulted and tested out its propositions on a wide range of people—members of the general public as well as experts.

Although this is very much an environmental issue—one of the biggest challenges that we face—we must not forget that there are also opportunities.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I ask the minister a simple question: when will she consider the waste issue to have been resolved?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Scottish ministers will make their own decisions, and I am not able to give the member a timetable for that. We must await the recommendations of CORWM. However, we will deal with the matter expeditiously.

I mentioned the potential opportunities that will follow from the CORWM recommendations. There will be opportunities for companies and communities in Scotland, such as Dounreay, to develop skills, technical solutions and practices to deal with radioactive waste. Such skills and solutions are sought not only here in Scotland and across the UK, but more widely. Many countries have radioactive waste and are seeking better ways of dealing with it and people of high calibre to manage it. The Executive has been and is committed to finding management options for the higher-activity radioactive waste that we have in Scotland. Through CORWM, we at last have proposals for dealing with that waste. We should be up for seizing the opportunity, and we should not repeat past failures to find solutions.

I move amendment S2M-4329.3, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"appreciates the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; welcomes the position statement on its draft recommendations published by the committee on 27 April 2006; agrees that the review of options for the long-term management of radioactive waste, currently being undertaken by the committee, is the correct means of engaging Scotland on the crucial issue of finding a long-term management option for higher activity radioactive waste, and notes the Executive's position, as outlined in the Partnership Agreement, that it will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

It is an enormous pleasure and privilege for me to make my first contribution to the Parliament's proceedings as the member for the beautiful constituency of Moray. I have the hardest of acts to follow, given that my predecessor Margaret Ewing served the people of Moray and Scotland so effectively both in the Westminster Parliament and in this Parliament for nearly 20 years. During the past few weeks, I have been struck by the fact that every person to whom I have spoken in Moray has taken a few moments to pay a personal tribute to Margaret, irrespective of whether they agreed with her cause. That alone speaks volumes about the high regard in which she was held by her constituents the length and breadth of Moray.

I know that Margaret Ewing would have taken a keen interest in this morning's debates, as she passionately supported an independent, nuclear-free Scotland and over the years pursued on behalf of her constituents many energy-related issues at Westminster and in this Parliament. In particular, her track record in campaigning for fuel poverty to be eliminated in our energy-rich nation was second to none. Like all SNP members, Margaret wanted Scotland's billions to be spent not on new nuclear power stations, but on cleaner forms of energy and on tackling the fuel poverty that blights our nation. One of my roles is to continue her good work.

My task as the new MSP for Moray is straightforward—it is to help build a better life, in a better country, for the people of Moray. The SNP firmly believes that a nuclear-free Scotland will be a better country. We will join forces with others in the chamber who support a nuclear-free Scotland. In the previous debate, we argued against the new generation of weapons of mass destruction. In this debate, we are arguing against the false case for building a new generation of nuclear power stations on Scottish soil.

Importantly, we also pledge as a party to stop Scotland being turned into the UK Government's nuclear dustbin. Moray, like the rest of Scotland, has a pristine and renowned environment. It would be a public relations disaster for Scotland's clean image and for our tourism sector, among others, if the UK Government were allowed to turn our nation into a nuclear dustbin. We have responsibility to deal with nuclear waste that is generated in Scotland, but we can rest assured that the people of Moray and the rest of Scotland will resist any attempt to import nuclear waste to Scotland and to turn any part of our beautiful country into a nuclear dustbin.

We are aware that five of the 12 sites that Nirex has identified as potential dumping grounds are in Scotland, so we all know that the UK establishment has earmarked several sites in Scotland as potential locations for waste dumps. Any attempt to take forward those plans will be resisted by the people of Scotland. One thing is certain—public resistance in Scotland rules out any possibility of Scotland playing host to new nuclear dumping grounds. If the UK Government thinks that the waste is very safe, perhaps it should propose to dig a big hole in London and bury it there. We all recognise that that will not happen and that the Government's eyes are facing north.

I am intrigued by CORWM's recommendations, because they shed little light on the debate on the management of nuclear waste. The same problems that existed several decades ago exist today in Scotland at the beginning of the 21st century. The fact is simple: there is no safe, long-term storage solution for nuclear waste. The best way of dealing with it is to stop producing the stuff in the first place. That means refusing to allow any nuclear power stations to be built in Scotland.

The debate about nuclear has been well aired in recent years in Scotland, and it is now time for the Labour-Lib Dem Administration to come off the fence. It must give us today a concrete statement of when it believes the problems of future nuclear waste will be resolved. The SNP believes that it is time for MSPs from all parties to stand shoulder to shoulder with the public in Scotland and reject once and for all the case for new nuclear power stations. Let us invest instead in Scotland's potential for clean energy, which is safer, cheaper and cleaner, can protect our environment and can create thousands of new jobs at the same time. The clock is ticking; we have to start taking decisions now. We can do that today by supporting the SNP amendment and the motion.

I move amendment S2M-4329.2, to insert at end:

"and therefore agrees that no nuclear power stations should be built in Scotland."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I congratulate Richard Lochhead on what was technically a maiden speech, although it seems as though he has never been away. I associate myself with the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Margaret Ewing, whom I held in great respect.

When dealing with the subject before us, the Conservatives have always made it clear that we believe in a balanced energy policy—a broad range of energy sources including those for the generation of electricity. In the limited time available to me today, I cannot go into depth about things such as clean coal, gas, biomass, wind, hydro, microgeneration and energy efficiency, all of which have a major role to play in anything that we do in the future.

The key point that we must keep in mind when we decide how our energy is to be provided is how we achieve genuine economic sustainability and continued growth in the Scottish economy. For that reason, the Conservatives will always have a broad mind about how we might provide energy to support the economy and ensure that we do not drive ourselves into a position where growth cannot be sustained simply because of decisions that have been made for political, rather than practical, reasons.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Does the member accept that if we go down the new nuclear route it is likely that foreign technology and jobs will be created, whereas if we go down the renewable energy route there is at least a possibility of a new renewable energy set of opportunities?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That might have been the case if we had been prepared to grasp the nettle rather earlier and had not lost our technological advantage.

In addition to the need for sustainable economic growth and affordable energy to support it are concerns about fuel poverty, which have been raised widely in the chamber in other debates. If we cannot provide affordable energy to the poorest in our society, fuel poverty will increase greatly.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, thank you. Not at the moment.

For the reasons I have just given, we need to address how we will supply energy and affordable domestic and industrial electricity in the future.

We have to consider a broad range of technologies, and nuclear should be considered as part of that broad range. For that to be done effectively, we need to make decisions now. I agree with the way in which Richard Lochhead concluded his speech. He said that we need to have a debate about whether we are to replace nuclear capacity in Scotland. It is time that the Executive—as individual parties or together—addressed that question. It is ironic that every debate on the subject so far in the Scottish Parliament has been introduced by Opposition parties, whatever their motivation.

Although nuclear waste has become the centre of the debate, it is something of a red herring. Our nuclear waste problem is largely historical, caused by the early civil nuclear industry and the military demands of nuclear decommissioning, including the decommissioning of nuclear weapons for which many in this chamber have argued, although that also creates a lot of waste. As we heard from Phil Gallie, we are creating nuclear waste in the national health service. The problem is on-going and must be addressed in whichever way we decide. A new generation of nuclear power stations would have the capacity to produce cleaner, safer and more efficient electricity than the generation it would replace.

Liberals are leading Labour by the nose on this subject in the Scottish Parliament. Labour has deliberately misinterpreted the motion today and dealt with only one part of it—the waste issue. We need to have a debate. We need to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the replacement of nuclear capacity in Scotland.

I move amendment S2M-4329.1, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"believes that Scotland needs a balanced energy policy to meet the energy needs of the nation, including a mixture of generation from a range of technologies, including coal, oil, gas, renewables and nuclear; further believes that our energy policy must support sustainable economic growth while simultaneously fighting against fuel poverty, and believes that the decisions on the future make-up of our energy provision, which should include a nuclear component, need to be made now."

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The Greens' motion does not call on the Scottish Labour Party or the Scottish Conservatives to do anything, so I suspect that some of the intention behind it is to discomfit our Liberal Democrat coalition partners. I am sure that they will deal with those arguments when their time comes.

My position is well known. I was pleased to support the motion—Christine May referred to it in an intervention—which was proposed by Amicus and supported by the National Union of Mineworkers, that was passed at this year's Scottish Labour Party conference. It recognised that the long-term future security of energy supply is crucial to the UK's industrial and domestic economy, and it called for a balanced energy policy that should include replacement nuclear new build and clean coal technologies to meet the nation's needs.

