Scottish Parliament, 28 September 2006

435 contributions from 87 members. The official report.

Official Report 28 September 2006

Trident

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion number S2M-4864, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on Trident.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

It is just a little more than 50 years since we entered the nuclear age and, in those 50 years, the world has become more rather than less committed to nuclear weapons. Two such weapons were exploded in anger half a century ago but, luckily, although vast amounts of money have been spent buying and stockpiling nuclear weapons, we have held back from using them again—so far.

If we are not using nuclear weapons, why do we continue to buy them? If we continue to buy and stockpile them, why do we believe that we can continue to tell others that they should not do the same? Fifty years ago, only one country had them, but how many have them now? In truth, who knows? Currently, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China are the official nuclear weapon states because they have all signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, while India, Pakistan and Israel are unofficial nuclear weapon states because they have not signed the treaty—and that list should now probably include North Korea.

To put it crudely, the previous justification for spending money on nuclear weapons was: if we did not, they would and they might use them, so we better have them too because that might put them off. It was a small club that only a few could afford to join. The bombs got bigger, better and more expensive. They could kill more or, better still, kill lots and perhaps leave buildings standing.

If deterrence was the justification, it was a dangerous one. After all, any state could make the same argument and, if one concedes the logic, one can hardly say that it should apply only to those and such as those. However, that is, in effect, exactly what we have been saying.

That was then; where are we now? The UK Government invested heavily in Trident as a replacement for the old Polaris and what changed? The protest songs and banners had to, but little else did. Trident has already cost the UK dear. The strategic defence review of 2004 estimated that the total cost of acquiring the Trident system was about £12.5 billion, almost all of which had already been spent by 2004. It also stated that the running cost of the Trident submarine force would average some £280 million a year over its lifetime and the then annual cost of the warhead and fissile material programme was some £400 million. About one third of that programme was directly related to Trident, while almost a third was related to costs that arose from previous nuclear weapons.

Until recently, the estimated cost of Trident's replacement was £15 billion to £25 billion. Apparently, the annual maintenance costs over the weapons system's expected 30-year lifespan were left out of the calculation of that figure. If we factor those in, it seems that the son of Trident will cost the UK something in the region of £76 billion. We never used Polaris, we never used Trident and we will never use the son of Trident, but it looks like we will buy it, despite being signed up to the non-proliferation treaty.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Roseanna Cunningham says that we never used Trident, but we used it as a deterrent and it worked. There were no major wars between the major countries, and Russia collapsed because of the arms race. Surely it was a success.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I apply that logic to buying shoes that then sit in the wardrobe and never get worn. I consider it a waste of money.

I want to know why we are contemplating spending such vast amounts of money on the son of Trident when we will not use it. Other members will talk about the better uses to which that money could be put, and they will be right to do so. If the Government can afford £76 billion for missiles, it can afford a few bob for job creation and diversification.

Opposition to nuclear weapons in general, and to Trident and its replacement in particular, goes far beyond any financial considerations. At its heart, the argument is a moral and ethical one. That is why the Scottish National Party motion is shorn of any sub-clauses that might cloud the issue. If members believe nuclear weapons to be wrong, they must vote for the motion, but I see from the amendments that Labour and the Liberal Democrats appear to be in favour of nuclear weapons. I say to Jackie Baillie in particular that it seems craven and cowardly to state the obvious point that nuclear weapons are a reserved matter, with the implied criticism that we should not be debating the issue despite her call for "the widest possible debate" in the country. If Jack McConnell really wants to end the cringe factor in Scottish life, he would do well to start with his own back benchers.

With respect to those who try to have it every which way, there is no place to hide on the matter. Either the Parliament is part of the national debate or it is not, and that national debate is profoundly moral. Whom do we contemplate using the weapons against? It is surely not enough to say that we must have them as a deterrent. During the cold war, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the target of choice. Which nation or nations now fulfil that role for the UK, or is an independent UK nuclear capability simply to be seen as part and parcel of the USA's nuclear capability at one remove? Recent international events might lead us to that conclusion, so is our target really whoever the USA decides is its target? Are we to spend £76 billion on weapons that really only exist to fit into the USA's strategic interests? Alternatively, are we really going to spend that much money to obtain a bargaining chip to use against Iran's future disarmament—assuming that Iran goes on to become another of the unofficial nuclear states—all the time arguing that Iran has no right to nuclear weapons but we do?

During the cold war, there was a deterrence doctrine known as mutually assured destruction—or MAD for short—and learning about it was like slipping into some perverse Alice-in-Wonderland world. The acronym gave away the truth of the matter. When we brandish weapons whose only purpose is mass and indiscriminate slaughter, we give up all right to preach to others about the morality of the choices that they make. I ask the Parliament to keep faith with the marchers on the long walk for peace. In particular, I ask the Labour members who had the unbelievable effrontery to go out and greet the marchers last week to keep faith with them. I ask the Parliament to keep faith with the church leaders who are calling for us to turn our faces away from Trident. I ask that we keep faith with our consciences, and I ask the Parliament to support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that there is no justification for the renewal or replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I approach the debate with a sense of déjà vu: another SNP debate, another reserved matter. I will digress for a second to point out to the SNP that, in a seminal piece of work, the Electoral Commission identified that almost 60 per cent of people in Scotland were critical of the Parliament because it spent too much time talking about issues over which it has no power. The SNP might want to reflect on that.

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

Will Jackie Baillie give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No. I will give a friendly warning to the SNP: the people of Scotland will soon begin to wonder whether there is any point in having SNP MPs at Westminster. Are the sorrowful six incapable of making the case there, where—let us not forget this point—the decision will be made? Let us consider that for a minute. I looked back at Hansard and found that Angus Robertson asked a question in December 2005. That was nine months ago. There was also a question in June 2005, six months earlier, but I had to look back to 2002 before I found anything else.

Perhaps my research is not that great, but it is interesting that, in the place where the SNP can influence matters and argue for change, it just does not bother. It prefers instead to work through this Parliament, which is not the body that will be responsible for the decision. Of course—wait for it—the SNP believes that independence is the answer to all ills.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Hear, hear.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I say to Nicola Sturgeon that I am genuinely curious to know whether, in a brave new independent Scotland, the SNP would view Trident as an asset or a liability in its negotiations with Westminster? Would it hang on to it for a bit in order to barter it away and trade it for something else? What would its approach be? We deserve to know, because I am not convinced that Nicola Sturgeon has thought that through. In that policy vacuum lie uncertainty and instability.

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

Will Jackie Baillie give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No, I will only give way to Nicola Sturgeon if she wants to answer the point.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will ask Jackie Baillie a simple question: are weapons of mass destruction right or wrong?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The point is simple: I posed Nicola Sturgeon a question but she is unable to answer it, and the record will reflect that.

I pay a genuine tribute to the many people who marched from Faslane to Edinburgh last week. Many are from my constituency and, indeed, many are party colleagues of mine. I respect their commitment to the issue. It is fair to say that many people have campaigned for nuclear disarmament over the years. I acknowledge in particular the contribution of the churches, the trade unions and many communities besides. A nuclear-free world and achieving world peace are aspirations that we all share. We may differ on how to achieve those aims, but I know of no sane person, inside or outside the chamber, who wants nuclear weapons ever to be used anywhere in the world.

It is right that there should be the fullest public debate about Trident. There are questions that need to be answered, but I make no apology for commenting about the economic impact of Faslane. [Interruption.] The SNP may scorn, but it is important. 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. I have been accused—[Interruption.] Kindly listen. I have been accused in the past of using that as an excuse for keeping nuclear weapons. Far from it—those are the facts; they might be uncomfortable to the SNP, but they are real and must be addressed. 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.

Roseanna Cunningham and Bruce Crawford are very quick to defend Ministry of Defence jobs in their constituencies, and rightly so. However, they would pull us out of NATO and throw our defence workers in Faslane and Coulport on the dole. Oh yes, I almost forgot—there is also Alex Salmond's wee, pretendy Scottish navy. It has been promised to Rosyth, but when the SNP thinks that we are not looking, it promises it to Faslane in the west. There would be only a handful of jobs.

In concluding, let me congratulate the Greens. At least they have started to recognise our responsibility to the workforce. However, their scorecard reads six out of 10, as they make the mistake of letting Westminster off the hook. I do not understand why we constantly seek to use MSPs as messengers when we have Members of Parliament whom we can lobby directly. After all, it will be their decision.

I respect all views expressed in the chamber, but I will continue to argue that if we truly want to rid the United Kingdom of nuclear weapons, we have to mitigate the consequences of so doing. I will not take lessons in morals or ethics from the SNP, because people expect real action, not rhetoric and most certainly not the empty posturing of the SNP.

I move amendment S2M-4864.5, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"notes that decisions pertaining to national defence, such as any future replacement of Trident, are reserved to the Westminster parliament; notes that the United Nations Security Council plays a vital role in working for peace and security on a global basis; welcomes the United Kingdom's role within both the United Nations and NATO; notes that the General Election manifestos for 2005 of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties called for the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent; believes that there should be the widest possible debate on the future security of Scotland, the United Kingdom and the wider world, covering all options on Trident, including non-replacement; notes the comments of the UK Government that no decisions on replacing Trident have yet been taken; welcomes the significant reductions in the UK'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."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Liberal Democrats north and south of the border have a long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis while retaining the UK's current nuclear deterrent until progress has been made to that end.

Replacing the Trident system is clearly a reserved decision for Westminster, but the Liberal Democrats believe that it is vital for a properly informed public debate to take place.

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

Including in this place?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Yes, including in this place, and throughout the United Kingdom. At the end of the public debate, there must be a vote in the House of Commons on any decision made by the UK Government on whether to replace the Trident system.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the member agree that, even if we accept the distinction between reserved and devolved matters, one problem is that votes in the House of Commons are determined by members elected on the first-past-the-post system rather than any kind of proportional representation?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is the democratic system that we have. We are a democracy and must abide by its results. I know that we would all like to see proportional representation throughout the United Kingdom.

In the aftermath of last year's failure of both the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference and the United Nations summit to make any meaningful progress on nuclear disarmament, the Liberal Democrats are continuing to press the UK Government to initiate arms reduction talks. To say the least, it is hugely disappointing that, although the Prime Minister said that there would be the fullest possible debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has pre-empted the debate with his recent statement making a clear commitment to replacing the Trident system.

Liberal Democrats believe that the chancellor's commitment to replacing our strategic nuclear arsenal is a huge mistake. It makes a mockery of the call for a full and inclusive debate. What is the point of initiating debate if the Government has already made a decision? My personal view is straightforward. The UK Government should be taking real steps to initiate the removal of strategic nuclear weapons systems from the world's arsenals. What is the point of the UK spending billions of pounds on a system that could not possibly be used?

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

What is the Liberal position? Will Mr Rumbles encourage his Liberal Democrat Westminster colleagues to vote against the replacement of Trident when it comes to the debate in the House of Commons?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Yes.

What sane Prime Minister would ever launch an intercontinental nuclear missile attack on another country aimed at destroying civilian population centres? That is what the weapons system is for. Mutually assured destruction always was a mad concept when it held sway between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries in the days of the cold war. It is equally mad in today's world. What sort of chancellor on the one hand condemns weapons of mass destruction held by other countries while on the other hand plans to update, improve and replace our own weapons of mass destruction?

I can envisage no circumstances—no circumstances at all—in which a so-called strategic nuclear deterrent such as Trident or a replacement for it could possibly be used. I look forward to hearing other contributors to the debate, but I have yet to hear anyone who can outline a scenario in which they would advocate the use of the Trident missile system. If the replacement for Trident is to cost the British people billions of pounds but is of no military value whatsoever, what is its purpose?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

If Mike Rumbles does not believe that there is any conceivable military use for the replacement of Trident, why does he want to retain Trident or any other nuclear deterrent? The same criticism applies to our current deterrent as would apply to one that will not deter in the future.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Rumbles, you have one minute.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mark Ballard should pay attention to what I am saying. We believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament. We want the Government to take the initiative and use our weapons systems to convince other countries to move down the path that we want to move down.

I am running out of time, so I will close. I ask myself what Trident's purpose is, because it does not have any military value. It seems to me to be a very expensive status symbol for Gordon Brown, who sees himself as the future Prime Minister of Great Britain.

In the great debate on the issue, which should be taking place across the length and breadth of the country, I hope that our MPs will listen to the moral lead given by the heads of the Christian churches in Scotland. I have heard criticisms of them, but this is exactly the lead that our religious leaders should be giving the nation. There can be no moral justification for the use of Trident or its successor. When the decision is taken by MPs in Westminster, I hope that our own phalanx of Scots MPs from all parties make the right decision.

I move amendment S2M-4864.3, 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 ensure that there is a full public debate on the issue; further calls on the UK Government to press for a new round of multilateral arms reduction talks, and believes that the United Kingdom'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)

I am sorry to rush members, but we have only an hour and a quarter for the debate, and I am anxious to get everyone in.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

Nuclear weapons are immoral, illegal and should have no future here.

Jack McConnell said in the chamber two weeks ago that Trident should be included in international disarmament negotiations. Jackie Baillie, the Lib Dems and the Tories also say that multilateral disarmament works. If it works, Trident will be negotiated away, so where is their plan to provide alternative employment to those who will lose their jobs, or is that they do not have a plan, because they know that their policy has failed over 50 years, is failing and will continue to fail? They do not plan for a non-nuclear future because they do not believe that multilateralism will succeed in our time.

I am old enough to remember the excitement generated by the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards' plan to guarantee jobs by phasing out that company's involvement in military production. The trade unions at Lucas spent two years consulting the entire workforce, from engineers to secretaries. The eventual plan that they produced was a response to employees' wish to spend their time working on socially useful goods rather than bigger ways of killing people. It was based on the company's skills and equipment and on market research.

