Scottish Parliament, 21 December 2006

402 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Official Report 21 December 2006

Trident

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5355, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on Trident.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

A recent opinion poll asked people in Scotland whether they thought that this Parliament should have the power to decide whether nuclear weapons remained on the Clyde, and 61 per cent said yes. Unfortunately, we do not yet have that power, but we have the opportunity today to make our voice heard. We can speak on behalf of the vast majority of people in Scotland who oppose the replacement of the Trident nuclear system. I ask MSPs in all parties who have honourably opposed Trident over many years to vote today with their conscience; I ask for all of us to say loudly and clearly to the United Kingdom Government, "Think again." I will set out the case against Trident renewal, which is first and foremost a moral case. Each and every Trident warhead is a weapon of mass destruction in its own right. The detonation of just one would kill more than 200,000 people. Trident is morally indefensible. A Prime Minister who took this country into an illegal war in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not even exist should, if there was a shred of principle or consistency in his arguments, understand that better than anyone.

The case against Trident is not just moral; it is also about how to make this world of ours a safer place to live in. We live in uncertain times, but the replacement of Trident risks making the world more dangerous, not less. It will not help the process of disarmament and non-proliferation; it will hinder that process.

There are those, including the First Minister, who have tried to characterise the debate as a choice between multilateral and unilateral disarmament. In their world, those who back a new Trident just want to have something to bargain away; in their view, the rest of us would give up something for nothing. I would say simply this: read the white paper carefully. It is not a route map to disarmament. On the contrary, it seeks to defend nuclear weapons in principle. It makes the case for keeping them in the UK for the next 50 years. Perhaps worst of all, it does not rule out a first-strike nuclear attack. That is why we must oppose the proposals in the white paper.

The white paper's central premise is that a country is safer with nuclear weapons than without. That argument is fundamentally wrong. Eight countries in the world have nuclear weapons; 180 do not—and they are no less safe because of it. Being nuclear free is the international norm, and we should be striving to make it even more so and to make Scotland normal in that regard. However, the argument is not just wrong but is inherently dangerous. It provides a rationale for any other country that is trying to justify having nuclear weapons of its own.

Tony Blair says in the white paper that nuclear weapons are

"the ultimate assurance of our national security."

But every Government wants to protect its country's national security, and rogue Governments will always use national security as an excuse to do whatever they want to do. There is absolutely nothing to stop any of them using Tony Blair's argument to justify developing nuclear weapons of their own. In truth, many of them will use that argument and the end result will be not disarmament, but an acceleration of the nuclear arms race. That is why anyone who genuinely believes in reducing the nuclear threat in our world must oppose the proposals in the white paper.

It is not just the logic of the Government's argument that would make the world a much more dangerous place to live in, but its sheer and blatant hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy for the United Kingdom to maintain a nuclear deterrent while arguing that other countries should not develop one. That hypocrisy is deeply damaging in today's world and rides roughshod over the non-proliferation treaty.

This may come as news to Tony Blair and the supporters of a new Trident, but that treaty does not give the privileged nuclear club carte blanche to do whatever it likes. That treaty was a bargain. Countries that did not have nuclear weapons promised not to develop them and in return the five nuclear states, including the UK, promised that they would negotiate in good faith to achieve disarmament. That was the quid pro quo. Replacing Trident would be a breach of our side of that bargain, which would make it much more difficult to persuade others to keep theirs.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Over recent years, the UK has given up air, ground and operational theatre nuclear weapons. What effect has that had on other countries that are still intent on developing them?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The idea that the UK has had nuclear disarmament in recent years does not hold water. In the white paper, Tony Blair says that he wants to reduce warheads by 20 per cent, but if we read the small print we find that the number of warheads that will remain deployed at sea will stay the same. It is the warheads that are already in reserve that we are going to get rid of. It is double-speak and it is spin. Trident makes this world a more dangerous place.