It should be recognised that we also passed a motion at the conference that called for increased Government support for renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures. Like those at the Scottish Labour Party conference and the Scottish Trades Union Congress later on, I and many of my Labour Party colleagues are in favour of a mixture of measures to ensure a secure supply of energy generated in the UK—we are unionist parties and I am not ashamed of being a unionist, so I am talking about an energy policy for the union—to meet the country's needs for the foreseeable future.

Nuclear fission technologies, which are making progress at long last, will play a part in the next generation of base-load capacity. They will be part of the mix with other technologies, such as a wider variety of renewables technologies, which will be developed further in the hope that, in 50 years' time, we will no longer need to use nuclear fission technologies.

We need to have ambitious targets for renewables generation to ensure that the momentum in developing renewables technologies of all sizes—micro and large—is sustained.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the member deplore, as I do, the fact that so many people who stand against the nuclear industry constantly remind us of the threat to safety? Does she agree that the safety record of the nuclear industry in the UK is exemplary?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Indeed. Experiences such as that at Chernobyl, which was horrendous, have no bearing on the argument in favour of nuclear power stations today. I was going to say later in my speech that the Sustainable Development Commission recognises that the UK nuclear power industry has the best safety record.

I do not believe that nuclear power is the total solution; we need to have separate targets for the generation of power from non and low-carbon-producing technologies. Nuclear should not be included in renewables targets because it is not a renewable technology.

I must address the rest of the motion, which says

"CoRWM takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build."

CORWM was not asked to do that. It is an independent body of experts that took three years to look at the burial of waste. What it has proposed is in line with what happens in other countries. It is all very well to try to make out that it is rehashing old solutions or to talk about nuclear dumping grounds, but there is no reference to nuclear dumping grounds in the CORWM report—and referring to the old list of possible Nirex sites is just a red herring.

The Sustainable Development Commission did not say that nuclear should be ruled out; it recognised the UK nuclear safety record and said that, on balance, nuclear power is not the option at the moment but that it could be revisited through technology exchange. Some of the arguments that are being put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby are red herrings and scaremongering stories that are not relevant to the scientific arguments.

There is a sentence in the partnership agreement that papers over, I suppose, the differences between two parties that have different policies. Indeed, people in the same parties have different views. I do not think that such differences are a deal breaker at the moment.

Somebody has to want to build a new nuclear power station. The Scottish Executive will become involved when a company proposes a plan for a new nuclear power station. I do not think that that will happen before May 2007. I do not think that any future coalition agreement between any parties will contain such a statement. In any case, this whole issue, which is simply a political point aimed predominantly at our Liberal Democrat coalition partners in the run-up to the May 2007 elections, is not relevant to the much more serious scientific debate that we must have on nuclear power.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It is a pleasure both to take part in this debate and to follow what might be described as the retread speech of my colleague, Richard Lochhead. I warmly welcome him back to the Parliament and congratulate him on a very fine election victory in Moray. Given Margaret Ewing's outstanding work in representing that constituency, he has a very hard act to follow; however, from my experience of his election campaign, I believe that he is more than able to carry out that task.

In his intervention on Elaine Murray, Phil Gallie referred to the exemplary record of this country's nuclear sector. He should, perhaps, reflect that, as a result of that exemplary record, Windscale nuclear power station had to change its name to Sellafield because of its atrocious reputation for committing environmental damage. Indeed, if Mr Gallie spoke to the Government of the Republic of Ireland, he would find it deeply bitter about the safety record of Windscale, Sellafield or whatever it is called and the damage and pollution that it has caused in the Irish sea and on Ireland's east coast. Of course, if either the United Kingdom Government or the Scottish Executive was more concerned about such environmental issues, more might have been said on the subject.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member accept that he might be confusing experimental and reprocessing plants such as Windscale with civil nuclear generating plants?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

My example simply proves that the nuclear industry has a pretty awful record and that we should not go back to generating nuclear power.

I agree with Mr Johnstone that we need to make progress on this issue, because we cannot put off for ever the debate on nuclear issues and on finding ways of dealing with our energy requirements. My most trenchant criticism of this Government is that although this serious issue affects our economy and communities, it has been handled very loosely. The Government is drifting along and is simply not making any big bold decisions on energy policy. For example, it could pursue a balanced renewable energy strategy that developed a number of opportunities, including carbon capture, biomass and wave and tidal power, but it is not doing so on any of those fronts. As I have said, it is drifting.

Along with Mr Ruskell of the Scottish Green Party, I have been trying to get biomass heating systems into public-private partnership schools projects. I have also bored the Parliament senseless pressing this Government to join up its departmental thinking on the matter. The whole process has been far too slow, and I just wish the Government would take the issue to the heart of its policy making and make progress on it. I believe that a balanced renewables strategy could counter any decision that might be made on nuclear power, but the Government needs to make progress immediately.

I fear, however, that the Government is deliberately pursuing a one-legged strategy of dependence on on-shore wind farms, which are unpopular in many parts of the country, to undermine confidence in any renewables strategy. Such an approach would be very cynical—

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

indicated disagreement.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister shakes her head. I know that she is not a cynical person, and I appeal to her to make progress on this issue to guarantee that we do not undermine any opportunities to pursue a balanced renewables strategy. I also urge her to take bold decisions on, for example, energy efficiency, to ensure that we reduce our overall energy requirements rather than waste energy to the extent that we do, presided over by the Government.

It would be environmental and economic folly to develop the nuclear sector in Scotland. Instead, we must develop a balanced renewables strategy; protect our natural environment; and deliver energy and safety for the generations to come without ruining the precious country of which we are the custodians.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Another debate, another opportunity to make crystal clear Liberal Democrat opposition to new nuclear power stations.

In their motion, the Greens have—oddly, but very generously—publicised Scottish Liberal Democrat policy on this issue, as spelled out at our spring conference by our Scottish leader, Nicol Stephen. However, a debate on CORWM's recently published interim report on nuclear waste disposal, rather than this peculiar, playground-politics motion that seeks to dictate to other parties what should be in their manifestos for the next election—and it compounds that presumptuous approach by pre-empting the electorate's response to those manifestos—would have been a more constructive use of parliamentary time.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On the basis of CORWM's interim report, does the member believe that the waste issue has been resolved?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Anyone who reads the report will see that that is clearly not the case.

CORWM has worked exhaustively to arrive at the best—or, more accurately, least worst—methods of dealing with radioactive waste. Its recommendations, and whether they could or should be implemented, deserve serious consideration. Like it or not, there is a nuclear legacy that must be disposed of responsibly. The Liberal Democrats want as far as possible to limit the production of any more such waste, and believe that nuclear power generation is uneconomic, unsafe, unneeded and unwanted.

We are not alone in that view. The UK Government's official advisory body on environmental issues, the Sustainable Development Commission, has advised UK ministers that

"there is no justification for bringing forward plans for a new nuclear power programme, at this time"

and has rejected nuclear power on no fewer than five key grounds.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I am sorry—I do not have the time. I have four minutes' worth of points to make, and I want to make them all.

The Sustainable Development Commission rejects nuclear power because no long-term solutions to the problems of radioactive waste are available. It also believes that the economics of nuclear new build are highly uncertain and that there is a clear risk that the taxpayer will be left to pick up the tab again. A new nuclear programme would lock us into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years at exactly the point when we should be pursuing microgeneration and it would undermine the message that urgent and effective action is needed on energy efficiency and development of renewables. Finally, on international security, the commission feels that, under the terms of the framework convention on climate change, if the UK goes down the new nuclear route, we cannot deny other countries the same technology.

The sooner we accept that new nuclear power generation is not to be part of our future energy mix, the sooner we will grasp the economic and environment opportunity that renewable energy offers Scotland and begin to launch a serious attack on energy waste. We must make those our priorities.

In Scotland, the Liberal Democrats and the Executive have put renewables at the top of the agenda. Indeed, we are on track to meet and exceed our target of generating 18 per cent of our energy from renewable sources by 2010, while the UK Government is failing to meet its 10 per cent target. That is no coincidence.

I also want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats' involvement in the Government in Scotland has led to the Executive policy that no new nuclear power stations will be built while waste issues remain unresolved. With decommissioning and safe disposal, we will have a nuclear-related industry for many years to come. However, new nuclear generation is not the answer to our energy needs.