The unions took their plan to the Labour Government for support—what a waste of time. What did Labour do? Nothing. What did we lose as a result? Instead of more killing machines, the workforce suggested diversification into medical equipment, aids for disabled people, portable kidney dialysis machines, wind turbines, solar cells, heat pumps, small-scale electricity generation, energy conservation, hybrid electric cars and a road-rail vehicle. That was all back in 1976. If the Labour Government had listened 30 years ago, Britain would now be a world leader in renewable energy and not frantically playing catch-up and having to buy all its wind turbines from Denmark or Germany.

The Lucas Aerospace trade unionists were visionaries. We need some of that vision now. That is why my amendment says that we should look to the future. Let us stop throwing tens of billions of pounds into a weapons system that is aimed at a Soviet Union that does not exist. Instead, let us consider the skills at Faslane and Coulport and what future markets will need in the age of peak oil and climate change. Let us stop pouring money into misery and plan for the socially useful alternatives that a nuclear-free Scotland could produce.

Both member parties of the coalition claim to believe that multilateral talks will rid Scotland of nuclear weapons. Where is their plan for how that will happen? Where is their plan for the workforce? They should prove that their commitment is more than just mealy-mouthed words to disguise a central promise to follow the US Government across the world and to house whatever weapons of mass destruction it tells us to. If members believe that a non-nuclear future is possible, let us plan for it now.

I move amendment S2M-4864.4, to insert at end:

"but also recognises the concerns of workforce unions, such as the GMB, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to prepare Scotland for a weapons of mass destruction-free future by producing a plan for the redeployment of workers, such as at Faslane and Coulport, for peaceful purposes."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

In presenting the motion, the SNP has hit the nail on the head. The motion makes it clear that people are either for or against unilateral disarmament. The Conservative party definitely stands in the against section. One reason why we did not lodge an amendment to the motion was that we felt that it would be nice to have a clear debate on the issue and to consider the merits.

When I listened to Roseanna Cunningham's speech, I felt that we were revisiting old arguments that I heard in the 1990s and 1980s and back in the 1970s. I picked up an election leaflet from Sedgefield in 1983 by no less than Tony Blair, in which he condemned the Tories for considering spending £10 billion on Trident. The one difference between Roseanna Cunningham and Tony Blair is that he now has responsibility for the government of this country and for protecting its citizens. He has governmental responsibility, which Roseanna Cunningham has never tasted. Tony Blair has recognised the reality.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes for my speech.

I have no difficulty with going along with the Labour amendment, but I will make one point to Jackie Baillie. The Government promised a debate on the issue in this session of the Parliament and I eagerly await its committing to that debate.

In her amendment, Jackie Baillie refers to

"reductions in the ... nuclear weapons arsenal".

Such reductions have happened since the early 1990s. In 1993, the Tory Government got rid of the battlefield armaments, and the strategic defence review of 1998 further diminished our nuclear strike power. All that is welcome and it would be nice to think that those changes had some payback multilaterally.

One point that worries me about Jackie Baillie's amendment, and the Labour Party's commitment when it says that no decisions have been made, is that, in recent years, the budget for nuclear weaponry research at Aldermaston has flatlined. However, in the next couple of years, that budget will escalate greatly. I make no criticism of that. The Government would not be doing its job if it did not ensure that we were in a fit state to make the major decision on whether Trident is continued when the time comes. It is right that investment should be made, but we should not hide behind words.

The Liberal amendment is a bit woolly. We would all like all nations to get rid of nuclear weapons and we all wish that nuclear weapons had never been invented, but they were invented and they exist. People who say that they have not worked as a deterrent ignore the facts of history. The fact is that nuclear weapons have worked as a deterrent and have kept the major nations apart.

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

rose—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sorry; I have no time to give way as I am just about finished—I had only four minutes.

When people such as John Reid—a former communist, former supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and recently the Secretary of State for Defence—recognise the importance of nuclear weaponry to the country, everyone in the chamber should sit up and take notice.

I congratulate the Greens on their comments on economic development. I only wish that a minister with economic development responsibility were here to respond, because that would have interested the chamber. I also wish that the debate could go on longer, but it cannot, and my time has run out.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Indeed, the debate cannot go on longer, but if everyone sticks to four minutes plus bonus time for one intervention each, we should—just—be able to fit everyone in.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the debate. The subject may be a reserved matter, but the vote at the end of the day will clearly show Scottish voters where the current crop of MSPs stands on the issue.

Jackie Baillie's amendment is a typical fudge. Her hypocrisy beggars belief. Her speech was full of nice, soppy words, but nobody was fooled. Labour here and in the other place is morally bankrupt. After hearing Jackie Baillie's speech, I doubt whether she would recognise a moral or an ethic if it hit her in the face.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The outcome of the debate will be of particular interest to people who participated in the long walk for peace, whom I had the privilege of joining for part of the way. Those people were from all walks of life and backgrounds and were of all ages. They will watch the vote at 5 pm carefully.

The motion is clear and unequivocal: people are either for or agin Trident, now and in the future. There will be no hiding place, particularly for members who displayed a big flurry of support in front of the TV cameras outside the Parliament last Tuesday, one of whom hinted that she had been sent there by the First Minister.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Where are Margaret Curran and Cathy Peattie today? All those—except the Greens—who vote for any amendment will be seen as worms wriggling to get off the hook.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

Few dispute that the nature of world security has changed from the situation half a century ago. We have gone from superpowers and cold wars to intrastate rather than interstate conflict and from cross-border disputes to no-borders terrorism. In such situations, nuclear weapons are useless. Only Bush, Blair and their followers believe that they can bomb their beliefs on the world. Such ideologies fuel international terrorism rather than placate it. The international warfare that is perpetrated by fearless suicide bombers will be defeated not by nuclear weapons but by superior intelligence and diplomacy.

Nobody has suggested that Iran and North Korea seek to develop weapons with a wish to attack us, yet Britain—at the same time as keeping and even talking about replacing Trident nuclear weapons—tells us that those countries should not develop their own arsenal. What blinds the politicians who tell us that with their attitude of do as I say, not as I do? They must be persuaded that that superior and patronising attitude has no place in the world of the 21st century.

Blair and Brown have said that they want Trident to be replaced. The First Minister's idea of using Britain's nuclear deterrent as a bargaining chip in international negotiations has been described by British officials close to the talks with Iran as stupid and completely ridiculous.

The SNP's stance on Trident has been clear and unequivocal for as long as I can remember. It is to scrap Trident and to make Scotland nuclear free. The money saved could be put to much better use. The estimated cost of replacing Trident is £25 billion—about £2.1 billion for Scotland. That could pay for new secondary schools, five new hospitals, 30 new community sport centres, 100 new doctors, 100 dentists and 200 teachers—the list goes on. The money would be much better spent in that way.

The choice next May is clear—between those who strut the international stage, increasing international terrorism with their blind arrogance, and the chance to use our resources to change Scotland for the better and to make it a haven of peace, rather than a home for nuclear weapons.

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

Never mind that it is unacceptably expensive at between £25 billion and £40 billion; that it is economically wasteful at a time when the national health service is being drained of its life blood, state education is wearing out at the knees and elbows, the building of social housing is almost at a standstill and one in three children is born into poverty; and that its presence on the Clyde makes us one of the world's number 1 targets for terrorist attack—Trident is "militarily unsound". Those are the words of Gordon Brown in 1984. Nothing that he said then could not be said today. The only difference between now and then is that the price has gone up, the weapons have become more dangerous and he and the Labour Party have sold their jerseys.

It is to the shame of the Parliament that the Executive refuses to turn its back on weapons of mass destruction. The minister and others may argue today that Trident is a deterrent. Is that right? If it is, why is the planet ravaged by war? If Trident is a deterrent, can other countries have it? Is it a deterrent when we have it, but a weapon when they have it, as a friend pointed out last week? As Gordon Brown pointed out—in those days, he at least looked as if he had principles—weapons of mass destruction make us a target and not a haven for peace.

The minister and others may also point to Trident as a source of employment. Jackie Baillie is wrong to make that point. As has been said, there is a multitude of areas in which workers' time, energy and skills could be redeployed. Does Jackie Baillie know that if we paid every worker at the Faslane base £40,000 per year to stay at home, that would be a lot cheaper than replacing Trident? The Executive sat back while workers in the public sector—hospital workers, civil servants and council workers—lost their jobs, but there was no rush to plough millions into it to create and protect jobs. Is that not hypocrisy?

A couple of weeks ago, Carolyn Leckie, Frances Curran and I spent hours—in some cases, days—on the long walk for peace, which was an amazing event. I congratulate the event's organisers and participants, some of whom are here today. The walk took us through housing schemes and communities. Anyone who took part in it will have noted people's warm response, their understanding of the issue and their desperation to get rid of nuclear weapons. On housing schemes up and down Scotland, people are making the connection. They understand that they do not have new housing, but they do have weapons of mass destruction.

The Parliament needs to speak out. It is no excuse to say that this is a reserved matter and that the big boys did it and ran away. The Executive could speak up if it had the will to do so. Perhaps the First Minister could write a reference for those of us who are arrested for protesting against the war and WMDs when we next appear in court.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Rosie Kane (SSP, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute. The member did not give way during his speech.

If he had the will, the Minister for Transport could bar the supply of parts for and the maintenance of new weapons via our roads and railways. He has the power to do that. If the Parliament wanted to respond to the needs and demands of the people of Scotland, it would speak up and show courage, to make this country a place in which we understand peace and not weapons. Why is it that when anyone else has something like Trident it is a weapon, but when we have it it is a deterrent? Let us scrap Trident and make this country a place where we talk about peace, not war.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It strikes me that the length of the Labour amendment is in proportion to Labour's embarrassment on the issue. I congratulate Phil Gallie on his honesty—at least the Tories do not hide behind half a page of verbiage.

During the cold war, there were two positions—pro-nuclear, because nuclear weapons were a deterrent, and anti-nuclear, for all the reasons that Roseanna Cunningham has laid out. It is not provable which theory was right, although Phil Gallie thinks that it is. Those of us who were teenagers during the Cuban missile crisis remember spending an anxious couple of days waiting to find out which theory was right. However, at least during the cold war our conditions for using the deterrent were clear—once the Russian tanks crossed the West German border, the clock had begun to tick. Now they are not clear. The Trident boats still patrol the oceans, although we are told that launch directions are not programmed into them. As Mike Rumbles asked, when would we use them? Whom do they deter by sailing the oceans? No one dares say.

We are informed that we are in the midst of a war on terror, but what act of terrorism has Trident ever stopped or will it ever stop? The previous deterrent strategy was dependent on rationality—the idea that both we and the Soviets would act rationally. However, even if nuclear weapons could ever work as a deterrent, they do not work with those who do not act rationally, such as rogue states. When did North Korea last act rationally? Terrorists who obtain nuclear weapons—suicide bombers writ large—will not act rationally. The deterrent argument simply does not work for the most likely source of a nuclear attack in this day and age.

Faced with that unpalatable fact, the Government must come up with another argument to justify spending £25 billion on replacing Trident. As the First Minister said at First Minister's question time a couple of weeks ago, Trident is now a negotiating tool. If it were brand spanking new, were just out of the showroom and had a lifetime of 30 years in front of it, one might be able to argue—although I would not agree—that it could be used in negotiations. However, it is not—it is obsolescent. The submarines are almost past the end of their useful life. If we keep Trident, it will have to be replaced and the decision to replace it will have to be taken this year, because of the lead time for such orders. If members were on the other side of putative negotiations and knew that their opponent's bargaining chips were literally wasting away on the table in front of them, what would they do? They would sit tight and call their opponent's bluff. They would tell them to spend £25 billion on renewing their deterrent—and defence programmes never come in on budget—before agreeing to negotiate. Obsolescent Trident is not a negotiating tool.

What about a new Trident? I do not subscribe to the notion that it would be an efficient bargaining tool anyway, but are we really going to spend £25 billion or more on a new bargaining tool? Is that really the First Minister's position? Is that the best thing that we can do in Scotland in the 21st century with our share of £25 billion? I presume that even Labour members do not sign up to the idea that all the money comes from England to subsidise the valuable nuclear deterrent that we have on the Scottish coast. I do not believe that the people of Scotland think that that is a good use of our share of the money or of the United Kingdom's expenditure of £25 billion. We should not go down that road.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

As has been outlined, the arguments against nuclear weapons are both numerous and compelling. There is not just the moral argument that it is absolutely repulsive for us to have a weapons system that literally can destroy the lives of millions of ordinary citizens; there is also the fact that nuclear weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants in any dispute and destroy those lives in an indiscriminate manner, which makes them illegal. That is why the International Court of Justice declared that nuclear weapons—not just their use but their possession—are illegal and why the continuing protests against the Trident weapons on the Clyde are justified.

There is also the financial argument. Members mentioned the figures only a couple of times, but it is important that we do so more often. The replacement of Trident would not cost £25,000 million; there would be a commitment of £76,000 million to replace and maintain Trident over the next 30 years, according to figures from the House of Commons. The choices that must be put to the people of England, Wales and Scotland during the next six to 12 months are, "Do you want to commit £76,000 million to improving pensions and removing the means test? Do you want to commit £76,000 million to uprating the minimum wage to make it a decent living wage? Do you want to spend £76,000 million over the next 30 years on a return to free education and grants for people who study, or do you want to invest £76,000 million in the most expensive scrap metal in the world?" Let us make no bones about it: the use of nuclear weapons would signal the end of our planet. Let us use the economic argument and spend the money on improving the quality of life and living standards of all our citizens, not on nuclear weapons.

The debate is more and more tied up with the movement for independence. Jackie Baillie and others say that the weakness in our argument is the fact that decisions are reserved to Westminster, but that is the strength of our argument. As we approach the historic 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, people who are committed to peace and want nuclear weapons to be removed from Scotland must realise that all the political parties in Scotland that are committed to independence are also committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament. In other words, if people want to vote for peace next May, they must vote for a party of independence. The movement for peace and the movement for independence are more integrally linked than they have ever been.