We must deal responsibly with our nuclear waste legacy, but I reiterate that our future and opportunities lie in a revolution in renewables, energy efficiency and microgeneration.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Nuclear waste has been an issue in parts of my region for many years. I recently visited the Dounreay site to find out how decommissioning is progressing, and found it sad in one respect. One of the people who kindly showed me round has worked on the site since the plant's construction stage in the 1950s. He described how, at the time, nuclear power was seen as an exciting way of harnessing the latest science and the power of the atom to give electricity that would be too cheap to metre. As he was telling me that, I could not help but think that the cost of decommissioning the site will run into billions.

The site has had its problems, of course, whatever people may say about the safety record of our nuclear industry—to say nothing about the controversy over whether reprocessing should have happened at all, the discharge directly into the sea of the large volume of low-level liquid waste produced by reprocessing, and the transport of highly radioactive material to be reprocessed and its subsequent transport back to where it came from. Then there have been the regular discoveries of radioactive particles on Sandside beach—and that is without discussing the explosion in the waste shaft in 1977.

The record has not been great, but I am not here to criticise Dounreay, because I actually have a lot of admiration for what is going on there now. As the minister said, it has become a world-class centre of excellence for decommissioning. Last night, some Highland MSPs attended a helpful briefing by Dounreay management about the plans for dealing with low-level waste, about which I shall say more later if time permits.

The decommissioning process will result in a large amount of radioactive waste. As Shiona Baird said, we believe that any radioactive waste should be managed by on-site storage that can be monitored in future, as all radioactive waste should be. However, if a decision to go for a national underground repository for all our long-lived or highly radioactive waste is made, as seems to be suggested in the CORWM report, Dounreay could well find itself considered for that.

Elaine Murray mentioned the fact that the Nirex sites were historic. I accept that, but they are bound to be looked at again. Interestingly, all the Scottish sites were in the Highlands and Islands—Dounreay, Altnabreac in Caithness and two small islands near Barra. The search criteria may be different this time, but people in those areas will obviously be concerned. CORWM refers to the need to have a willing host community for a disposal site. I for one do not believe that volunteer communities will be lining up for that privilege— they are certainly not in the Highlands and Islands.

Although we are talking about the long-lived, highly radioactive waste that CORWM looked at, the same disposal—or perhaps I should say concealment—route could well be used for spent nuclear fuel, uranium and plutonium. CORWM's report mentions that as a possibility. After all, we do not have any other ideas about what to do with spent fuel. It tends not to get discussed, as it is not currently classed as waste. At Dounreay, however, there is fuel and spent fuel, including enriched uranium and plutonium, totalling—other Highland MSPs who were at last night's briefing can correct me if I heard it wrong—about 100 tonnes, and staff are simply waiting to be told what to do with it.

I would like, briefly, to mention low-level waste. At Dounreay, I saw how the staff are dealing with such waste. I will not go into detail, but what they are doing is impressive and I recommend that other members go to see their work. I have no problem with the technique that they are using. However low-level waste may be low risk, but it is not no risk, and it is not the sort of thing that anybody would put at the end of their road. Nevertheless, the people of Buldoo, near Dounreay, are faced with just that, because of where the deposit is being sited. I have no disagreement with the techniques that are being used at the site to deal with low-level waste, but I do think that managers should think again about where they want to have the repository.

When people built power stations in the 1950s, they did not foresee the problems, the hazards, the terrorist threats, the health risk or the huge expense with which we are only too familiar when it comes to nuclear power. Perhaps they should not be blamed for the decisions that they took, but we would certainly deserve blame if we, knowing all that, went ahead and added to that deadly legacy.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

The debate about energy policy is too often narrowly based around the single issue of nuclear power. Nuclear waste management, which is addressed in today's motion, is an important issue, but if we are to have a mature debate about energy generation, and particularly about the role of nuclear power in generating electricity, that debate should take full account of all the energy needs of the country, of how we can make more efficient use of our energy and of the environmental impact of all the different modes of electricity generation. If we have a debate on the single-dimensional issue of nuclear power, that debate will serve the people of this country ill.

Labour's position on energy policy has been referred to by Elaine Murray, who identified the fact that our approach to electricity generation is to seek a balanced energy policy that uses all the potential modes of electricity production and, critically, emphasises the importance of developing Scotland's renewable potential and of improving our energy efficiency. At UK level, the Labour Government has initiated a further review of the country's energy requirements, which sets out the central aim of securing clean, affordable energy for the long term, along with four goals for energy policy, including cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, maintaining the reliability of energy supplies, and ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

A number of developments in energy have driven that further review, including further evidence about the impact of climate change, the recent rises in fossil fuel prices, which were far higher than had been anticipated, the fact that the UK is now a net importer of gas, and difficulties in the European Union energy markets. The problems of some of the major exporters have also added to concerns about price volatility and security of supply in future. In that climate, it is important that we at least consider renewing our nuclear electricity capacity, as that might help us to address many of the challenges that we currently face.

The Government has commissioned the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to examine the options and make recommendations on the long-term management of long-lived and highly active radioactive wastes. We have recently seen CORWM's draft recommendations, and the final recommendations are due shortly. It is important to recognise that, irrespective of whether one supports new nuclear generation, we must tackle the existing nuclear waste created during 50 years of nuclear activity in this country.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am afraid that I do not have sufficient time.

I am sure that the CORWM recommendations will be strongly debated when they are published, but if CORWM comes up with conclusive and comprehensive proposals to address the waste issue, we should be prepared to be adult about it and to recognise that that might reopen the issue of replacement or new nuclear electricity generation plants. The motion reveals the fact that Green members are not interested in whether CORWM comes up with a conclusive recommendation about dealing with the waste.

Theirs is a fundamentalist position, which opposes nuclear power even if the issue of nuclear waste management may be considered to have been resolved. The Greens rule out nuclear generation, even if that leads to insecurity of supply, to additional CO2 emissions, to further soaring electricity prices and to additional fuel poverty. Theirs is a fundamentalist, ideological position, and it seems, sadly, that the Scottish National Party also backs that position.

We should welcome the draft recommendations of CORWM while we await the final recommendations, but it is also essential that, in deciding future energy policy, we should take in the broad range of factors that I have mentioned during my speech. We should reject the fundamentalism of the Greens and be prepared at least to consider the role of nuclear power as part of a balanced energy policy.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Last night, I was watching CNN. It was a live press conference from the United Nations—yes, I know, I should get a life. Everybody who came to the microphone, ambassador after ambassador, said, "Iran must not develop one nuclear power station. If you even think about building a nuclear power station, you're going to suffer sanctions and a lot worse." That made me think about the stench of hypocrisy that I would encounter at this morning's debate. Scotland does not exist in a bubble, but a global context. The idea that we can argue for a new generation of nuclear power stations while laying down the law throughout the world is utterly reprehensible. The people who are arguing for that are probably the same people who will support sanctions and maybe even military intervention in Iran. They should step back for a minute and try to see where that will end.

The most fraudulent idea in the debate is that nuclear power will save the planet. If Blair pulls this off, he will be a bigger trickster than David Blaine. We all agree that climate change is killing the planet, but punting even the idea that nuclear power is safe beggars belief. There have been 60 critical accidents since 1945, not just in the Soviet Union, the Ukraine or Bulgaria, but in Japan, Finland, the United States of America, France and other countries across the world. I point out to Phil Gallie that the nuclear industry is so keen to advertise its safety record that an accident in Britain was kept secret for 30 years, one in America was kept secret for 45 years, and one in Scotland, at our own Dounreay plant, was kept secret from Government investigators for 20 years. I do not call that confidence in the safety record of the nuclear industry. Chernobyl is not the only place where there has been a nuclear accident.

We know that storing nuclear waste is not safe. If we have solved the problem and such storage is safe, why does no one want a deep underground repository next to where they live? We must face those arguments. I will be interested to find out how Labour will sell new nuclear power stations, especially as it will cost £70 billion—in my opinion, that is an underestimate—to deal with existing waste.

In the debate we have had hypocrisy, fraud and irony. I will explain the irony. We bemoan the fact that young people do not get involved in politics, that they are not interested and do not vote. Every cloud has a silver lining. If the Labour Party insists on pushing through new nuclear power—especially in Scotland—we might just see the emergence of a youth movement that is similar to those that have grown up in France, Italy and other countries. Ironically, the Government's decision may breathe life into the anti-nuclear movement and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That will not benefit the establishment parties; it will benefit the Scottish Socialist Party, the Greens and those political organisations that argue for a different type of energy—the clean energy that renewables provide.

I want the Government to go ahead and have an honest debate. The decision about the future of nuclear power should not be made behind closed doors. When hundreds of thousands of young people take political action, I hope that Labour members will be on the sidelines applauding. We intend to build a movement that will engage in extra-parliamentary action to stop the development of new nuclear power stations in this country.

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

We have heard too much from the Greens about their monopoly on morals. How dare they? They have been disingenuous to their core in the debate. I am glad that Shiona Baird's motion quotes my party leader's views on new nuclear power stations. It asks all the parties to be clear about their policies and their intentions. The views of my party leader, Nicol Stephen, are clear. If only the Greens were as clear in their presentation of their energy policies, not only in the Parliament, but around the country.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I seek clarity on the Liberal Democrat position. If the waste management issues are resolved, will the Liberal Democrats still oppose new nuclear power stations?

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

We have said repeatedly that we are opposed to new nuclear power stations. We are searching for a resolution to the current waste problem and, as Nora Radcliffe said, we do not want to add to it.

The Greens' energy policy is to renationalise Scotland's utilities, but they do not promote that in their motions. Instead, they promote renewables—as do we—which is great. We would not nationalise every electricity generating company, but the Greens would, although they do not promote that policy. If a renewables company wanted to have a national presence and to generate nationally, the Greens would nationalise it. That is their policy, but they do not promote it.

In February 2004, I asked Mark Ballard whether it was the Greens' policy to nationalise utilities. He said:

"We believe that the most effective way to deliver basic utilities such as electricity is through state provision."—[Official Report, 12 February 2004; c 5896.]

Although their motion quotes my party's policy, it does not promote theirs, on which they need to do more work. In March 2005, I asked Patrick Harvie whether he favoured the state control of electricity prices that nationalisation would bring. He replied:

"Off the top of my head, I say that I will be happy to discuss that with my colleagues."—[Official Report, 16 March 2005; c 15383.]

Instead of quoting our policy, perhaps the Greens should concentrate on working out what theirs is.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

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

I am afraid that I do not have time. If the debate had been longer—which it would have been if the Greens had not decided to hold this morning's first debate—I would have had time to give way.

Alex Johnstone was right to say that we must debate the long-term security of generation and the subject of waste. He was clear about the Scottish Conservatives' position, which is that they favour new nuclear power stations in Scotland, but he offered no ideas on waste management. To be fair to the Scottish Conservatives, their position is distinct from that of their UK colleagues, whose spokesman said that he was instinctively hostile to nuclear power.

Nora Radcliffe highlighted what CORWM said in its draft recommendations. It stated that there was insufficient agreement to allow geological disposal to proceed and that, in any event, the process of implementation would take several decades and could involve technical difficulties. It advocated an intensive programme of research and development.

In his speech, John Swinney made a good point about delays in energy policy, which he bemoaned. That criticism can be made of the UK Government's approach, but not the Executive's, which has more ambitious targets for renewable energy generation and is on course to meet them. He mentioned the use of biomass in schools PPP projects. He might well know that I have been campaigning for the three new high schools in the Borders, which are PPP projects, to be heated and powered by biomass. The promoter stated that no bid should be made unless it incorporated a renewable energy solution. Those schools will be heated and powered by biomass because the environment that we are creating in Scotland means that developers are not afraid to adopt renewable solutions.

In the election campaign, I will campaign for Liberal Democrat policies to be implemented. We will be open about our approach to nuclear power, nuclear waste, renewables and energy in general, and I hope that the Greens will be, too.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague Alex Johnstone.

I think that it was the Roman politician Cato who famously ended every speech in the senate with the words,

"and Carthage must be destroyed",

regardless of the context. We have almost reached that position in the Parliament because hardly a week goes by without our debating nuclear power and hardly a Business Bulletin appears that does not include the words, "and we must have no new nuclear power stations in Scotland." I am not sure how educational, instructive or useful such an approach is. The positions of the parties—with one exception—are quite well fixed.

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

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Let me make some progress.

We know that the Greens and the Scottish nationalists oppose the building of new nuclear power stations—the Greens' motion and the SNP's amendment make that clear. The Liberal Democrats say that they are against new nuclear power. The motion quotes Nicol Stephen as saying:

"The Liberal Democrats have a tough, clear and consistent position across the UK",

but, bizarrely and rather confusingly, the Liberal Democrat amendment, which is in the name of Ross Finnie, who is an Executive minister, says that the party

"will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."

There seems to be some confusion about whether the Liberal Democrats would be in favour of new nuclear power stations if we resolved the waste management issues. Their position is not tough, clear or consistent.

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

Murdo Fraser will understand the distinction between comments that are made by someone who is a party leader and those that are made by someone in their capacity as an Executive minister. [ Laughter. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

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

Will the member explain why Alan Duncan, who the UK Conservative party's spokesman on the issue, is instinctively hostile to nuclear power?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Conservatives believe in Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. At least we are not in the situation in which the Liberal Democrats find themselves, whereby Mr Finnie—an Executive minister—and the party's Scottish leader—also an Executive minister—are saying quite contradictory things. That is for the Liberal Democrats to explain away.

We are generally in favour of new nuclear power stations in Scotland, as we have said on many previous occasions. To be fair to the Scottish Labour Party, it is generally in favour of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. We know that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, who is posted absent this morning, favours that policy. I repeat what we have said to the Labour Party on previous occasions. If it has the courage to decide to go ahead with the planning of new nuclear installations in Scotland, it will have our support, which will ensure that there is a majority in the Parliament in favour of proceeding with that work. That is what Scotland requires.

I congratulate Richard Lochhead on what was almost a maiden speech. He has a new constituency, but his message and tone are the same. In referring to Scotland as a waste dump, he somewhat overegged the pudding. Such language does not assist the debate. We have produced our fair share of nuclear waste. I am by no means proposing that a new waste dump should be located in Scotland, but to expect that the waste that we have created should be exported elsewhere seems an unreasonable position to take.

Our amendment says that decisions need to be made now. In its report, CORWM said that its recommendations must be acted on urgently. I do not believe that we can afford to wait. There is potentially a major gap in energy production in Scotland, which must be filled. We must undertake a parallel exercise of commissioning new nuclear power stations and dealing with existing waste. Each year, the use of nuclear energy prevents the UK from emitting around 8 million tonnes of CO2. In 2003, the production of energy in Scottish nuclear power stations resulted in an avoidance of CO2 emissions that was equivalent to removing all the traffic from Scotland's roads. We cannot afford to do without nuclear power.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Imagine if we were another country not far from here. Sweden announced earlier this year that within 15 years it would wean itself off the oil and fossil fuel economy without building a new generation of nuclear power stations. Imagine the circumstances of a Scotland deciding a policy that suited its needs. This debate once again presents a picture of either a British policy or a Scottish policy. Unless we support the Green motion and the SNP amendment—which do not preclude nations co-operating with each other nor the export of energy from Scotland to other countries—we will find ourselves without a Scottish energy policy.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

If there was an energy deficit in the hypothetical independent Scotland, would the SNP be in favour of importing electricity generated by nuclear means in England?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The potential is to move in the direction that I have mentioned. Of course, the idea of making such a move overnight is nonsense—it is a figment of the imaginations of people who are opposed to having a properly balanced energy policy for a country such as Scotland. No one knows the total costs of nuclear design, build, use, decommissioning and waste storage. Nobody has ever worked it out. At the Dounreay presentation last night, it was interesting to hear that the cost of low-level waste—from one small place—that is drummed and will be stored above ground is about £26 million. Let us remember, though, that low-level waste is the least of our problems. Intermediate-level waste makes up 73 per cent of the volume of waste that we have to deal with. The issue of where and how we deal with such waste is at the heart of the CORWM proposals.

If we create new nuclear power stations we will add to the huge waste streams that already exist. It has been pointed out that Britain has some 1,100 streams of nuclear waste to deal with, thanks to our civil and military nuclear activities of the past 50 years. That is a lot of different sorts of intermediate-level waste to deal with. Finland had about 30 such waste streams. With some pain, it has been possible for Finland to move towards an intermediate underground storage solution. Scotland does not have that opportunity. We are the unwilling host of activities that have left us with massive streams of nuclear waste, which we are prepared to take responsibility for.

If the Opposition parties that support the Green motion and the SNP amendment become the Government, we will have a Government that believes in a balanced energy policy without nuclear power. The clean power option is the one that rejects nuclear—the debate today merely confirms that. If Parliament says that no new nuclear power stations will be built in Scotland, that will be the first step in the Parliament's decision to have a policy that is suitable for Scotland. That is why I ask members to support the SNP amendment.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I congratulate Richard Lochhead on his maiden speech and associate myself with his remarks about Margaret Ewing's record in representing Moray.