Instead of a planet that spends £561 billion on weapons and only £32 billion on feeding the world, let us have a planet that spends money on feeding the world. Let us have a planet that spends money on creation, not destruction.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I am privileged to take part in the debate.

Where do the Russians, the Americans, the French or the Israelis keep their nuclear weapons? Ours are in Faslane. During the cold war, I was terrified to death to think that everyone knew that our weapons were housed at Faslane. Russian nuclear weapons were targeted on Faslane 365 days a year.

After the first world war, people talked about lions led by donkeys. The MOD is the ministry of donkeys—I am talking not about the politicians but about the civil servants and the military people who drive them on and tell them what to say. The civil servants are so thick that they cannot face the reality that the cold war is over. It is a dead cold war. It no longer exists. In a pathetic attempt to put down an uprising of terrorists, the MOD has sent troops to Afghanistan, where 250,000 Russian troops tried and failed for 20 years. So much for the ministry of donkeys.

I will tell members why we will renew Trident. We will do so because our good Prime Minister, Mr Blair, said to George Bush, "George, you might not have peerages to sell for your election funds, but you can recompense manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction." Do members remember talk of weapons of mass destruction and the untimely death of Dr Kelly and all the rest of it? The threat of WMDs was laid out daily by the Prime Minister, but there turned out to be no such weapons in Iraq. However, there are weapons of mass destruction at Faslane, which are a constant threat to us.

I have said before in the Parliament that an attack on Faslane by terrorists would wipe out the central belt of Scotland. If three or four lady pensioners can make their way into Faslane and wander about for four hours, we can imagine what the security must be like down there. However, the ministry of donkeys seems not to worry about that sort of thing; it just ploughs on.

I grew up in a world that was free of nuclear weapons. I was 15 in 1945 when the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. During the war, we thought that that was great, but as I grew up and understood the damage that the nuclear weapons had caused when they wiped out two conurbations in Japan, it made me a convert to and a great believer in CND.

I am appalled by the absence of Labour Party members in the chamber. I did not leave the Labour Party; the Labour Party left me. The Labour Party that I knew was strongly in favour of doing away with weapons of mass destruction. It is a sad indictment of the party that its members are not present to stand up for what is right, in the way that they were brought up to do, and call for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. We must not renew Trident; it is a farce.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We are back on time. We move to wind-up speeches.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Roseanna Cunningham opened the debate by saying that the motion gives members no place to hide. She was wrong, which is sad, because we have witnessed a desperate attempt by the Labour Party and in particular the Liberal Democrats to find a place to hide, although they have been presented with a clear moral choice: should we replace Trident or not?

Phil Gallie made his position clear. He is an old cold warrior who believes in the nuclear deterrent and would like to retain nuclear weapons. His moral position is unambiguous and I respect it. However, from Jackie Baillie, and in particular from Mike Rumbles, we heard a lot of words about the long walk for peace and the people throughout Scotland from religious communities and every walk of life who oppose nuclear weapons. Mike Rumbles talked about the immorality of nuclear weapons and the nonsense of using them in any military context. However, the Liberal Democrat amendment states:

"the United Kingdom'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."

The Liberal Democrats propose that we wait until everyone else has given up their nuclear weapons before we get rid of ours. They cannot foresee a future without nuclear weapons.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is a travesty of what I said. It is obvious that the member was not listening. Our amendment refers to the current system; it does not talk about replacing the system. That is absolutely clear, as is my position. I will vote for the SNP's motion—if we ever get there and the Tories and the Labour Party do not combine to defeat it.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

However hard Mike Rumbles tries to hide, the Liberal Democrat amendment is clear: it does not foresee a future without nuclear weapons and it wants to retain them, despite all of Mike Rumbles's good, strong arguments that they make no sense.

Alasdair Morgan laid out clearly why the negotiating strategy of Mike Rumbles and others who support the notion of multilateral disarmament simply will not work in practice.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Does the member accept that thousands of Labour Party members and trade unionists are against the renewal of Trident? The way to convince Westminster MPs is by persuasion—as in the Green's logical amendment—rather than by the abuse that is coming from some members of the SNP. Party-political sectarianism will not work.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I am not going to respond to any party-political sectarianism, but I respect Bill Butler and many people in the Labour Party and the trade union movement who have been unequivocal in retaining their opposition to nuclear weapons and supporting nuclear disarmament—unlike the First Minister.

Chris Ballance was right: if people believe in multilateralism and doing away with these illegal and immoral weapons, they should be planning a future for Scotland that is without weapons of mass destruction. The fact that the people who promote this multilateral nonsense do not believe it in their heart of hearts is indicated by their failure to plan in that way.

Multilateralism has not worked for the past 50 years, but South Africa has unilaterally disarmed and Ukraine has unilaterally disarmed. I look forward to a future in which the UK and Scotland join that list. Unilateral disarmament is the only way we will be able to get rid of these illegal and immoral weapons. Let us take that step. I urge members to support the SNP motion and the Green amendment.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am pleased to restate Liberal Democrats' views on the Trident missile system: we believe in the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. We are clear that the Trident system must form a part of multilateral arms reduction talks. As Mike Rumbles said, we see a key role for the UK Government in bringing about such talks.

Last year, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference failed. We believe that that was the cue for leadership on the international stage by the UK Government. Instead, what we got was a series of mixed messages from the UK Government. In June 2005, the Secretary of State for Defence said that no decision had been taken on the replacement for the Trident missile system. In February, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons that there would be the "fullest possible parliamentary debate". However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer then appeared to pre-empt such a debate by saying that Trident was to be replaced.

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

Will the member confirm that the Liberal party will vote in favour of the SNP motion, if we reach a vote on that motion?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Mr Rumbles made his own position clear.

It is hard to understand the haste with which the UK Government seems to wish to proceed to a decision on replacement. In June 2006, a House of Commons Defence Committee report on the future of the UK strategic nuclear deterrent apparently stated that no binding decision needs to be made before 2014. Alasdair Morgan's point that the obsolescence of the system degrades its potential within multilateral talks is not as strong as he believes.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

When the debate occurs in the House of Commons, will Euan Robson take the opportunity to persuade his Liberal Democrat colleagues to vote against the renewal of Trident? Yes or no?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Yes, I will certainly take that posture and seek to persuade my colleagues, as Bill Butler will hear.

It would be entirely acceptable for this Parliament to be involved in a national debate; I see no reason why we should not be. The debate would inform the public of the key questions. Precisely against whom is the current system targeted or would a replacement system be targeted? I find it impossible to answer that question. Is the current system truly and fully independent, and would a replacement system be? The current system is clearly not truly and fully independent. Does the public really want a system that is dependent largely on the involvement of the United States?

What will be the impact on jobs and what are the alternative plans if there is to be no replacement? Those questions will need to be addressed.

What about the cost of a replacement system? Many members have referred to a range of uses for the sums of money involved. Of course, one can extrapolate over a period of time and say how many hospitals, teachers and so on could be funded with the resources. However, the figure is not the £15 billion to £25 billion of the initial cost; as Mr Sheridan has said—and the figure comes from the House of Commons itself—the figure is £75 billion or £76 billion over a 30-year period. That is the true cost, and there would have to be a public debate on how the British people want to spend it. I think the answer would be that they would not wish to spend that sum of money on a replacement system.

One alternative has not been discussed in this debate: there are alternative military uses to which the resources released could be put. For example, the United Nations is failing to respond to the crisis in Darfur. The money to replace the Trident system could be devoted to a far more comprehensive and outstanding peacekeeping effort around the world.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

This is our second debate on Trident within a relatively short period of time. We have heard many good speeches this morning, displaying passion, commitment and principles. This is an issue on which individual views must be respected and properly understood. The existence of these hideous weapons of destruction is a matter of disquiet to those who wish to keep them as well as to those who do not. Safety issues—let alone all the others—are of enormous importance.

It is of considerable interest that, at one time, Mr Tony Blair, Mr Gordon Brown and Mr John Reid were all believed to be strong supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but no longer. I note in particular a speech from Gordon Brown on June 21. As he may be Prime Minister-in-waiting, the Parliament is entitled to know what he said. He supported

"a stability founded on our strength to make the right long-term decisions, a sense of national purpose in protecting our security in this Parliament and in the long term—strong in defence, in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent. In an insecure world we must and will always have the strength to take all necessary long-term decisions for stability and security."

That implies a presumption, at least on the part of the chancellor, that Trident will be renewed or replaced.

Unfortunately, we cannot destroy the knowledge that led to the production of nuclear weapons. However, we can and do support multilateral disarmament. That is why we supported a test ban, the non-proliferation treaties and other policies to that end, all with a view to reducing tension in the world.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I am interested in the member's comments. Is he aware that the technology to turn Trident into a coercive weapon with warheads capable of accuracy within metres is already being pursued by the US and UK Governments? That would make Trident a first-strike weapon. I ask whether the member supports that, because he will be supporting it if he supports replacement.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am totally opposed to the idea of a first strike in any context. I am well aware that technology has marched on a great deal, as the member says. However, it should be borne in mind that the existence of the Trident deterrent during the cold war meant that there was no hot war between Russia and western nations and led to a considerable reduction in the number of nuclear bombs in America and Russia.

I am extremely surprised that the First Minister has suggested that Trident should be used as a negotiating pawn in discussions between Britain and Iran. That is especially surprising, given that Labour's 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".

I suggest that such a complex issue will not be resolved by a knee-jerk reaction to a current problem. If the First Minister cannot persuade the British Government on that point, he is unlikely to persuade us.

As I said in the debate on 4 May, I challenge those people who wish us to give up our nuclear weapons unilaterally with an unanswerable question: who would follow our example?

I have two final points. To eliminate wars, the participation of our country and others in the work of the United Nations will be invaluable, because at the United Nations countries that are in dispute can back off without losing face. If Trident has to be renewed, as I suspect it will, it should be done on the ground that it is a regrettable necessity. We support the Labour amendment.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Unlike some people in Scotland, whom Jackie Baillie referred to in her speech, I welcome the opportunities that the Parliament has to discuss non-devolved issues. Some of the best debates that we have had have been on matters on which we cannot legislate, but on which we have the right to express our views. The potential replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system is one such issue. It is just a pity that the Scottish National Party would rather play cheap politics with the subject than give us the opportunity to express our views on it properly. It is an absolute joke that the SNP believes that an issue of such magnitude can be reduced to a discussion of little more than an hour.

Although I recognise that small businesses deserve to have issues that affect them debated in the Parliament, I must ask how the SNP expects us and the Scottish public to believe that it considers nuclear proliferation to be a matter of vital importance when it splits its debating time between consideration of the threat of world obliteration and discussion of strategies for the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises. However, we know that rather than being about ensuring that we have a debate about nuclear missile replacement, this morning's charade is about cheap point scoring and trying to shut down such debate.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I will not take any interventions from the SNP because it has not given us enough time to discuss the subject, although I am happy to indulge in point scoring.

I ask the SNP what we would spend the money that we would save from scrapping nuclear missiles on. The party's spokespeople have a wish list of spending commitments that would make Santa Claus despair. Alex Salmond tells us that he would have the money spent on eradicating world poverty. One would think that, after that, there would not be much change left from the £2 billion that is Scotland's pro rata share of the cost of Trident replacement, but not a bit of it. From press releases, we know that the SNP wants the money to be spent on saving the Scottish regiments, diversifying defence, investing in raising benefits, ending pensioner poverty, improving the national health service, investing in Scotland's children, improving our water system and building new roads. [Interruption.] SNP members can clap, but they cannot spend the money more than once. Once the money has been spent, it is gone—that is basic economics. The SNP does not understand that that is an important part of the debate on Trident.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Does the member not agree that £76,000 million might just cover spending on the items on the wish list that he has just read out?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

We are talking about what we could spend in Scotland, which is not £76,000 million. That is the amount that the SNP would require to spend to meet all its commitments.

The problem with the SNP is that in spite of its constant demands that there should be a debate, it wants us to agree to motions that would prevent us from taking part in such a debate. According to the SNP, we can discuss the issue only so that we end up agreeing with it and then end the debate there. I want nuclear disarmament. I want the threat of nuclear annihilation to be removed from our planet as soon as possible but, unlike the SNP, I want to consider frankly all the options that would allow us to get to that position, which include bilateral and multilateral disarmament.

I moved from a unilateralist to a multilateralist position during the 1990s. I remember from the debate that took place at that time the old adage that those who want to go alone can always start today, but those who wish to travel with others must wait until the others are ready. That strategy led to nuclear weapons reduction and was successful.

As we look ahead to whether we should replace Trident, I am once again inclined towards unilateralism, but the issue is not as simple as the SNP would have us believe. I want to engage with others in an honest debate and to take on board arguments both for and against unilateralism. I do not want such an important issue to be treated with the contempt that the SNP has shown for it in this morning's truncated debate, which is about not preventing the replacement of Trident, but headline grabbing and constitutional wrangling. I want a genuine debate—that is why I support Labour's amendment, which seeks to allow that legitimate debate to begin.

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

Last week, we witnessed the culmination of a fantastic effort by everyone who was involved in the long walk for peace. Like other members, I thank the organisers and the people who took part in the march for ensuring that the campaign to make Trident history was given new life and for providing an appropriate backdrop to today's debate.

In the aftermath of the march, the marchers sent all MSPs a message in which we were reminded that we have been elected to serve the people of Scotland. I hope that all of us will always remember that. The message also said:

"As an MSP you can play a critical role in eliminating the scourge of nuclear weapons. If the Scottish Parliament took a stand against any replacement or upgrade of Trident, you will send a strong message to London and the world that there is no place for nuclear weapons. The responsibility to reflect the conscience of the people of Scotland has not been reserved to Westminster."