The debate has shown the high importance that members attach to the need to deal with our legacy of radioactive waste. As I said in my opening speech, we need to deal with the current waste problem, not debate the waste from new nuclear power stations that we might never have.

Richard Lochhead and several other members have assumed that CORWM is about potential sites. It is not. No sites have been chosen. Government has not yet even received the final recommendations and it is certainly not the case that a site has already been selected. We have said that after policy has been decided in light of CORWM's recommendation, there will be a public debate on the implementation, including site selection criteria. Decisions as to where any future facility or facilities may be sited will be considered in the next steps. A public debate on siting is important to ensure that the public and stakeholders have the opportunity to express their views and influence the process.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The minister will recall that I mentioned that, of the 12 potential sites that Nirex has earmarked, five are in Scotland. Does the minister accept that she is unable to rule out Scotland being chosen as a location for such a facility, should the UK Government go down that road?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I repeat that absolutely no sites have been chosen. There will be a full public debate on the implementation of CORWM's recommendations, including site selection criteria. I wish to be clear about that: no sites have been chosen.

Since the 2001 consultation, the Executive has been committed to finding a solution to the waste problem. We have supported the extensive public and stakeholder engagement undertaken by CORWM, the lack of which in the past has contributed to a failure to find solutions. Participation is one of the Parliament's founding principles. Radioactive waste is an area in which, without such engagement, we are unlikely to progress. I emphasise that the Scottish ministers will decide whether to accept CORWM's recommendations.

John Swinney referred to renewable energy. Scottish Executive ministers absolutely agree that if we are going to meet the highly ambitious targets for renewable energy—18 per cent of electricity by 2010 and 40 per cent by 2020—we will have to support a range of renewable energy options. Our policies are not just about wind, though. We are committed to supporting the development of all renewable technologies. Wind energy—offshore as well as onshore—will make a significant contribution and we are spending significant sums on the development of marine energy—wave and tidal—where Scotland has a world lead; for example, in the £3 million investment in the new Orkney test centre. Consent has been granted for a number of hydro projects this year. A developer has announced its intention to construct a biomass power plant in Dumfries and Galloway, and a number of devices have been tested at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am grateful for the list of initiatives that the minister has recounted, but does she accept my fundamental criticism that the Government is not moving nearly fast enough to develop a range of different resources to guarantee that we can have a balanced, renewable energy policy?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I would not accept that. The information that I have given members illustrates that we have the development of renewable energy policy right at the top of our agenda.

Several members have made the link to potential new nuclear energy. I restate the partnership agreement position:

"We will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."

CORWM's remit is to consider the management options for dealing with the waste. It is not necessarily about solving the waste management problem. CORWM has made considerable progress in what is, at least in radioactive waste terms, a relatively short period. We should recognise the efforts of all those involved: public, stakeholders and experts, but particularly the members of the committee who have dedicated so much time and effort to the process.

We are not alone in trying to find a way to deal with radioactive waste. Many countries are grappling with the problem and they too have failed to do so in the past. We are getting the chance to redress what has happened. We want to clean up the legacy in Scotland and we need to take the opportunity that CORWM presents and not leave radioactive waste for future generations.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate has been interesting and wide ranging. We have focused, with rather nervous speeches, on what the word "resolved" means. The dictionary definition of resolved states that it means to make up one's mind. The question is, when will we make up our minds about the nuclear waste issue? In the debate, the minister added a new word to the Executive's lexicon. It seems that we will make up our minds expeditiously. What does that mean and when will the issue be resolved?

Listening to Nora Radcliffe made it clear that the Lib Dems do not consider CORWM to have resolved the nuclear waste management issue. We agree with that. However, Bristow Muldoon then tentatively admitted that the CORWM report may well have resolved the issue. If that is the case, we are looking at a green light for new nuclear build in the years ahead.

There is also the question of what waste we mean when we talk about the resolution of the problem. Eleanor Scott identified a range of types of nuclear waste, such as spent fuel, for the management of which there has been no resolution and which CORWM has not considered. It is clear that we are decades away from a complete resolution of the nuclear waste issue.

What we need is no more fudge from the Executive and clarity from the political parties and the Executive about when the waste issue will be resolved and what criteria will be applied to resolve it, so that we can remove the fig leaf of Executive policy and get down to real politics that the electorate understand and that will allow them to make the necessary hard choices at the next election.

As on numerous previous occasions in the chamber, we have debated the cases for and against nuclear power. Bristow Muldoon said that the debate was about more than just waste, and I agree. The debate is about renewables, energy efficiency and whether we are bringing forward the commercialisation of offshore renewables fast enough to fill the gap that is currently filled by nuclear power. Serious issues are involved. I agree with the minister that there has been much testing of marine renewables, but there has been no major commercialisation of them. I worry that we will spend more time being concerned about the views from the 18th hole of a trumped-up golf course than getting renewable marine energy parks and schemes going offshore.

Frances Curran expressed a valid concern about nuclear proliferation in an age of globalisation. There are also the concerns of the 19 nuclear operators, which in the past five years have lodged complaints about 100 aircraft that have come too close to nuclear power stations. Those are real concerns.

I agree with Bristow Muldoon that climate change is of course an issue and that we must consider nuclear power. However, we must bear it in mind that when we add the CO2 emissions from the mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor construction and fuel storage that is connected with uranium, then nuclear power is about neck and neck with gas-powered electricity production in the emission of CO2. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral and it is not a solution to climate change.

There was an interesting debate on the politics of the issue. I admire the Tories; they are wrestling with having Dave the Chameleon as their new leader and they are not afraid to back a loser. I say to Bristow Muldoon that perhaps the Tories are the real fundamentalists. They seem to have a best-of-British attitude to nuclear power: "To hang with the £83,000 million cost of nuclear power! It is right in principle and we should support it." To the fact that city investors will not go near nuclear power because they realise that it is too risky an investment, the Tories say, "Oh, it doesn't matter. It is important in principle that we push it forward." Well, I say to Mr Fraser that, unfortunately, the only way that he will get his policy through is by being Allan Wilson's deputy, which is something that he may want to consider.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way on that point?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am running out of time, but go on then.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to Mr Ruskell for giving way. On the question of subsidy, does he appreciate that the only reason that people invest in renewables is because high levels of Government subsidy encourage that investment?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We must consider the vast amount of subsidy that goes into trying to resolve nuclear waste management; waste that Mr Fraser wants to increase for thousands of years to come. He must grasp that that is simply not good for the economy.

I turn to the Liberal Democrats and another quote from Nicol Stephen:

"I want us to be seen as the Liberal Democrats, with our own policies, our own manifesto, that focuses on winning more votes at the next election."

That is all very well and I respect his anti-nuclear stance, but the key question is what he will do with the mandate that the electorate might give him at the next election.

We have a Liberal Democrat amendment from a Liberal Democrat minister that sends a clear message that nuclear power is a negotiable issue for the Liberal Democrats in any coalition. That point was raised earlier—and dealt with adequately by Murdo Fraser—when Jeremy Purvis made an intervention. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to negotiate on nuclear power. They will come up against the same problem that the Finnish Greens had recently with the construction of a new nuclear power station in Finland. The Liberal Democrats will have to decide whether to stay in Government or to leave it over the nuclear power issue. However, it is clear that they are prepared to negotiate on that issue, which does not send a clear message to the electorate.

Key questions must be answered in this debate; moral and political issues must be considered. We cannot afford to deal with a growing legacy of nuclear waste. We must invest in real energy solutions that will last for thousands of years. That means directing public money into renewable energy and taking the responsible decision to build no more nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to protect Scottish literature, given the decision of the Competition Commission in respect of the proposed takeover of Ottakar's book stores by HMV. (S2O-9714)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Scottish Arts Council has responsibility for supporting literature and publishing in Scotland. Through its literature department, the council works with a range of literary and publishing organisations and offers support to initiatives in the sector. In February, we announced additional funding of £7 million for the SAC. That increase in the SAC's budget will provide substantial extra assistance for Scottish writers and publishers.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does a decision that is predicated on the position that there is no distinctive geographic market for books in Scotland not call into question the ethos of a Parliament for the people of Scotland, never mind the legitimacy of having a distinct minister for culture? Is it not time that we had power over books and culture, as well as a ministerial title?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I thought that Mr MacAskill would say something like that, so I looked at the most recent Scottish National Party manifesto and—lo and behold—there was no mention in it whatsoever of competition, nor of how the SNP would deal with competition issues in an independent Scotland, except the comment that the SNP would be "more competitive" than the United Kingdom currently is. That would be an interesting phenomenon.

As members will know, the Competition Commission did not believe that incentives for publishers to publish new titles or authors to write new books would change because of the proposed merger, to which Mr MacAskill referred. Throughout the country, there is substantial competition—across, dare I say it, national boundaries—in the sale and purchase of books on the internet and in supermarket chains. I believe that there is a tremendous opportunity out there, which we will support and encourage, for Scottish publishers and writers to have their work more widely read throughout the UK.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Does the minister not accept that there is widespread disquiet among the Scottish literary community that Scottish authors are not promoted as well when buying decisions are made in Basingstoke as they are when such decisions are made in their local bookshops? Does he not accept that neither he nor the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport has done anything to address the problem or to forward the Scottish literary community's concerns to the Competition Commission?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

It is not the policy of Scottish ministers to comment on decisions of the Competition Commission. However, the commission was unable to conclude that Scotland formed a separate geographic market or that the competitive situation here, to which I referred in my earlier response to Mr MacAskill, substantially differed from that in other parts of the UK. The commission did not find that there would be a substantial lessening of competition because of the proposed merger. As I said, there are tremendous opportunities for Scottish publishers, writers, playwrights and scriptwriters, with support from the Scottish Arts Council and the Executive, to ensure that their work is more widely read and distributed in the UK, which should be regarded as an expanding market, rather than a market that contracts to national boundaries.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans there are to improve the infrastructure of water mains in Scotland. (S2O-9686)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

On 28 September 2005, the Scottish Executive set out the objectives for improving the system that Scottish Water must meet in the next regulatory period of 2006 to 2010 and the objectives that Scottish Water should plan and prepare for in the period 2010 to 2014. Scottish Water is preparing a delivery plan for 2006 to 2010, which will set out how it will deliver the Executive's objectives within the funds set by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. The plan will be submitted to ministers for approval.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for outlining the position once again. My concern about the state of parts of the water infrastructure has been renewed by a recent incident in Dundee—the water supply of 10,000 homes was cut off for nearly a whole day—and by the difficulties that Dundonians faced in getting any news of what was happening and in finding alternative supplies. What plans are in place to improve the response to such emergencies in future, including plans to improve communications by perhaps making available a freephone number?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I want to make it absolutely clear that the burst main in Dundee was caused by road contractors, working on behalf of Dundee City Council, who accidentally ruptured a major water main. It was not caused by dilapidated infrastructure or lack of investment. It was a rupture of a large strategic water main that serves some 10,000 households across Dundee. I believe that Scottish Water did all that it could to make the repair and restore services as quickly as possible.

I accept that issues may have arisen to do with communications from Scottish Water, and I understand that, following the incident, Scottish Water is to review its communications strategy and will try to determine whether there are other practical and beneficial communications routes that it can use. Scottish Water would very much welcome suggestions from the local member. If she is interested, I ask her to meet Scottish Water to discuss the issue so that she can make her suggestions in person.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the minister update the Parliament on the steps taken in the discussion with Scottish Water about improving water mains and other water infrastructure in Scotland since the appointment of the new chairman? When will we see changes to Scottish Water's business plan that have resulted from changes in management?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Ministers have already had discussions with the new chairman, Mr Mercer. A new delivery plan will be submitted to ministers shortly.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister aware of the excessive amount of water leakage that is recorded on Scottish Water's nightline meters at a time when very few customers draw water? If so, what are the Executive's proposals for eliminating such major waste—without substantially increasing the already excessive water charges?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Of course we will not have excessive increases in water charges. The average household charge this year is £287, which is an increase on last year's charges of less than the rate of inflation. In comparison, charges in England and Wales are £7 more, at £294—an increase of 5.5 per cent on last year's charges.

Dealing with leakages will clearly be a major part of Scottish Water's spending over the next few years.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will welcome the Barnardo's Scotland toddlers march to Parliament on 4 May 2006—which, of course, is today—which aims to raise awareness of Barnardo's call for more support for children's opportunities to play. (S2O-9694)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Play is absolutely vital for children's physical, social and emotional development. I therefore welcomed the opportunity earlier today to meet representatives of bodies promoting children's play, to take part in the event and to show my support for more play opportunities.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am glad that the minister confirms the importance of play for children, and I hope that he will agree that the Parliament's garden has been greatly enlivened this morning by the presence of young children.

Does the minister agree that, as well as promoting children's physical well-being, play also promotes their mental well-being? It builds their motor, language and social skills. Does he further agree that we have to reflect on what has been done elsewhere in the United Kingdom to promote and implement play strategies, at both local and national levels, to consider whether we can find examples of how to make progress in Scotland?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I agree with what Maureen Macmillan says: outside in the Parliament's garden today we have seen immediately and powerfully the pleasure that play gives young people. We know how important play is to the nurturing and development of our children, but play should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of wider child care and child development policies.

We are well aware of what has taken place in other parts of the UK—for example, the Welsh strategy and certain events in England. However, perhaps much more important is the opportunity to learn from projects and developments that take place in individual parts of the rest of the UK and in Europe. It is extremely important that we take note of such things and build on good practice both from elsewhere and, in fairness, from here in Scotland.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it shares concerns of MPs and MSPs in respect of the reorganisation of health services in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. (S2O-9712)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Any proposals for service change must be consistent with "Delivering for Health", which describes our vision for the future provision of health care services across Scotland and which sets out an action plan for the implementation of the Kerr report, "Building a Health Service Fit for the Future". Each proposal for change will be considered in that context.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware that, before Monklands hospital was opened, Glasgow royal infirmary was running at around 150 per cent capacity? It is proposed to have only two full accident and emergency units in Glasgow, and Monklands is under threat of closure. Will the minister tell us what will happen to GRI capacity if Monklands closes?

Further, will the minister tell us, regarding his ex-health minister colleague John Reid, whether he and this Executive and the Scottish Parliament intend to go down and save the health service in Westminster and in England, because of the situation down there? Will he emulate them?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

That was a rather confused question. My answer is that it would be presumptuous of me to anticipate the recommendations of Lanarkshire NHS Board. Members will be aware that the board completed its consultation on the main part of its proposed changes on Friday and that it will continue to consult over the next couple of weeks on one or two late papers. Once proposals have come forward, have been properly considered by the board and have been submitted to ministers, they will be considered, as I said, in the context of "Delivering for Health".

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On the issue of acute provision, the minister will be aware of the vast public opposition to the proposals currently being considered in Lanarkshire. He mentioned the health board's responsibilities under "Delivering for Health". Will he assure me that he will thoroughly assess the extent to which NHS Lanarkshire has honoured its responsibilities?

The minister also said that the health board began consulting on the regional impact of cross-boundary patient flow only two weeks ago—a week before the major consultation closed and nearly seven months after the health board began suggesting that Monklands general hospital was its clearly preferred option for accident and emergency downgrade. That proposal is unbelievable and unacceptable. The hospital has the busiest and most efficient accident and emergency unit in Lanarkshire and serves a population with some of the worst ill-health, poverty and deprivation levels in Scotland.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am very conscious of the effort that Elaine Smith has made on this issue and I can certainly assure her that the public consultation process will be an aspect that we will consider in looking at any board proposals for significant service change. The board must show that it has fully engaged with the public on the range of options available.

Last year, we established the Scottish Health Council for the specific purpose of ensuring that NHS boards carried out full and proper consultations in circumstances such as those in Lanarkshire. The report of the Scottish Health Council on the consultation in Lanarkshire will be one of the documents in front of me when I come to make a decision on this matter.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to address the shortfall in funding to NHS Lanarkshire through incomplete application of the Arbuthnott formula. (S2O-9671)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

In addition to the standard uplift made annually to the budgets of all boards, NHS Lanarkshire has received additional funding to move it towards its target share under the Arbuthnott formula of just over £21 million, including nearly £7 million in the current financial year.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

The minister will be aware that that does not deal with the cumulative shortfall, which, by the end of 2007, will be £40 million. NHS Lanarkshire tells me that that amount is enough for half the budget of running either Monklands or Hairmyres for more than 12 months. The funding shortfall has a material impact on the options available to the communities of Lanarkshire. For example, people in East Kilbride are being denied a hospice on financial grounds, and the costs of refurbishment at Monklands are being talked up.