We wanted to have the debate so that we could reflect the conscience of the Scottish people and concentrate on the strategic, ethical, moral and legal rationale for not replacing Trident. On the whole, we have managed to achieve our aims.

I make a simple invitation to Michael McMahon: bring on a Scottish Executive-initiated debate any time, any place, anywhere. It can be held in Executive time, whenever the opportunity arises. The reality is that Labour members do not want to be embarrassed because they have all changed their minds on the issue. When I heard Michael McMahon say that he changed his mind in the 1990s, I wondered whether having his conscience removed was part of the vetting process that he went through to become an MSP.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I suggest that Michael McMahon's conversion came with Labour's inheritance of government. Responsibility changes minds.

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

As I said, I think his conscience was removed.

Jackie Baillie's amendment refers to

"significant reductions in the UK's nuclear weapons arsenal".

There may have been a reduction in the overall payload, but everyone who looks at the facts will realise that now that the Trident submarines have 48 warheads and a much greater capacity to target, they are more effective than any weapons that we have had in the past. That is the reality.

I will take no lectures on jobs from Jackie Baillie, when Labour has been responsible for the loss of 2,500 MOD jobs from Scotland since it came to power.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Is it not the case that under an SNP Government, we would lose them all?

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

Instead of spending £5 million a head on the jobs of the people who are involved in work on Trident, we would use the money to create a heck of a lot more jobs than exist at present.

At this stage in UK politics, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to influence the outcome of the debate on whether Trident should be upgraded. What do I mean by that? As we are all too aware, the British Labour Party is in the process of replacing its leader and, as a consequence, the UK will have a new Prime Minister. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the next Labour leader and Prime Minister will be a Scot: Gordon Brown. While I accept that he has committed himself to the continuance of the UK's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, I believe that if we in this Parliament were to vote against that, he could be persuaded to alter course.

Why do I believe that? I do so because he has already altered course. He did not always believe, as he does today, in the need for the UK to maintain WMD. Indeed, so opposed was he that, as Rosie Kane alluded to, he said in the House of Commons on 19 June 1984 that Trident was

"unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 19 June 1984; Vol 62, c 188.]

I believe that his arguments were right in 1984 and that they are even more valid today.

I also believe that Labour members, who were elected to this Parliament to serve and reflect the conscience of the Scottish people, can play a critical role. I wonder about Bill Butler in that regard. Was he struck off the Labour list of speakers in the debate because his views are too strong to be heard in the chamber? At the end of the long march for peace, I saw a number of Labour members outside the Parliament join others to greet the marchers on their arrival here. The role of those Labour members in securing a majority vote in Parliament against the replacement or upgrading of Trident is paramount.

The people who took part in the long march and the majority of the people of Scotland, who believe that there is no strategic, ethical, moral or legal rationale for the UK retaining Trident, are hoping, nay praying, that Labour members will vote with their conscience at decision time. Today, with Labour members' help, the Parliament can make history by voting to bin the bomb and make Trident history. In doing so together, we can begin the process of deconstructing the arguments of those who want to usher in a new period of WMD in the UK.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I agree with the terms of the SNP's motion and, if we get to it, I will support it. However, does the member think that the political posturing that is coming across the chamber from the SNP will persuade other members to support the motion? Is the posturing not simply designed to do the opposite and to prevent people from supporting the SNP's position?

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

If Elaine Smith had been in the chamber for the whole debate she would perhaps be aware that all the political posturing is coming from the Labour side of the chamber. If she wants to be able to vote for our motion, it is clear what she must do: she must vote against the hypocritical position that the Labour Party has adopted.

I do not know how many members want to do the same as me. I want to be able to say to my grandchildren that I was part of an historic debate in the Scottish Parliament that said enough was enough and signalled the beginning of the end of Trident on the Clyde. Members should vote with their conscience and vote for their grandchildren and those to follow.

Small Businesses

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4863, in the name of Jim Mather, on small businesses.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am here to move the motion and to debate the Scottish National Party's commitment to optimising the Scottish economy and Scottish living standards. I will consider specifically what we will do for small businesses, because they are the key drivers that help to grow our economy and sustain local communities. Crucially, they are rooted in Scotland. In short, the viability and success of small businesses dictate the vibrancy of Scotland.

What we propose recognises that the key factor in any plan for the perpetual improvement of an economy and for ensuring the vibrancy of our small businesses is constancy of purpose. That factor is absent from the current Executive's track record. We have had rhetoric on economic growth, but we think that such growth has been triggered largely by the success of our economic case around the boardrooms and committee rooms of Scotland. All we have had from the Executive is Jack McConnell originally hiking business rates above the prevailing United Kingdom level and then doing the same with business water charges, leaving Scotland with a development blight and a development bottleneck right across the country.

Belatedly, we have had some reversing of those hikes, but it is not enough. Unlike the current Executive, our constancy of purpose is real. We want the power to make Scottish business more competitive to create the vibrancy, jobs and true prosperity that Scotland needs. Today, we are signalling what we will do with the existing powers and independence to encourage people to invest their capital and their lives in Scotland, while highlighting the total impossibility of converging on other countries with only a subset of the powers, motivation and rewards that are available to them.

We must create the wider conditions for growth if we are to get higher growth, increased affluence, population growth and more people in work, which we crucially need. Today, we will spell out exactly what we will do to increase the viability of small business in Scotland. Specifically, we are tabling our small business bonus scheme, which the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland warmly welcomes. Under that scheme, I, along with 119,999 other small businesses, will be taken out of the business rates net, while another 20,000 businesses will be better off. We are also announcing a further reduction in red tape and overheads because small businesses will have to apply for the scheme only every five years, to coincide with revaluation.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I read the member's paper on a better deal for business and had his proposal costed at circa £184 million gross and £155 million net. Where will that money come from?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I suspect that, as usual, the minister's costings are amateur and sell us out. He has probably not considered charitable relief, rural rate relief, which is already in place, relief for businesses with a combined rateable value of more than £20,000, the lack of relief for chains of businesses and empty premises and so on. However, much more important, he has forgotten that if Scotland was running its own economy, the £122 million—40 per cent of the increase in gross domestic product—would percolate back to us. He is ignoring the potential for higher growth and the fewer failures that would ensue.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will in a second, but I have just got to nail this one more time.

In essence, what we have is a Government whose own attempt at producing business rate relief with a link to research and development has totally failed. It was not checked with the European Commission, the Inland Revenue or the Executive's own legal opinion. The minister should get his facts right before he comes at me.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If I understand Mr Mather correctly, he is saying that there would be further economic growth. However, that is predicated on further constitutional change. Is he telling us that if a new, SNP Administration came into office after next May, it would have to delay implementation of its scheme until we had further constitutional change?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I advise Murdo Fraser to read "The Making of the Celtic Tiger" and to go in particular to page 284 and read about the impact of signals. When we make a signal—a declaration of intent—people make investment decisions and move forward. I read the Conservatives' press release yesterday and I am shocked that the former party of business has totally capitulated. We are carrying that banner and moving business forward.

Of course, we want to do other things and we will make other signals. We want to lower corporation tax and business burdens, as we announced today, and begin an era of infrastructure and skills improvement, which needs to be driven by independence. That strengthens our case and moves it forward. It will create a new positive attitude in Scotland and it signals the death of the zero-sum mentality that assumes that Scotland cannot grow. Scotland can grow and move forward. People are coming to that conclusion right, left and centre. Even Sir John Ward has concluded that 1.7 per cent trend growth is inadequate and we need 3.5 per cent.

That requires radical change, which our proposals would put in place. We are persuading more and more people that we can end the era of relative decline that has lasted all my business lifetime and enter an era of perpetual improvement in which the personal and national economic cakes get progressively bigger. That is what has happened in Ireland. Charlie McCreevy's simple adage is that, for a country to become more competitive, it should invest in skills and infrastructure and get more and more people into work—the rest is detail. That process will trigger economic vibrancy. That insight recognises the prerequisite of economic power and the social and democratic imperative of dealing with low life expectancy and population decline, such as we have in Scotland.

We can match what Ireland is doing, because we start from a better place. We have better infrastructure, better and more universities, stronger industry sectors and fantastic natural resources. We have everything that Ireland has, except the cider, plus everything that Norway and Switzerland have. It is important to have national objectives to drive change, and the minister does not have such objectives. The ones that we have include becoming one of the top 15 most competitive countries in the western world; matching the average growth among small European nations of 4 per cent per annum; and reversing population decline by attracting and retaining people so that the population grows at 3 per cent per annum. We want to focus on the fact that true prosperity is shared prosperity that motivates everyone.

We can start that process by energising small businesses and giving an important signal or declaration of intent that Scotland will grow and prosper. That is needed urgently. Since 1997, growth here has been at least 30 per cent below that in the UK, even if we accept that gross domestic product is a good measure for a branch economy, which it is not. The wages gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK has widened by £1,500 per head. That is if we accept the crazy system in which the annual survey of hourly earnings ignores those who work fewer than 18 hours a week. We also have lower life expectancy.

All those issues must be addressed. The only way forward is to make a start, which is what we are doing today—our proposals would be a fillip for small businesses. We welcome the FSB's endorsement of our proposals and the demise of the Tories as the party of business.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the critically important role that small businesses play in delivering economic growth and local services and confirms the need to deliver specific tangible measures to bolster the competitiveness of Scottish small businesses, such as the SNP's recent Small Business Bonus Scheme which would result in 120,000 small businesses being freed from the burden of business rates, and also recognises that, in implementing such schemes, it will help to increase the viability of individual small businesses and contribute to creating the growth that would allow Scotland's living standards to converge on the higher living standards enjoyed elsewhere, thereby encouraging yet more small business start-ups, creating many more jobs, widening the tax base, increasing local economic vibrancy and improving local services and confidence across Scotland.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I could not agree more with Jim Mather that the key to our future prosperity is a successful economy. He is absolutely correct that an economy that is populated by successful businesses drives economic growth. In Scotland, we have in place an excellent business environment and a support framework that works for Scottish firms, the majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. The Scottish economy has performed well. The growth in GDP in the year to quarter 1 of 2006 was 1.9 per cent, which is above our long-term annual average. Our most recent quarterly growth rate of 0.5 per cent is the strongest first-quarter performance for the Scottish economy since 2001.

As we all know, the labour market continues to perform exceptionally well, with more than 160,000 Scots having entered employment since the creation of the Scottish Parliament. Employment levels are at their highest since quarterly records began. Of that growth, 40 per cent has come from jobs in small businesses.

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

How does the Executive intend to close the drastic gap that exists in expenditure on business research and development between Scotland and the rest of the UK and our European Union competitors? Unless we fill that gap, we will not move on the economy as we should be doing.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I largely agree with the thesis that underlies Bruce Crawford's point. As he probably knows, we have a range of support mechanisms for businesses in Scotland, including the small firms merit award for research and technology, or SMART; support for products under research, or SPUR; SPUR plus; and the small and medium-sized enterprises collaborative research programme, or SCORE. All those measures seek to boost industrial research and development and have been successful in that objective.

The Executive's internationalism is no longer an optional add-on but a fact of economic life. In 2004, small businesses accounted for £2.2 billion of all Scotland's exports. I presume that members accept that we do not and cannot control global factors, but we have considerable powers to influence growth, build prosperity and grow entrepreneurship. Total early-stage entrepreneurial activity—TEA—in Scotland, as measured internationally, was 5.8 per cent last year, which is the highest that it has been since 2000.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister accept that, in large parts of rural Scotland, TEA is boosted by the fact that people are in what I call subsistence self-employment—they have no other option but to start a little business?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We want to ensure that earnings rise with inflation, which is why we introduced the minimum wage to protect people who are at the lower end of the earnings scale. On TEA, Scotland has moved up from the bottom of a league of 15 comparator countries in 2000 to being in the third quartile of a group of 23 comparator countries in 2004. That real progress in total early-stage entrepreneurial activity in Scotland is not an accident; it has come about not by mistake, but because of the policies that we have pursued.

To give another example, Scottish corporate statistics show that the number of small businesses in Scotland has risen from 226,510 in 1999 to 264,660 in 2004. Those new small businesses employ an additional 32,640 people in Scotland. That is 32,640 people in work in small businesses who were not there in 2001. Small businesses in Scotland now employ 760,000 people. That is real progress, involving real people in real jobs in real and growing small businesses here in Scotland. Those businesses have an encouraging turnover of about £52 billion.

I have mentioned some of the positive aspects of our support for small businesses. We have seen small business growth and an increase in total early-stage entrepreneurial activity, with a consequential growth in employment. However, as the devolved Government in Scotland, we are determined to provide further incentives to improve business competitiveness. An important part of that is to demonstrate, wherever possible, that we take account of businesses, big and small. As members know, we have listened to small businesses. Since 2003, about 70 per cent of non-domestic subjects in Scotland have benefited from a rates reduction of up to 50 per cent through the small business rate relief scheme. We have devised a scheme that assists small businesses significantly with paying their rates bills.

Of course, small businesses—indeed, all businesses—in Scotland benefit from our decision to reduce the business rate poundage by 1.2p this year. We are determined to build on that to ensure that Scottish businesses achieve and maintain a competitive advantage in relation to their counterparts in the rest of the UK. That is why we have announced our intention to go further in April 2007 and cut the rate poundage again to the level in England. My ministerial colleagues and I will continue to stress to the business community that we look to them to take full advantage of what is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity by investing the savings in the future prosperity of Scotland. We want to make the best of Scotland, to create more wealth, employment and small businesses and, by doing so, to create the type of Scotland in which we all want to live.