Will the Executive act to plug the gap and give NHS Lanarkshire the funding that it is due, so that the people of Lanarkshire can be offered options that actually meet their needs and aspirations?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The reality is that the funding levels of NHS Lanarkshire and every other NHS board in Scotland have been increased by at least double the rate of inflation every year under devolution. Some of Carolyn Leckie's comments were, therefore, very wide of the mark. She quoted NHS Lanarkshire. She will know from its public statements on the matter that it has made clear the fact that its proposals for the provision of accident and emergency services, to which she referred, are not driven by financial considerations.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister look at the funding and finances of NHS Lanarkshire and, in particular, how, in the space of two months, the board revised by £20 million its estimate of the capital cost of keeping accident and emergency services at Monklands hospital open?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As I said, in considering any proposals for significant service change that are made by NHS Lanarkshire, I will consider all aspects of the consultation and the case that the board makes, including the financial aspects. I reiterate the point that NHS Lanarkshire has made clear publicly: its proposals are not driven by financial considerations.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive what guidance has been made available to private landlords in respect of their obligations under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. (S2O-9685)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The primary obligation on private landlords under the 2004 act is to register with the local authority. There is detailed guidance on the landlord registration website and on the Executive's better renting Scotland website. We have also provided local authorities with information leaflets for landlords.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Notwithstanding some of the initial teething problems that landlords have encountered with the computer system, I welcome the new registration scheme. I ask the minister to consider what further advice and guidance can be given to landlords, especially on their responsibilities in relation to antisocial behaviour, given the high number of incidents in my constituency that occur in private rented properties. Although I accept that much of the registration scheme will help with that, I think that there is a need for further guidance to landlords on their obligations and the actions that they should take if their tenants act in an antisocial way.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Absolutely. We recognise the fact that there have been teething problems with the system, and we share the frustration of those who have encountered problems. However, I make it clear that some of those who are attacking the process are doing so in order to attack the principle that Karen Gillon has identified—the right of communities to contact landlords and ask that they take responsibility for what their tenants are doing in their properties.

Through the registration process, we can identify where the landlords are and have a positive dialogue with them. I reassure good landlords that they have nothing to fear from the registration process. We are determined that our communities should not be prey to landlords who see being a landlord not as a business but as a means of making money, and who have no regard for the communities in which their properties sit.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I note the minister's comment that good landlords should not be affected by the registration process; however, the fact is that it is the good landlords who have faced antagonism and cost in their attempts to register. Will the minister consider, somewhere along the line, recognising the costs that those landlords have faced and, perhaps, compensating them for the inconsistency and total irresponsibility of the Executive in introducing the scheme before it was ready?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Let me make it clear that 45,000 landlords have already managed to register and that nearly 60 per cent of properties are now registered. We recognise the fact that registration has been a challenge for some people, but those who are most frustrated are those who do not want to be held accountable for their properties.

I pay tribute to Cathie Craigie, who persistently drove the issue through the Communities Committee not because it was an academic issue, but because the direct experience of her constituents and mine was that bad landlords not only did not see themselves as responsible for bearing business costs—the registration scheme is such a cost—but did not see being a landlord as a business at all. Such landlords not only ignored communities when they complained, but were actively hostile to them. We will work with those who want to serve those communities and make them safe, and we will deal with those who do not.

We do not want to send out the message that the scheme can be destroyed by attacks on the registration process; we must be united around the principle of the scheme. As I have said, good landlords have nothing to fear from it and communities will receive a great deal of benefit from it.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to develop the use of information and communication technology to improve care and support to elderly and disabled people in their own homes and so promote independence and improved quality of life. (S2O-9683)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The plans for e-health outlined in "Delivering for Health" include the establishment of a Scottish centre for telehealth, which will promote standardised solutions for telehealth and telecare applications. We are also exploring ways of embedding the use of information and communication technology in policy initiatives and of sharing good practice and experience.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Does the minister agree that examples from Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, including the well-being programme in Liverpool, show that if ICT is properly exploited, it has the potential to transform not only the delivery of services but people's lives? Will he consider how that good practice can be made universal across Scotland? Will he seek to accelerate the page of change in that area and ensure that across the reform and reconfiguration of health and social care services, ICT is embedded in thinking and practice to bring about the transformation that Scotland needs?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

There are indeed some very good examples. West Lothian Council and its partners are developing housing-based alternatives to traditional residential care, making good use of ICT in supporting people at home. I believe that that could be extended further and I want to build on the good work that has already been done to enable people to live independently in their own home with support from ICT.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I welcome Richard Lochhead back to Parliament.

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2264)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I also congratulate Richard Lochhead. When I next see the Prime Minister, I might ask him whether he watched at the weekend as Scotland's latest world champion, Graeme Dott, won the world snooker championship. If I was speaking to the Prime Minister today, I might well advise him that the qualities of patience, determination and good tactical judgment that were deployed by Graeme Dott at the weekend could come in handy during the next few days.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I take it from that comment that the First Minister thinks that the Prime Minister currently does not possess those qualities; most of the population would agree.

I begin by congratulating Grampian police on the prompt arrest yesterday of one of the serious criminals who were wrongly released by the Home Office. I remind the First Minister that, in a letter to my colleague Pete Wishart on Friday, Charles Clarke said of the 79 more serious offenders:

"I can confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, only one is recorded as residing in Scotland."

Given that Charles Clarke admitted yesterday that 38 of the 79 serious offenders are unaccounted for and that he has no idea where they are, will the First Minister agree with me that Charles Clarke's letter is seriously misleading and just one more reason why he should be kicked out of office? What action is being taken by the Scottish authorities to find out whether any more of those most serious offenders are living here in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not have that letter with me, so it would be wrong of me to comment on it. However, Ms Sturgeon quoted it as saying

"to the best of my knowledge,"

which seems to me to be an appropriate qualification in the circumstances. Clearly, the Home Office does not know where all the people are who are on the register of 79 people who were the top priority for the Home Office to track down, identify and make decisions on following last week's announcements and who are still missing. As I said last week, Scottish police forces stand ready to assist the Home Office in the identification of anyone it is looking for, and the Scottish Prison Service has consistently done that. Grampian police speedily and effectively identified one individual, found out where they were and now have them in custody. That is a tribute to the work of Grampian police. We will take exactly the same action should the Home Office identify anyone else.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I point out to the First Minister that the letter—I am perfectly happy for him to have a copy of it—does not say that 38 of those prisoners are unaccounted for. Charles Clarke must have known that on Friday when he wrote the letter. That is misleading and unacceptable.

I remind the First Minister that last week he expressed anger and disappointment at the lack of clarification from the Home Office about the Scottish implications of this fiasco. Seven days later, is the First Minister in a position to give answers to some very basic questions? Were any prisoners wrongly released from Scottish prisons and, if so, how many? Of the total 1,023 prisoners who were wrongly released, how many are thought to be living in Scotland? Those are basic questions for public safety. The First Minister could not answer those questions last week; can he do so now?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Such details in respect of Scottish prisons and former Scottish prisoners have been provided by the Minister for Justice in an answer to a parliamentary question that has been made available to members today. I understand that, because of the time lag between the lodging and the publication of answers, the answer may not yet be in the public domain, but it will be available for members to scrutinise before question time this afternoon.

It is important to recognise that the Home Office has identified that, from its list of the 1,023 people who were released from prisons elsewhere, only one individual is in Scotland. That individual has been identified and is in custody, but I cannot comment on that specific case because of other charges that are outstanding.

As regards individuals who are or were in Scottish jails, those who are foreign nationals—I understand that most of them are from within the European Union and about half are from the Republic of Ireland—have all been identified. Those foreign nationals whom the immigration and nationality directorate requested be taken into its custody for deportation or for consideration of a deportation decision have all been identified. Of the 188 such former prisoners who were identified as having been released last year, 26 were in that category and all 26 were transferred into the custody of the IND.

It is possible—I must be careful, as I have no doubt that this will come back to me if I am not—that, on top of that 26, the IND should have asked us about others but did not do so. As yet, we have no information to suggest that that is the case and the IND is not aware of any individuals released from Scottish prisons who should have been transferred into the custody of the IND and who would have been so transferred if the IND had identified them to us.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the First Minister for giving us some further information today, but does he agree that, one week after the problem came to light publicly and 10 months after it first became known to the Home Office, it beggars belief that we do not yet have a full picture of the Scottish implications? Is it not clear that the Home Secretary has completely lost his grip?

Yesterday, in a vain attempt to reassert some authority, the Home Secretary proposed a package of reforms to tighten up the rules on deportation. Is the First Minister aware that a central proposal in the reforms is that the Sentencing Guidelines Council in England should set down clear criteria according to which judges will be required to make deportation recommendations when sentencing? As the First Minister will be aware, the Sentencing Guidelines Council's writ does not run in Scotland. Does he intend to introduce similar guidelines for judges in Scottish courts?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The appropriate thing would be to ensure that advice and guidance are produced that are relevant to the Scottish legal system. That is precisely what we will do and that is why we are in discussions with the Home Office about the best way to achieve that.