I move amendment S2M-4863.2, to leave out from "critically important" to end and insert:

"central role that small businesses play in delivering both economic growth and local services and welcomes the success that the Scottish Executive has had in supporting the growth in the total employment and overall number of small businesses and new business start-ups in Scotland since 1999; welcomes the benefit that small firms gain from a range of grant schemes that encourage the development of new products and processes, the creation or safeguarding of jobs and becoming more energy efficient, and also welcomes the Executive's Small Business Rates Relief Scheme that results in around 70% of non-domestic rate subjects in Scotland receiving rates relief of up to 50% and the decision to equalise the poundage with England from 1 April 2007, which demonstrates our determination to deliver the right conditions for all businesses to grow by encouraging yet more small business start-ups, creating more jobs, widening the tax base, increasing local economic activity and improving local services across Scotland."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is to the credit of the minister that he almost managed to keep a straight face as he talked proudly about the reduction of business rates, when it was his First Minister who increased them.

I am grateful to the SNP for giving us the opportunity to discuss the future of the small business sector. We should remember that the great majority of businesses in Scotland are small ones. Recent figures suggest that about 93 per cent of Scots companies employ fewer than 10 people. Those firms are the bedrock of the economy and have a crucial role in growing the economy, providing jobs and boosting town centres and local economies. Despite their importance to the economy, it is obvious that small businesses are among the most vulnerable of enterprises. They are far more likely than larger firms are to suffer the ill effects of Government regulation or an excessive tax burden. It is therefore essential that the state does all that it can to make the business environment for small companies as competitive as possible and steers clear of policies that will stunt their development. The record over the past 10 years has been poor. We have a much lower level of business start-ups than in the United Kingdom as a whole and the lowest three-year business survival rates in the UK. According to the labour force survey, the number of self-employed people in Scotland is now 7,000 less than in 1997. The picture has not been a rosy one.

I agree with Mr Mather that we should consider reducing the rates burden for small businesses. Comparatively speaking, they feel the burden of rates more than larger enterprises. Up and down Scotland, in small towns and villages, we see the depressing sight of empty shops because the rates burden often makes it uneconomic for a small or growing business to take them on. Some alleviation of the burden of rates on those properties would be welcome and would provide a boost for town-centre economies.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What is the Tory policy on business rates these days? How does the Tory party intend to reduce the burden of business rates? What will be the Tories' manifesto commitment?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Neil will find that out when we publish our manifesto. [ Interruption. ] We will announce our policy in due course. I could have asked Mr Neil that same question a month ago and he would not have been able to tell us. The problem with the SNP's proposal is that it lacks credibility. The SNP says that it has costed the scheme at £150 million, but from recent parliamentary answers it is clear that it would cost £150 million to abolish rates just for companies with a rateable value of less than £8,000. As the SNP's scheme is much more generous than that, I wonder whether it has a problem with the arithmetic somewhere.

Another problem with the SNP's plan is that there is no indication of how it is to be funded. For the second time in two weeks, the SNP front bench is showing remarkable generosity. Two weeks ago, it promised to spend billions wiping out student debt and replacing student loans with grants for all. Today, we have another pledge: to spend at least £150 million reducing the rates burden on small businesses. Perhaps next week we will hear another pledge: to double the state pension, or to build 100 new schools or 10 new hospitals. However, we have not heard one word from the SNP on how that largesse will be funded. Where is the money coming from? When I put that question to Mr Mather earlier, he did not have an answer. Now he does.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The answer is this: when we produce our manifesto, Murdo Fraser will see our position. I guarantee that John Swinney will have the books balanced. That is how successful countries do it. People adopt what works, and this party is adopting what works. Watch this space.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I look forward to seeing the huge tax increases that will have to be proposed to pay for all those commitments. I was mocked by Mr Neil a moment ago for saying that he would have to wait until he sees our manifesto. Now the SNP is using the same defence.

Where the SNP's credibility really runs into the sand is on its proposals for a local income tax. The great majority of small businesses are unincorporated and pay income tax rather than corporation tax. A total of 240,000 Scots are registered as self-employed in Scotland and all pay income tax. Every one of them will be hit hard by the introduction of a local income tax. Every penny of their profits is deemed as earnings and will be taxed at the local income tax rate. A reduction in business rates would directly benefit small businesses that occupy premises, while doing nothing for small businesses that operate in people's homes, for example. However, all small businesses would be hit by local income tax rises. What the SNP gives with one hand it would take away with the other. It may pretend to be supporting small businesses, but when we consider the full picture, what it is proposing is quite different. The overall effect of the SNP's proposal is no more than a smash-and-grab raid against hard working people in small businesses up and down the land.

Small businesses are suffering from the high level of rates that they are paying and would undoubtedly benefit from a reduction in their bills. Any proposal that is not properly costed, for which we have no idea where the money is coming from, and that will be coupled with a local income tax that will claw back any savings, is not the way forward.

I move amendment S2M-4863.1, to leave out from "confirms" to end and insert:

"believes that there is a need for government to create a business environment which will improve the competitiveness of Scottish small businesses; further believes that any detailed proposals to reduce the business rate burden for small businesses should be properly costed and the source of such monies identified; notes the impact of excessive regulation and poor levels of investment in infrastructure on the capacity of small businesses to grow; calls on the Scottish Executive to bring forward policies to create a more business-friendly environment in Scotland, and notes that the introduction of a local income tax as proposed by the SNP and the Liberal Democrats would directly penalise hundreds of thousands of unincorporated small businesses throughout Scotland."

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

I too thank the SNP for securing this debate. It has been interesting to listen to Jim Mather—a businessman of some distinction and repute—telling us his thoughts about the future economy of Scotland. There are perhaps not as many businessmen in public life as we would like; indeed, I cannot think of any party leader who comes from a business background such as that of Jim Mather. That said, I fear that Jim Mather has been listening to some of his colleagues a touch too much. Without wishing in any way to emulate Murdo Fraser—God forbid that I should; I concede that that would be fatal—there is the point about where the money will come from. We look forward to John Swinney's books, which we shall crawl over with a large magnifying glass. Last week, we heard about all the money that will go to students; there is at least a big question mark about how those figures stand up.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I remind the member of the commitment given by his leader, Nicol Stephen, to a 2p reduction in income tax, which is within the power of the Parliament. Where will that be funded from?

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

We can have great fun crawling over each other's books. Our figures are there for examination; we await the SNP's with interest.

The economics that we hear about are based on the idea of a fiscal surplus. We need detail on that. Where is the long-term security? We cannot base it on oil stocks. I will return to that matter. Population has increased and the economy is growing steadily, but we still have to work out the costings. We need more precision on the tax situation, which perhaps we will get when John Swinney brings us the fully-costed proposals. On 12 January 2005, Jim Mather—seen by many, including the Scottish media, as being somewhat on the right of the SNP—pledged the trickle-down style economics of cuts to business rates to let the economy grow and to redistribute wealth. He said:

"The stark facts are that we need to set more competitive rates on taxes, business rates and water charges, and leverage our oil wealth and other advantages."

One week later, my good friend Christine Grahame took the socialist line and said:

"We can tackle Scotland's poverty only if we have the economic power here. Members have differences over how far that economic power should go, but those differences run throughout the parties."

What is important is what she went on to say:

"We need to raise taxes and redistribute the wealth in Scotland."—[Official Report, 19 January 2005; c 13601.]

The everlasting growth argument does not enjoy huge support. Brian Ashcroft of the Fraser of Allander institute said that growth of around 2 per cent

"is the lot of most mature economies large or small. Yes, the Irelands, South Koreas and Chinas of this world are growing significantly faster. But, for them it is about a 'catch up' from a low level of development, which will not be sustained."

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Can the member tell the difference between raising taxes and raising tax rates? We can raise taxes by generating economic growth. That is the objective.

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

I have to say to my good friend Jim Mather that, as he enters an election period, being clever with words is not the way to persuade the electorate, who want to know how much of the stuff in their pockets will be wheeched out by a future Government.

There are two points that we must address, away from the political argy-bargy. One thing that is certain is that the price of oil will continue to rise steadily. We may not like it, but that is probably an economic reality. I see Mr Mather nod in agreement. For small businesses, therefore, the issue of energy becomes ever more crucial. That is a challenge for the Executive as much as for every other party. I am talking about microrenewables. How do we encourage small businesses to go down the route of small wind generators and solar panels? That is one thing that they can do to tackle the problems that we will surely face.

Finally, no debate about business would be complete if I did not mention one of my favourite subjects—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Cheese.

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

It is corporate social responsibility. The linkage between business, the future of our young, and empowering our best and brightest needs to be made. Until this moment I have not mentioned any dairy products whatever.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will come to Jamie Stone's quip shortly. I wish to approach the subject from a social justice point of view by considering the blight in our town centres, referred to by Murdo Fraser, and the impact on communities of boarded-up shops and the expansion of charity shops, which are exempt from rates and some of which sell goods in direct competition with local retailers. That has a knock-on effect: pavements are not maintained, streetlights do not work, shopping trolleys lie broken and there is graffiti. The impact on the heart of the community is one of disintegration. There can be a domino effect: one shop goes, another shop goes and so on. Communities often feel that there is no way for them to retrieve the situation.

There are examples in my constituency, and I will start with Galashiels. Thankfully, it has recovered somewhat in recent years from the body blow of mill closures and the plundering by Viasystems. It is by no means out of the woods yet, however. The small shops adjacent to my office on Bank Street come and go, sometimes within months. The onward and upward expansion of Tesco and the arrival of Sainsbury's will add to the pressure on locally rooted shops providing local jobs.

The result of such supermarket sweeps is even more apparent in Penicuik, whose town centre is the despair of many of the town's inhabitants. Buildings are not only boarded up; they are literally falling down. Pavements are unkempt and the square is blossoming with "to let" signs. The town's development trust, crime prevention panel and community council are all trying to do their bit, despite the fact that the local authority appears to have little regard for the community, as witnessed by the closures of leisure centres and so on. Without support, the small businesses that provide jobs in the local economies and communities in which they are rooted will have an uphill struggle.

There is no conflict between Jim Mather and me on this—his business rates proposals are practical and crucial to the balance sheet of small businesses. I have in my hand a list of 122 Penicuik businesses—I am also working on various areas of the Borders. Those businesses would save a total of £151,500 under Jim's proposals. Some, I admit, would save as little as £59 per annum, but others could save up to £3,500. That sum alone would give oxygen to businesses on the brink and to those that wish to consolidate or, even better, expand.

As for the alleged cost, I will express that from a different perspective. Job creation, health, the well-being of communities and crime prevention are sometimes not easy to cost, yet we know that when a community thrives there are fewer police patrolling the streets, fewer people go to their doctors for depression and fewer people feel isolated and develop illnesses. That is what the impact could be. As we all know, the cure for many ills is a decent, well paid job.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one minute left.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

In that regard, no one can do better than someone in a local business. That is why I commend Jim Mather's proposals.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

rose—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I have only a minute left. I would have taken the minister's intervention otherwise.

Members have mentioned raised taxes. Yes—the tax base would be increased, and more people in the community would pay taxes into the system for everyone else. That is what I mean by it. Any idea of a division between us is not correct. I like Jim Mather's metaphor of bigger cakes—I am for bigger cakes, and we both agree that they shall be more equitably divided. That is Jim's recipe for the economy, and it is my recipe for social justice.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

On Christine Grahame's last point, we must recognise that we have only one size of cake. The cake cannot get any bigger—it is the size of the slices that needs to be changed.

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on the subject of small businesses. They are the bedrock of the Scottish economy, with no less than 99 per cent of Scottish businesses classed as small and medium-sized enterprises. More than half of Scottish jobs are in the SME sector. With SMEs constituting such an important part of the Scottish economy, we might think that the enterprise agencies would be falling over themselves to support and nurture them. It is clear, however, that Scottish Enterprise is far more interested in wooing inward investment and attracting big-name companies. We know the rest: they come and invest here, they enjoy the grants and perks and, as soon as the novelty has worn off, they vanish, leaving us worse off than before.

In an age of increasing globalisation when jobs, commodities, money and services pay less and less attention to national boundaries, we believe that the only way to build a secure, stable economy is to relocalise. For that to happen, we need to place small businesses at the heart of any economic strategy. How do we go about supporting this vital part of our economy? We need to ensure that SMEs are able to compete with larger businesses on a genuinely level playing field. That means amending business rates in such a way that the larger players cannot fiddle the system to their benefit. It means changing the planning system so that the larger players cannot manipulate it. It means moving towards a system that puts people before profits.

While we are on the subject of business rates, I was interested to hear that the Liberal Democrats have come round to our way of thinking and adopted a policy of land value tax to replace business rates. I look forward to their adopting some of our other core green policies.

We need a more effective business gateway system—one that does more than simply offer advice when businesses are starting up. We need gateways to follow through with long-term, on-going advice. We need them to be able to support the increasing number of social enterprises that are springing up throughout Scotland. It is heartening that so many entrepreneurs recognise that there can be more to a business than profit. The wider social benefits are just as important.

For a healthy mixed economy, we need to ensure that bigger businesses do not abuse their market clout and buying power and wipe out smaller businesses. In the grocery market—we heard descriptions of the situation from Christine Grahame—we need much more effective regulation and a tougher code of conduct, with an independent regulator. Otherwise, more and more small shops and local high streets will be killed off by aggressive competition from supermarkets. That is already happening, and the situation cannot go unchecked.

It should not be a question of either or. We need to recognise the vital role that small businesses play in the Scottish economy. We ignore them at our peril.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Like many colleagues, I know that there is a commitment across parties to ensure that small businesses grow and develop, not just because they help their local economies, as was described in the last speech, but also because of the substantial role that they play in the Scottish economy. That is why I welcome the Executive's commitment in the years since the creation of the Scottish Parliament to investing in skills and education as key drivers to ensure that the quality of the people we recruit for businesses is of a range and level that allows us to maximise the opportunities for those businesses to grow—whether those businesses are small, medium-sized or large enterprises. I recognise the work that has been done to invest in the knowledge economy and in the transport and planning frameworks over the past few years, by which we are trying to address the concerns that have been raised at all levels of both small-scale and large-scale business, ensuring that we develop a more business-friendly approach.

I will not concentrate on the figures that have been produced so far by the spokespersons for the Executive and other parties. Suffice to say that small businesses play a critical part in the Scottish economy, £2.2 billion-worth of Scottish exports being associated with small businesses.

There seem to be three fundamental issues. First, how do we improve productivity? I agree with Jim Mather that that must be done, but we probably have different perspectives about how best to do that. We could do it in what I call the stable framework of the United Kingdom, working in partnership with our largest economic partners, or we could take the risk, as Jim Mather argues we should, of going down the route of independence and separation, which he thinks would make economic growth more powerful. I do not agree with that. Those are legitimate areas of disagreement, but we need to amplify these debates over the forthcoming period so that voters have a clear choice of their direction of travel.

The second issue is the burden on businesses themselves. That is why the small business rate relief scheme has been welcomed by the small business community throughout Scotland. There will surely be debates about enhancing that scheme and improving and refining it, but I do not think that anyone can disagree with its principle. We have listened and learned from that debate in recent years, irrespective of what previous positions people might have taken in it. People can develop different positions. There was a noble time in Alex Neil's career when he was an economic researcher for the Scottish Labour Party, and he was a very good economic researcher. Unfortunately, however, he took a wrong turn around 1976, and his expertise has been lost to the Labour movement. That is a great regret not just to me, but to many people in Scotland.

I turn to the third, most fundamental, issue. We have had an interesting debate. Jim Mather's motion does not mention independence. It talks about how to help small businesses—a noble objective.

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

Frank McAveety is obsessed with independence.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is not me that is obsessed with it.

Funnily enough, although every speaker from the SNP has said that we can deliver real change for small businesses only if we can get independence, no one was brave, courageous or committed enough to include the word "independence" in the motion. If we cannot use the word in a motion, how are we to believe that it can be delivered in reality?

In the past month, commitments have been made by the SNP that would dwarf the commitment that it has made on small businesses, although even that pledge is a big one. A sum of £150 million is a reasonable figure; in terms of an economic assessment, it is probably reasonably well within the ball park. However, taking that sum away from the culture and sports budgets would halve the amount of money that is available to those two critical areas of economic growth in terms of tourism and hospitality. If the SNP makes a pledge, it must demonstrate where that money will come from.

In this debate, we have heard about what I call transitional nationalism. If Jim Mather were to launch a new national soft-drink product, it would come in a can, it would have a saltire on the front, it would contain a fair amount of hot air, it would lack a wee bit of sparkle but, if not handled with care and if it went through a period of significant turbulence, it would cause significant damage. That new product would be called "independence lite". It strikes me that we cannot take a risk with that product.

In The Scotsman today, Ruaridh Macdonald, of Macdonald Hotels and Resorts, talks about what he has learned from the growth of that great hospitality and tourism business. He says:

"Growing a business is done by the quality of people and product."

If we get those two elements right we will make a real difference to the Scottish economy. Business rates relief will help, but the two critical areas are the quality of staff and what we want to sell. If Jim Mather can get that right, he might be in with a shout.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In the previous debate, the SNP came in for some criticism for raising an issue that, apparently, had nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament and was more to do with independence. Yet, in this debate, Frank McAveety has spent the best part of his speech criticising us for raising an issue that is within the competence of the devolved Scottish Parliament. For heaven's sake, the Executive parties should get their arguments consistent for the space of one quiet Thursday morning in the chamber and should decide what the line of argument will be against the SNP.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I did not understand that from Frank McAveety's speech. The gist of what he was saying was simple: where does the £150 million that the SNP proposes to spend on small business rates relief come from?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I will answer that question in the course of my speech but, with the greatest respect, I must say that that is not the point that Mr McAveety was making.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Would Mr Swinney allow me to amplify my point?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I gave way to the minister for a pointless intervention, so I will not let Mr McAveety make what will probably be another pointless intervention.

Shiona Baird, who is not in her seat just now, said that the argument was not about the cake getting any bigger, because it cannot. What a ridiculous proposition. Scotland's trend economic growth over the past 25 years has been 1.7 per cent. If it had been 2 per cent, the cake would be bigger and if it had been 4 per cent, the cake would be even bigger still. To say that all that we can do is cut up a cake that is probably diminishing in size and not try to transform the economic life chances of the people we have the privilege of representing is to lack the ambition that the SNP has for the future of Scotland.

We have also been criticised this morning by people who have said that our proposal has not been effectively costed. Accordingly, I want to inform the chamber of the comments that were made by the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Mr McCabe, in a letter to the convener of the Finance Committee, Mr McNulty, dated 18 November 2005. He wrote:

"I would like to reassure the Committee that the decision to proceed with this commitment"

on the small business package

"was made on the basis that it had been carefully costed".

However, we find out now that the Government cannot implement the small business package that it announced to this Parliament because it breaches the state aid rules of the European Union. At a meeting of the Finance Committee, Mr McCabe told me:

"There is no connection between the costing of the project and some of the legal obligations that we have as part of the European Union."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 19 September 2006; c 3896.]

Mr McCabe wants us to believe that there is no connection between the costing of a policy initiative and the ability to implement that policy initiative. The Government, therefore, has a brass neck to criticise even slightly our ability to cost our proposals, particularly as it has increased business rates during the past seven years—I am sure that that is what Mr Wilson was going to talk about if I had allowed him to intervene earlier. That policy, which has punished the small business community month after month, was started by the former Minister for Finance, Jack McConnell, who is now our First Minister.

I want to speak about how the proposals would be paid for. Later, Mr Neil will also speak about that and will tell us about of some of the research that he has been undertaking. On that point, I would say to Mr McAveety that Mr Neil's research is of great benefit to the Scottish National Party and I am glad that we have his skills on this side of the chamber.

In the short term, the SNP intends to fund its policy commitments out of the £1.4 billion—the people's money—that is currently held by the Treasury. In the medium term, the SNP is advancing proposals that have been well trailed in the press—if members have not been paying attention, I suggest that they go and read their newspapers—and which will reduce the role and the significance of the quango state that this Government has expanded month after month since 1999, even though it promised a bonfire of the quangos. In the spending review for 2008, we will apply our priorities to those commitments. Members should not dare to come to this chamber and say that the SNP is not prepared to look wisely and sensibly at its proposals and come to a conclusion.

Finally, I must comment on Mr Fraser's speech, which seemed to consist of him reading out this morning's Conservative press release—if I had known that, I would not have come to listen to it but would have just read it at half past eight this morning, or whenever it came out.

Mr Fraser's argument seems to miss the point. Small business people who might be liable to pay the local income tax will not have to pay the council tax, which will have been abolished. If Mr Fraser cannot understand the rudimentary arithmetic that is involved, there is no prospect of the Conservative party succeeding.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am well aware of the importance and relevance of small businesses to the communities in my constituency. They provide small villages with shops and revitalise our town centres. I welcome the steps that the Executive has taken to support those small businesses.

I am certainly not criticising the SNP for bringing this debate to the chamber but I think that Frank McAveety made some worthwhile points—

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Hear, hear.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Cheers Frank. Culture.

Frank McAveety talked about the fact that Jim Mather said that the SNP policy is a signal. I am disappointed that Jim Mather has not bothered to stay in the chamber to listen to the debate, given that he led it. I wanted to ask him what he meant. Is the policy a signal that the SNP would do what it proposes once we had independence, on the first day of an SNP Administration, once the negotiations between the UK and Scotland started or at some other time? What was the signal? Are we talking about a policy or a signal? That was certainly not clear from Mr Mather's speech.

In The Independent today, a headline to a story about consumer debt talked about people living in "never, never land". Judging by Mr Mather's speech this morning, it would appear that the SNP now has policies designed for Never Never Land. Perhaps Mr Mather, who has just returned to the chamber, could comment on what is a signal and what is a policy.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I think that you are being offered the chance to intervene, Mr Mather, but I am not sure that you heard the question.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If Karen Gillon repeats the question, I will gladly answer it.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Mr Mather indicated in his speech that the SNP policy is a signal. [ Interruption. ] Pardon? If Ms Robison has something to say, she should stand up and say it.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to repeat what I said earlier. This policy is a signal to Scottish business and the Scottish population that the SNP is serious about economic growth and that, like every other country, we should invest and prepare to have that investment rewarded over time. That is the signal.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Can the signal be delivered through independence or through devolution? If the member is saying that it can be delivered through devolution, he has to say where the money will come from and what budget within the Scottish block will be cut to pay for it. Mr Swinney said that it would come from a fund of £1.4 billion that is held by the UK Government. Is the policy dependent on negotiation or can it be delivered through the Scottish block grant?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Karen Gillon criticised Jim Mather for being out of the chamber for a moment. I will not speculate about why he was not in the chamber. However, I wonder whether Karen Gillon was here to listen to my speech. I said quite clearly that the policy can be delivered within the devolved competence of this Parliament. The £1.4 billion fund that I mentioned is Scottish taxpayers' money that is held at the UK Treasury and has not been spent. It cannot be simpler than that.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The SNP spends that money in the chamber every week. It spent the money this morning, last week and the week before. It spent it almost singularly on writing off student debt. Any good housewife knows that they can spend only what they have got and that they cannot spend it more than once. If SNP members are saying that we can keep spending money, and spend it more than once, they are kidding themselves and the Scottish public, who will see through their shallowness.

The truth is that the SNP does not have costed commitments and has not thought through the adding up of its commitments. It is all very well to make commitments here and commitments there, but they have to be added up. The SNP cannot keep on spending the money.

I ask the minister to comment on the revitalisation of town centres, which is a particularly important issue in my constituency. How will the Executive—within the powers of the Parliament and through local government—revitalise our town centres? What direction is it giving Scottish Enterprise, as the agent for change, to do that? Frankly, Scottish Enterprise is not at the forefront of driving forward that agenda in my constituency. It is taking a back seat and is not taking on the obligations that I believe it has as the driver for economic change here in Scotland.

In my constituency, local government has taken a leading role, but Scottish Enterprise has not been at the table. I want to know what the Executive will do to ensure that that situation changes and that our important town centres are revitalised, not through a Never Never Land policy from the SNP, but through practical action by the Executive.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

We should concentrate on what we can do to increase and improve the performance of small businesses and attract more of them. We can argue about money and rates and all that, but the Executive has introduced some good ideas, as have other bodies such as charitable trusts, and we should examine those and build on them. We should build on success—that is a good parliamentary motto as well as a good military motto.

There has been some improvement in the education world, but we need a lot more in schools and youth clubs. We should involve young people in community planning, which works well in some areas but does not exist in others. We should also involve them in training projects and instil in them the frame of mind in which they realise that they can alter things in their communities. One way of doing that is to get them involved in small businesses. We need to remove the feeling of helplessness that a great many people in our society have.

Good training projects are run by many organisations, including the Prince's Trust, Barnardo's and other youth organisations. They help young people by teaching them how to get involved in business, how to start a business and so on. Training projects are important. Often, the more difficult a youngster is, the more potential he or she has as a businessperson because of his or her energy, bloody-mindedness and determination. In many areas young people can use those things only in illegal ways at the moment. We want to get them to start up legal businesses. If they are part of the black economy, our friend Gordon Brown does not hear from them. It is much better for young people—and older people—to be encouraged to do constructive things rather than to sell drugs to one another, which is the only outlet for many people's energies at the moment. We should encourage and harness the energies of our young people, who are potentially better than some of their older confrères.

We must also consider regulation. Everyone in our profession, wherever they go, hears that everything is overregulated, whether it is small businesses, big businesses, the police, schools, colleges, hospitals or whatever. Everyone is overregulated. For heaven's sake, cannot we get stuck into tearing up a lot of the regulations? We take regulations far too seriously. A lot of them are idiotic and we should get rid of them. We are far too po-faced and we are frightened of bureaucrats and insurance people. They should be told to get lost and business should be allowed to get on with it.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

A lot has been said this morning about the importance of small businesses to the economy, and particularly to the economy of town centres. I agree with a lot of what has been said. It is crucial that we do whatever we can to encourage small businesses to thrive. Christine Grahame and others made valid points about regeneration of town centres. If they are to be regenerated, it will, by and large, be small businesses that do it, so they should be given every encouragement.

I congratulate the SNP on using at least part of its time today to debate small businesses. It should have used all its time to debate that, rather than for debating something that is not—and, in my view, should not be—within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, let us give the SNP credit where it is due for debating small businesses at least to some extent.

I also give the SNP credit for suggesting some new ideas today. Quite a lot of new ideas have come from the SNP of late. I am sure that when John Swinney told Mike Russell to "grasp the thistle" it was probably meant literally, but it has nonetheless led to a number of interesting emanations. I thought that I would look to see what Mike Russell is actually proposing, but being the prudent sort I did not want to spend money on his book, so I turned to Google, which is a helpful source for anyone whose researcher has gone home for the evening.

First, I found a reference to "The Geochemical Origins of Life" by Michael J Russell. I knew that he was clever, but he must be seriously bright, I thought. Next, I found:

"Mike Russell; is he the last of a dying breed?"

We can only wonder. Finally, I found:

"Celebrity Circus Mike Russell now reveals secrets he has kept for years".

There was nothing in that, either.

Eventually I found what Mike Russell had said that might interest small businesses. He was talking about a separate Scottish currency; about the abolition of inheritance tax, which will be music to the ears of many small businessmen; and about ending the bar to working with the Conservatives. I look forward to hearing what the SNP makes of that—it will be interesting.

Murdo Fraser made a number of points about the credibility of what the SNP has been saying. He made his points well, but I have to say that Mike Russell made them better. He said:

"For the SNP ... it is not enough to argue that independence will solve everything. In order to be credible ... it needs a more robust set of policies which anticipate harder times ahead and which determinedly eschew the traditional opposition solution of throwing cash at any problem".

That is absolutely right. I could not argue the point better. To be fair, Jim Mather does not mention independence in his motion, although he did talk about it in his speech.