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement yesterday. Although I may not have said this in the chamber last Thursday, one question that I was asking behind the scenes last Thursday was why such individuals are not deported immediately. A presumption in favour of deportation seems to me to be entirely the right response to the situation. However, we need to ensure that any such response that operates in Scotland can do so within the confines of the Scottish legal system. Both the Justice Department and the Crown Office will discuss the matter further with the Home Office so that we can clarify to MSPs how we plan to take the issue forward within the overall framework that the Home Secretary set out.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the First Minister for that assurance, but I certainly hope that any proposals for change will be driven by this Parliament rather than by an incompetent Home Secretary.

Does the First Minister agree that the essential issue for the public at present is that 38 serious offenders who should have been deported are currently loose on our streets and no one has any idea where they are? Does he agree that that is a matter of serious public concern? Will he give a guarantee that the Scottish authorities are proactively doing everything possible to ensure that any such offenders who are in Scotland are apprehended as quickly as possible?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

When Ms Sturgeon asked me that question the first time, I resisted the temptation to point out that it is difficult for Scottish police forces to find people when they do not know their names or the addresses where they might be. Ms Sturgeon suggests that in some way we should be able to identify the 38 people when we do not even know whether they are living in Scotland. That is not a sensible proposal at this stage.

When someone is identified as being in Scotland or as likely to be in Scotland, Scottish police forces need to ensure that the person is identified and put into custody. That is precisely what happened in the case in Grampian and what would happen elsewhere in Scotland. Scottish police forces are co-operating with the Home Office in identifying those individuals and any relationship that they may have with Scotland. They are doing so precisely because of the need to ensure that, if that possibility exists, they are able to assist in every way possible. I gave that assurance in the chamber last Thursday.

Scottish police forces and the Scottish Prison Service have, to the best of everybody's knowledge, behaved in an exemplary fashion in this matter. I expressed my anger and disappointment last Thursday at the overall situation. I believe that the whole country shares that anger and disappointment. I hope that the measures that the Home Secretary announced last week and this week make a difference to tackling the issue. Our forces stand ready to assist him in achieving that objective.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2265)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next Cabinet meeting will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In light of the revelations this week that Scottish Enterprise has a total funding gap of £60 million, which is higher than was previously estimated, will the First Minister say whether he was aware that that was the true figure? Will he also say exactly how much of the shortfall the Executive is prepared to meet?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The figure is not higher than anything that was previously estimated. It is quite clear that if a company has a deficit in one year, that could carry on into another year. The deficit in the first year is about £30 million; if one multiplies that by two, one gets £60 million. That seems fairly obvious to me.

Miss Goldie regularly comes to the chamber trying to undermine Scottish Enterprise and the strategy that we are following, yet it is delivering jobs for and investment in Scotland—indeed, it has done so yet again this week, with Invitrogen's decision to relocate its European headquarters to Inchinnan in Renfrewshire. Instead of highlighting Scottish Enterprise's successes, perhaps Miss Goldie wants to undermine its efforts by continually coming to the chamber and exaggerating the problem. I prefer to highlight successes in Scotland and I will continue to do so.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think that there are many who would hope that Scottish Enterprise had the same primitive grasp of arithmetic that the First Minister has. The public will be little short of aghast at the level of financial mismanagement in an agency that is charged with improving Scotland's economic performance. Deficits are deficits and continuing deficits are a looming disaster. The public will be equally aghast at the laid-back approach of the Executive. Will the First Minister give a commitment to do what he refused to do the last time that I raised the issue? Will he tell Scottish Enterprise in no uncertain terms that there will be no more blank cheques to bail it out and that it is time for it to put its financial house in order?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As the Deputy First Minister said the other day, it would be utterly irresponsible of ministers not to look seriously at Scottish Enterprise's budget. We need to ensure that the important projects and funds that are making a difference to Scotland continue to be funded. If that requires Scottish Enterprise to be given additional access to its reserves, we are prepared to consider that. We will agree a budget with Scottish Enterprise—we hope to do that next week, before its board meeting on 12 May—and we will continue to take the importance of its work into account.

Miss Goldie represents the West of Scotland region. She will therefore have an interest in the views of Rolls-Royce, whose company secretary and director of government relations, Charles Blundell, said recently that Rolls Royce was committed not just to its present operations in Scotland but to identifying further opportunities for investment thanks to the support of Scottish Enterprise and programmes such as R and D plus, which is not available south of the border. Those are the very programmes that the Tories would cut to make the savings that it is looking for in Scottish Enterprise. I hope that Miss Goldie will be as honest when she goes to the electorate next May as she is in raising these issues in the chamber. I hope that she tells the voters in her West of Scotland region that she wants companies such as Rolls-Royce to go home.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

My party has never wanted to impair Scottish Enterprise in the fundamental and essential exercise of its core operations. I return to the issue that I have raised with the First Minister on previous occasions. Instead of flinging £60 million at a failing organisation, surely it is better for the First Minister to acknowledge the need for reform of the structure of Scottish Enterprise. If the First Minister will not listen to me, will he listen to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? COSLA said:

"We believe that local authority led partnerships could take on local economic development, Business Gateway and regeneration and skills".

Will the First Minister consider that option?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

People throughout Scotland will be "aghast"—I use Miss Goldie's word—to learn that the Tories might support taking powers from Scottish Enterprise and giving them to local authorities, given that the Tories did the opposite when they had a chance to do something in government.

Miss Goldie said that the Tories have never proposed to cut such budgets in Scottish Enterprise, but I remind her that the Conservative manifesto said:

"We will retain Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but reduce their budgets and focus their energies on delivering advice and training services to all businesses in Scotland."

Therefore the Conservatives would not retain the R and D plus scheme, which delivered investment in Scotland by Rolls Royce, or the many other schemes that I am sure during the next few weeks Murdo Fraser and other members of the Enterprise and Culture Committee will say are important for Scotland and should not be affected by Scottish Enterprise's current difficulties.

The Conservatives should be more consistent. If their policy is to cut the budget, they should defend that policy in the Parliament. Let us have a proper debate about the successes of Scottish Enterprise, as against the policies of the Tories and the nationalists. We are happy to have that debate any time; let us get on with it.

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-2266)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no formal meeting planned with the Secretary of State, but I look forward to discussing matters with him again soon.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Greens today called on all parties to state their positions on nuclear power. Can the First Minister confirm that the Executive intends to continue to dodge the issue of new nuclear power until after next year's Holyrood elections?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

That was a challenging question.

The Executive's position on nuclear power has been consistent and it is right that we adopt that position. As I said in the Parliament about two weeks ago, first, there is a need for a long-term energy policy throughout the United Kingdom and in Scotland. Such a policy must address the fact that currently we get energy from different sources and anyone who proposes to reduce or abandon a source must offer a viable and sustainable alternative. Secondly, we are not prepared to agree or approve the next generation of nuclear power stations or any proposal to base a new nuclear power station in Scotland until the issue of nuclear waste is resolved.

With the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations, we set up an expert committee to consider the matter. The committee produced a report for consultation last Thursday and people should contribute to the consultation and the debate. At the end of the consultation process, we will receive a final report and consider a way forward in the context of that report, UK energy policy and our Scottish energy study.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I once asked the First Minister how he interprets "resolved", but we are still no nearer to a clear understanding of his position.

Perhaps the First Minister will be more forthright in response to my next question. Does he agree that nuclear power brings with it other, serious problems, such as the risk of nuclear accident, increased pollution from radioactivity, an inability to help with climate change and massive cost to the taxpayer? Does he think that those serious issues also remain unresolved?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not accept Shiona Baird's slightly loaded wording, but I agree that the issues that she identifies require proper and thorough debate as we participate in the development of a UK energy policy and set out our priorities in Scotland and ensure that our funding mechanisms and policies support those priorities. Of course there are issues not just to do with nuclear waste but to do with the impact of nuclear power on our climate and our national budgets. Other factors must be taken into account in the debate.

I make this point genuinely and I hope that all the parties will take it on board. If we are to address the issues around nuclear power that Shiona Baird mentioned, we must also address how we replace the contribution of more than a third that nuclear power currently makes to the generation of electricity in Scotland.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the First Minister what steps are being considered to ensure that this year's marching season does not disrupt communities. (S2F-2271)