Let us consider the costings of the SNP's small business bonus scheme, which have been debated this morning. The SNP's document "It's time to help small business" states:

"over the medium term the cost of the SBB scheme is likely to fall as more small businesses grow into larger businesses."

That is true—provided that no more small businesses are created, which I would have thought was the goal that we are looking for in the economy.

Murdo Fraser also talked about the impact of local income tax. John Swinney responded on that point.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is the member making the assumption that the bigger businesses will stop paying business rates? As I see it, what we suggest would make the cake bigger.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It might, but we would need to see the detailed costings. What Mike Russell said seemed to be predicated on the possibility that there will be no new small businesses.

I turn to local income tax and the challenge that John Swinney made to Murdo Fraser. If council tax were replaced with a local income tax, surely small and unincorporated businesses would pay a disproportionate amount of that local income tax because they would be earning more than the average person. That suggestion comes against the background of the SNP's economic policy document "Let Scotland Flourish", which talks about cutting corporation tax.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not have time.

"Let Scotland Flourish" also talks about lower business rates and says:

"While the Scottish Executive has few economic levers at its immediate disposal"

it has local business rates. It also says that it is not enough to remove higher tax rates in order to give every Scottish business every advantage. I agree, but the SNP is talking about using one of the few economic levers at the Scottish Executive's disposal to increase taxes. How on earth could that incentivise small business? It would be difficult to design a better way to hit small business hard.

We need to do more to help small business. Donald Gorrie made points about regulation, and I was glad to hear what Jim Mather had to say about that, because the burden of regulation is much too heavy. Last week, at their conference, the Liberal Democrats supported a motion to introduce targets for deregulation. That is all very good, but when we asked the same question of the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, he said that that is not policy in Scotland; it is not going to happen. We need some straight talking from the Liberal Democrats on their policy. However, the deregulation that the SNP is talking about is all very good.

Finally, I refer to Frank McAveety's points. We do not need to change our country to deliver for small businesses, but he might want to reflect upon changing the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will deal first with some of the issues that have been raised on the Executive's current small business relief scheme, which effectively targets rates relief at small businesses. We all agree that they need our help.

To address Shiona Baird's point, the current scheme is jointly funded between the Executive and larger businesses. There is a transfer of £28 million, £16 million of which comes from larger businesses and goes to help to relieve the rates of smaller businesses. Our independent evaluation of that scheme showed that it was broadly welcomed. It means that about 70 per cent of non-domestic rates subjects in Scotland currently benefit from reductions of up to 50 per cent in their rates bills, which directly contributes to protecting small businesses in our smaller communities and helps to address the town-centre blight about which Karen Gillon and others have spoken.

By itself, however, the scheme is not the answer. If people want to know how to address town-centre blight, I suggest that they come to West Kilbride, in my constituency, which was recently named a United Kingdom capital of enterprise because of the activity of the local community. That is a good example of how the enterprise networks can involve themselves in regenerating local communities.

Amidst all the talk of cakes, I make—with the greatest of respect—a simple point to Derek Brownlee, which is that the Labour chancellor has doubled the size of the Scottish cake during his tenure.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Earlier, the minister said that it was the Executive that had done all these great things for Scottish business. Will he clarify how many of the new businesses that he mentioned earlier are simply unincorporated businesses that are switching to limited company status?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I do not have the exact figure for that, but I would be pleased to get it for the member

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

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I want to develop my point about the size of the cake, because it is absolutely fundamental. By their own admission, the nationalists' proposals would cost £150 million, which is a serious cut of the existing business rates income.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If the minister looks carefully at the document, he will see that the net cost would be £122 million.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I have costed it at £155 million. [ Interruption. ] Jim Mather says that the total cost of the scheme would be £150 million; we will not argue over £5 million. If we were to make up the Executive funding in full, we could do so only at the expense of other programmes. That is the point that Frank McAveety made. As he said, it would mean halving our spending on culture and sport or cutting the entire rural development budget. [ Interruption. ] Jim Mather says that John Swinney answered that point: he did not.

Just last week, Fiona Hyslop spent more than £1.4 billion in this chamber, all of which makes me long for the return of the Swinney years. Bring back John Swinney as leader of the SNP, that is what I say. At least when John Swinney was leader, the nationalists had some understanding that if the party wanted to be taken seriously as a prospective Government, it had to balance the books and match spending with saving, or raise revenues elsewhere.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the minister accept that when the Government announces a policy such as a rates relief scheme for research and development companies, it is important for it to be able to deliver rather than just to talk a good game in the chamber but find it cannot deliver in the real world?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Mr Swinney cannot even talk a good game in the chamber. If we cannot achieve our objectives because of potential state-aid difficulties, we do not abandon the project; instead, we consider how to deliver the objectives.

After Nicola Sturgeon's putsch and Alex Salmond's latest—and probably short-lived—stint as leader, we are going back to the bad old days. Mr Swinney promises everyone everything with no regard for how otherwise it is to be paid for.

I congratulate Jim Mather for one thing at least—his prudence. His proposals would cost only £155 million, unlike Fiona Hyslop's proposals to replace student loans with grants and write off historic debt, the bill for which would start at £1.7 billion. Either the SNP does not know how to balance the books, or it is refusing to tell us how it is going to do it. I have already given two examples of what it would have to do; either it would have to cut the entire rural development budget or halve the sport and culture budget to pay for its proposals. If the SNP will not tell us how it is going to do that, it is making worthless, empty promises that will be seen through by the Scottish electorate—as they have been seen through in the past.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It has been an interesting debate. I particularly enjoyed Frank McAveety's speech and I totally agree with him that the quality of Labour's economic arguments in Scotland has been severely damaged by the fact that I am no longer doing its economic research. The speeches of Frank McAveety, Karen Gillon and others proved that point.

It is a great pity that our dynamic part-time absentee Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is not participating in a key debate on enterprise. Perhaps he could come and tell us how ministers who have all the resources of the civil service behind them cannot get right a simple policy on business rates, when from day one, the civil service advised them that they had announced a policy that could not be implemented. How can ministers therefore criticise us for allegedly not costing our proposals? How can anybody have any confidence in those ministers when they come forward with fairy-tale numbers for Fiona Hyslop's proposals on student debt or Jim Mather's proposals on business rates? They are the ministers who presided over the financial fiasco at Scottish Enterprise earlier this year. They did not even know what RAB was.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I bow to the member's superior knowledge of fairy tales. If Fiona Hyslop's proposals would not cost £1.7 billion, what would they cost?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That is dead easy—£100 million. We will also have a choice about how to fund business rates, so it is a pity that Karen Gillon is not here to—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

She is.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I apologise to the member for missing her.

There are four ways we could fund the business rates cut. As John Swinney said, we have a balance of £1.4 billion sitting in the Treasury in London, not earning any interest. If we used that money for nothing else, it could fund our proposal for almost 10 years. Can people not do their sums? If £1.4 billion is divided £140 million, the result is 10.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I do not wish to rain too much on Mr Neil's parade, but has not the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform stated that £800 million of that £1.4 billion will be spent on the—no doubt very well-intentioned—schemes that will be announced close to the election?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On what will the money be spent? On what? On what?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Swinney, really.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I suspect that the £800 million will be targeted at every marginal constituency in Scotland, but given how the opinion polls are going, the money will need to be widely spread, particularly if Gordon Brown and John Reid fight it out for the leadership. They will be tearing each other's eyes out and the SNP's position in the polls will go through the roof. We will be in a position to implement our proposals.

However, other sources of funding are also available. According to the Scottish Executive's own figures, the amount that we forgo in business rates from unoccupied business premises is actually more than the cost of our proposal. We could, if we decided, fund it through that.

Another comprehensive spending review is due next year. When we form the Administration, we will reorder priorities, starting with all the quangos in Scotland that are under the control of Labour's retirees. There is no problem about funding our proposal.

When we win the independence referendum, we will be able to fund even more. This year, Scotland will earn a record income from oil revenues of more than £12 billion. That would be a jackpot for Scotland if we had control of the oil money. We would not waste it—we would invest it in Scotland's future. As long as Scotland remains tied to Westminster, we will not see a penny of that money, just as we have not seen a penny of it over the past 30 years. Karen Gillon can be assured that funding our programme, whether under devolution or independence, will not be a problem for us.

Neither of the previous two speakers actually talked about small businesses. Among the many substantial challenges that face our small business community, one issue that has not been mentioned so far is energy prices. Is not it ironic that we who live in gas-rich, oil-rich and renewables-rich Scotland pay energy prices that are among the highest in Europe? We need to take control of the policy framework for energy prices in our country. For example, the way in which the policy of the London-centric Office of Gas and Electricity Markets is biased against small businesses in Scotland that contribute renewable energy is totally unacceptable. We need to help our small businesses to face the energy challenge.

Small businesses also face a skills challenge. In too many sectors, our businesses face real barriers to growth because they cannot get the skilled people that they need so that they can expand and grow. The Scottish Executive has no policy on skills. At the Labour Party conference on Sunday, the First Minister came up with a back-of-the-envelope policy that was not only ill thought out and uncosted, but would have huge implications for the future of our comprehensive education system.

Far from being shy about our proposals, we are proud of our proposals. Unlike the Tories or the Liberal Democrats, we have costed our proposals and we have said where the funding will come from. Unlike Labour, we can actually add up. The Labour Party cannot even add up. Anyone who cares about the Scottish economy must vote for our motion at 5 o'clock tonight. If our policy was implemented, Scotland would be a much richer place.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what treatments are currently available for wet age-related macular degeneration. (S2O-10678)

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call Andy Hughes—I mean Andy Kerr.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We were married for a fleeting moment there, Janis.

Two treatments are available for wet age-related macular degeneration: photo-dynamic therapy, which makes use of the drug verteporfin; and a drug called Macugen, which was recently recommended by the Scottish medicines consortium.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am pleased that the minister mentioned Macugen. As he will be aware, research has shown that Macugen can reduce the risk of moderate to severe vision loss and can even improve vision in some cases. Can he assure me that the treatment will be readily available to those patients for whom it is deemed to be clinically appropriate?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The point that medicines should be used where they are clinically appropriate is important. Clearly, a clinical judgment needs to be made for the individual patient. Following the drug's approval by the SMC in August 2006, health boards in Scotland should be working to ensure that it is provided according to clinical need. Some ophthalmology departments may still be establishing their processes, but on the member's behalf I will make inquiries to ensure that the drug is in use in our health service as quickly as possible.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many nuclear waste storage facilities are expected to be built in Scotland in the next 20 years and where these will be sited. (S2O-10645)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Current plans from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority indicate that, over the next 20 years, four radioactive waste storage facilities are expected to be built in Scotland: three at Dounreay and one at Hunterston. The authority will also conduct feasibility studies on the provision of waste facilities at Chapelcross.

As is clear from its strategy, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is conducting a review of its interim storage requirements for intermediate-level waste. The Executive, the United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Assembly Government are also conducting a review of low-level radioactive waste policy.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister confirm that spent fuel that is now transported to Sellafield is unlikely to be reprocessed, given the proposed closure date for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—THORP—of March 2011? Will on-site storage of such material now be considered?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I have responsibility neither for the nature of what is done at THORP nor for how business is conducted there, but I am happy to look into the issue and advise the member. I am aware only of what we have been advised by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in respect of its proposals for storage facilities in Scotland.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Has the minister's department received inquiries from the Scottish National Party about possible storage locations for the waste from Scottish power stations that has been stored at Sellafield over many years? Presumably, in the event of independence, such nuclear waste would be returned to Scotland as it is Scottish nuclear waste. I think that people would like to know the full costs and implications of the nationalists' programme.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Representations, yes; responsibilities, no—does Mr Finnie want to add anything further?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The point is no doubt of immense interest to members, but it might more properly be directed to the SNP.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management report identified deep geological storage as the least worst option for legacy waste, but it also strongly advised that we need more research into deep disposal. Has the Executive pressed the UK Government on undertaking such research?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As was announced at the time of its publication, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government will respond to the CORWM report. When we make that response, which we will do very shortly, we will address the report's recommendations, including those on the need for further research on deep geological storage, to which Nora Radcliffe referred.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to include in the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill measures to ensure that pre-school children are served only healthy, nutritious meals and snacks at nursery. (S2O-10672)

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

All food and drink provided by local authority nurseries will be subject to the nutrition requirements of the bill. In addition, earlier this year we published nutritional guidance for all providers of early years education and child care. That guidance provides nutrient standards and offers advice on menu planning.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I accept that there will be a duty on local authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to ensure that food and drink supplied in the schools meets the dietary and nutritional standards. Are there powers to extend that provision to all nursery schools—including those in the private sector—to ensure that the same standards are met?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The bill's specific provisions cover local authority nurseries. However, we also have powers under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 to issue statutory guidance, to which providers must have regard.

As I indicated, we issued nutritional standards earlier this year for that sector. In addition, the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education have powers to inspect all the providers of early years education. The care commission in particular will include in its inspection process specific questions about the nutritional standards of the food offered. We believe that through that mechanism we can get enough purchase in that sector to make the changes that are necessary and appropriate.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it will give to Glasgow being granted metropolitan status. (S2O-10636)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As the member will be aware from Mr Kerr's previous answer to this question, there is no such designation as metropolitan status in Scotland. Metropolitan status is an English term used by the United Kingdom Government.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Perhaps the minister should tell that to Glasgow City Council and its ruling Labour group. The council uses the term in "Metropolitan Glasgow—A Vision for a Region" and a document that was sent to the minister and to the Finance Committee refers to metropolitan status for the city of Glasgow.

Is the minister aware that if metropolitan status or, as it is sometimes called, city status, is granted to Glasgow, council tax payers would save £150 per year on their houses? Is it not time that Glasgow was considered for metropolitan status? Will the minister take up the issue?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am concerned that the member, who represents Glasgow, does not know that Glasgow is a city. I think that that is well known throughout the rest of Scotland.

As I said in my original response, and as Mr Kerr said in his response, there is no such thing as metropolitan status in respect of how we distribute money here in Scotland.

Glasgow receives the highest grant aid per head of any mainland authority in Scotland—£1,969 per head for this year. There is a £29 million increase in central funding this year alone and, on top of that, in recognition of its city status Glasgow received £18.1 million from the city growth fund this year. In addition, Glasgow benefits from targeted programmes such as the community regeneration fund, from which it will benefit to the tune of £124 million over the next three years. Glasgow will receive £10 million from the working for families programme over the period 2004-08. Glasgow will also receive £10 million from the vacant and derelict land fund in the 2004-06 period. The total for the city growth fund that will go to assist Glasgow in the 2003-08 period is £76 million. Members can see that this Executive recognises the city status of Glasgow.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will review the effect of recent regulatory changes on the commercial viability of those cattle breeds whose meat is typically best after 24 months. (S2O-10630)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The European transmissible spongiform encephalopathy regulation classifies vertebral column as specified risk material and requires its removal from bovines aged over 24 months. The Scottish Executive supports and is leading the United Kingdom's efforts to have that age limit raised and the European Commission has asked the European Food Safety Authority for an opinion on the matter.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As the minister knows, there is a real problem for butchers who specialise in slower maturing beef breeds, such as the Galloway. There is also a knock-on effect on the breeders of such stock. There is some indication of effects on market prices for that kind of beef. Has the minister, or his department, undertaken any investigation into price movements and can he give us a timescale for when we may look for the 24-month limit to be replaced by a 36-month limit, which was originally in place?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As I said in my first answer, the overall European position was a 24-month rule and it was difficult to upset that as part of the negotiations to get beef exports reinstated. We must consider the whole picture. However, I take Alasdair Morgan's point. I am sure that he is aware that, following our representations on behalf of the industry to the Food Standards Agency, it recommended that we take up the derogation that allows butcher shops, which I think are the traditional retailing outlet for such beef, to be authorised by local authorities to remove vertebral column from 24-month-old to 30-month-old cattle. I appreciate that difficulties are attached to gaining that authorisation, but nevertheless that facility exists. In the interim, the trade should look again at that derogation to see whether it offers an interim position prior to our persuading Europe to raise the overall age.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the national fostering strategy will be published. (S2O-10642)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

As I said during the recent stage 1 debate on the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill, we are developing the fostering strategy, which we hope to publish for consultation before the end of the year.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the minister acknowledge that we as a society continue to fail the 5,000 or so children and young people who are at any one time looked after away from home in residential or foster care? The patchy nature of services, lack of training for foster carers and poor levels of financial support, which have led to significant problems with the recruitment and retention of carers, are endemic in the current system. It is little wonder that the outcomes for children who are unfortunate enough to fall into the system are so poor. Is not the minister ashamed of the Government's track record? How does he intend to respond to the manifesto for looked-after children, "No Time to Lose", which was launched in the Parliament yesterday and has been endorsed by 68 organisations—children's organisations and others—in Scotland?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Adam Ingram is well aware of the complex and important nature of this area of policy. That is why we are producing the national strategy and why we will involve all the stakeholders in discussing it. A meeting of a reference group in October will involve the major stakeholders. We intend to involve the Education Committee, too, in discussion of the issues.

Fostering is a complex matter and many of the issues are interrelated. Issues around recruitment and retention, and training and support, are important because of the increasingly complex nature of some of the young people concerned.

I share with Adam Ingram the desire that all Scotland's children should have the best possible opportunities in life. That is very much part of the Executive's strategy, building on the £12 million support that went into local authorities over two years, which has been well used to improve all levels of support and back-up for foster parents in our society. This is a key policy area and we are determined to ensure that there are significant improvements in how Scotland deals with looked-after children.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

In developing the strategy, will the minister take into account calls from the Fostering Network and Barnardo's that there should be a cap on the number of children that any foster family can take on at once in order to make certain that there is a high standard of individual care?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton makes an important point, which will be examined as part of the national strategy consultation. We must consider how all these things work together. At the moment, we are not persuaded that putting a cap on the number of people who can be fostered would be the right way forward. The key underlying issues are the recruitment of more fosterers and the provision of proper training and support for fosterers who are currently in place. That will be part of the consultation and we look forward to engaging in the debate about it with the various interested stakeholders.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many cubic metres of packaged intermediate and low-level waste and tonnes of spent nuclear fuel are expected to be produced by Hunterston B power station if its life is extended by 10 years. (S2O-10643)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As Michael Matheson is aware, no decision has been taken to extend the life of Hunterston B; that would be a commercial decision for British Energy.

However, based on the information that was reported in the 2004 United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory, a 10-year life extension of the Hunterston B advanced gas-cooled reactor would generate approximately 350 tonnes uranium of spent fuel. If processed, that spent fuel would generate in packaged form approximately 25m3 of high-level waste, 700m3 of intermediate-level waste and 600m3 of low-level waste.

There would be additional waste at Hunterston B arising from operating the two reactors for an additional 10 years. That is estimated to be 700m3 of intermediate-level waste and 2,300m3 of low-level waste, quoted in packaged form. The additional operational waste arises irrespective of the spent fuel's management route.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for his full and detailed answer. Have any discussions been held between the Scottish Executive and the London Government or the operators of Hunterston B on the possibility of extending the power station's lifespan? What criteria will the Scottish Executive use in considering whether it would support such a proposal?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not aware of any such discussions. On the criteria that we would use, any application or requirement to extend Hunterston B's lifespan would need to satisfy the safety and environmental requirements of the regulators—HM nuclear installations inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether a reduction in training opportunities in specialist training posts in anaesthetics as part of the modernising medical careers programme will reduce the anaesthetics services available in St John's hospital in Livingston. (S2O-10702)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The answer is no.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that, whether he likes it or not, the new fixed-term contracts for junior doctors are considered to be second-class training and that, already, our best trainee anaesthetists are leaving Scotland? Is he aware that, as consultants told MSPs last night, many of the trainees who will fill contracts in August next year will not be ready immediately to fill on-call rosters, which will mean that women in labour and people in need of emergency surgery may need to be transferred from district general hospitals such as St John's to bigger acute services hospitals? Does he agree that that is no way to run a health service and that he must act now to stop junior doctors voting with their feet?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is an outrageous assertion in so many ways and I will try to address many of those points.

There will be sufficient training opportunities in Scotland and we will sustain our services throughout the transition to modernising medical careers. Lothian NHS Board has confirmed that the implementation of MMC will not adversely affect the anaesthetics service at St John's hospital. The way to resolve those matters is by discussion with the chief medical officer, who is leading the MMC implementation throughout the United Kingdom. The royal colleges and other observers recognise that, in Scotland, we are ahead of the game on MMC.

I am more than happy to meet clinicians and trainee doctors, as I did yesterday, to reassure them that a lot of the stuff that they are reading and which people such as Fiona Hyslop perpetuate is inaccurate and untrue. It destabilises and undermines our NHS staff.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I wish that Andy Kerr had listened to the information that the doctors presented. Will he confirm that their analysis that they will not be able to fill one rota in three comes from the Executive's leaked workforce planning statistics? Will he confirm that the Executive's workforce planning will mean that all current rotas will be able to be filled in the future and that we will not witness further closures of acute services such as accident and emergency in NHS Lanarkshire because there not enough anaesthetists?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Now we get to the nub of the problem. Miss Leckie referred to a leaked document. That document was, in fact, a consultation document with our health boards on how many junior doctor training posts we require in our national health service. I repeat the point that, as a result of that consultation, we will ensure, first, that there are sufficient training opportunities for our junior doctors in Scotland and, secondly, that our hospital services are safe and will continue to be delivered throughout the implementation of MMC.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Members will wish to join me in welcoming to Parliament His Excellency Jaakko Laajava, the ambassador of Finland to the United Kingdom. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2457)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Last October, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform set up an independent budget review to look at whether

"taxpayers' money is being spent wisely".

Why is the finance minister refusing to let taxpayers, not to mention the Parliament, see the findings of the review?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Because we are in the business of discussing the budget for next year, and the review report will be published when the budget is published.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

That is a change of position. I remind the First Minister that, when the finance minister announced the review, he promised that its findings would be published this year. When the chairman of the review team handed the report over to the finance minister in July, he said that it would be made public in the near future. It was only after the finance minister had read the report that he decided to suppress it and delay publication by a year—in other words, until after next May's elections. What exactly is in the independent report on how the Government has spent taxpayers' money that the finance minister does not want the Scottish public to see?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The review report is not an independent report on how the Government has spent money; it is an independent report, commissioned by us, on how we can look at future Executive budgeting in creative ways that might assist taxpayers and service users in Scotland to enjoy better services at more efficient rates. It seems to me to be imperative on us as a devolved Government to ensure not just that we have experts producing reports but that, when they produce a comprehensive report that is of genuine interest to ministers and within the Executive, they have an opportunity to discuss its detail with departmental heads and individual ministers as part of the decision-making process for the next year's budget. That would seem an entirely sensible way to take matters forward.

The report, and any subsequent reports from a committee that is still meeting, will be published when the spending review outcome is available and the budgets are properly published in due course. There will be no attempt to hide either that report or the individual decisions that ministers have taken on the recommendations. As a result of the report and deliberations, we will have a better budget with more efficiencies and therefore better services for Scottish taxpayers.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I point the First Minister to what Tom McCabe said about the review. In his press release, Tom McCabe said that it was

"to ensure taxpayers' money is being spent wisely and on priority areas".

I also point the First Minister to the comments of Arthur Midwinter, the independent adviser to the Finance Committee, who said:

"It would be pointless to publish it next September after the key ... decisions have been made."

He said that that would be a

"retreat to the private government of the public finances that existed before devolution."

Will the First Minister live up to the principles that he says that he believes in? Has he forgotten that when he was first elected as First Minister he said that his top priority in the running of the Government would be

"to enhance, rather than avoid, Parliamentary scrutiny"?

Has he forgotten that he said in Labour's last manifesto that he would

"be open and transparent in government"?

In the interests of openness, transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, will the First Minister overrule his finance minister and instruct the immediate publication of the report on how taxpayers' money is being spent by the Government?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I believe absolutely in a transparent budget process. That is why I brought to Parliament what became the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, which sets out how we in the Scottish Parliament deliberate on our budget, which we do far more openly than anyone else does. It is also why we have insisted all along that not only the report to which Ms Sturgeon refers but other reports that we have commissioned should be properly published and be part of parliamentary scrutiny.

The reality is that that parliamentary scrutiny starts next September when the budget is presented to Parliament. [Interruption.] I am talking about the future budget for future years. The Parliament will have the chance to consider not only the budget proposals but any reports that were commissioned alongside them. That is the right and proper way to proceed.

No attempt by Ms Sturgeon to deflect attention from the devolved Government's record on spending money in ways that have improved school results, reduced waiting times in our health service, increased employment and reduced crime will succeed. On all those measures, our budget is making a difference. At the same time, we are delivering on our budget targets on efficiency. Ms Sturgeon may want to deflect attention from that, but we certainly do not.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The question is very simple. Do the Scottish public not have the right to see an independent report on the Government's financial competence and management before rather than after next year's election? I remind the First Minister that he said in the chamber just a few weeks ago, and has repeated today, that he wants to be judged on his record, but when he has an independent assessment of his record, what does he do? He suppresses it and runs away and hides in a corner. Does that not say it all about the Government's record? The Scottish people will draw their own conclusions from the Government's secrecy and will conclude next May that it really is time for change.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Scottish people will draw their conclusions from the fact that, every week in the chamber, the Scottish National Party promises £100 million for this, that and the next thing and suggests that it can spend that money and make tax cuts at the same time. That is nonsense and trivial budgeting from the SNP.

Expenditure in devolved Scotland is scrutinised by Audit Scotland, which publishes all its reports without any involvement or interference by ministers. Audit Scotland is the correct body to scrutinise expenditure by the devolved Government and by public agencies.

We commissioned a report on the future options for budgeting that will be published as part of an open debate on the budget in the Parliament and elsewhere. That is the right course of action for Scotland and it is precisely that approach to budgeting that has delivered shorter waiting times, better results in our schools, a higher employment rate and reductions in crime. We will continue that course of action.

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-2458)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At its next meeting, the Cabinet will of course discuss matters that are important to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister's dismissal of Ms Sturgeon's points is understandable as she is the deputy leader of a party that has turned making extravagant spending promises without costing them into an art form. However, as I am the leader of a party with a somewhat more respectable track record in providing value for money—unlike the nationalist party, my party has been in government—I would be obliged if the First Minister answered my question.

The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has ordered that the independent budget review report should be kept under lock and key and my party has lodged a freedom of information request about that report. Will the First Minister shed light on the issue? He is under an obligation to give an explanation. What is in the report? Why has the information not been disclosed? Is the information too trivial or too embarrassing?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will be absolutely clear yet again. The report was commissioned by ministers for future budgets starting from 2008-09 and it will be published at the start of the Parliament's scrutiny of the budget proposals from this Executive or any future Executive. The Executive will present to Parliament a proper budget bill for deliberation in the most transparent way, as set out by the Executive and agreed to by Parliament back in 1999 and 2000. That is the right way for a budget to be deliberated.

It is entirely proper that a report by a group of experts who have been brought together by ministers—not by the Conservatives or the nationalists, whose spending plans would not stand a day of scrutiny, never mind a year of scrutiny—to help them with their deliberations on next September's budget should be discussed properly in every department of the Executive and taken seriously by ministers and that its recommendations should be decided on one by one, alongside other proposals that may be made inside or outside the Executive during that time. In that way, we will get the right budget for Scotland and will be able to continue with our record of increased employment, reductions in waiting times, improvements in our schools and reductions in crime. Budgets should not be about the sort of trivia that we see from Miss Goldie but should be about results for real people. That is what we are about.