The key questions are these: for what and at what cost? Like my colleagues in the Scottish National Party, I have always been opposed to nuclear weapons, but at least, during the cold war, they had some sort of rationale. We knew who they were pointed at and what they were designed to deter. The threats in today's world are entirely different. Nuclear weapons will not deter suicide bombers. In an uncertain world, where would Trident be targeted? That question, which was posed by Jim Wallace only two weeks ago, has still not been answered. The suspicion lingers that the decision to replace Trident is more about building monuments to Tony Blair than it is about national security. If we do not speak out now, we will all pay a heavy price for it; £25 billion is a conservative estimate of the financial cost. I, for one, would rather see that money spent on health, education and pensions, and on ensuring decent conditions and equipment for our conventional forces, which have been badly let down by this Government.

For all those reasons, I believe that the proposals in the white paper must be opposed. This is our chance as a Parliament—as the Scottish Parliament—to speak up for common sense. I urge all members to seize that opportunity today.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the publication by the UK Government of its White Paper on the future of the Trident nuclear missile system on Monday 4 December 2006; recognises the need for a full debate to explore the military, economic and political consequences of Trident renewal and believes that a convincing case can be made, in military, economic and political terms, for the non-replacement of Trident, and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead at this time with the proposal in the White Paper.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the debate initiated by the UK Government on the future of Trident. This is the first time that a Government has called for a national debate on the independent nuclear deterrent and I hope that many people throughout the country will take part in it and will contact their Westminster MP to make their views known. After all, in spite of what the SNP would like us to believe, the UK Government will make the decision on Trident.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No.

This should be a debate not about the constitution, but about Trident. The UK Government will make the decision on Trident in due course, and Scotland is ably represented by MPs who will take part in that decision. They will have to consider our national defence needs and our international obligations in the light of changing world circumstances.

The argument is about whether our defence needs can be met without having an independent nuclear deterrent. My belief is that an independent nuclear deterrent is not necessary and I would argue for no renewal of Trident. I did not believe in its necessity during the cold war, when we had mutually assured destruction and worried about nuclear winter rather than climate change, and I believe less in it now. For starters, I do not know whom we would aim it at, and the consequences of using it cannot be contemplated.

Possibly uniquely among MSPs, I have visited the sites in Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the nuclear bombs were dropped 60 years ago. Those desolate places are moving and compelling. They consist of flat, empty acres within crowded Japanese cities. There are some statues, portraying the theme of peace, gifted by other countries. There are strings of little origami cranes—the symbol of peace and good luck—hung by schoolchildren, and the trees are full of black crows scavenging for food that visitors might drop. The ruins of the Catholic cathedral at the epicentre of the bomb site at Nagasaki are a stark warning to us. In the museums in both cities, there are photographs and melted artefacts associated with the bombs.

We all know that nuclear warfare is not like conventional bombing. The radioactive effects last for generations in people, animals and plants. That is why we must strive, as the amendment in my name says, for

"a world without nuclear weapons".

That will not be easy to achieve. New countries aspire to become nuclear powers.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Maureen Macmillan makes the point that we are supposed to be having a debate. What does she think the chances are that, at the end of that debate, Tony Blair and his Government will agree to get rid of nuclear weapons?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will come to that in a minute, if Alex Neil does not mind. I want to talk first about our opportunities to influence the debate.

We must use the opportunity to engage internationally with other nuclear powers at every level to bring about a reduction in nuclear weapons. Like Joan Ruddock, I believe that we now have a large window of opportunity to do that. The first decision that the Government will make will be on the commissioning of new submarines, but the decision on the new warheads will not be made until after the next UK election. That gives us months, if not years, to engage with the European Union, the United Nations, the G8 and NATO with a view to reducing warheads worldwide and with our missiles thrown into the bargaining pool.

However, I am concerned that the Scottish National Party wishes to withdraw Scotland from NATO. SNP members say that they do not wish to be beholden to the American bomb for their defence. That, of course, would not save them from nuclear fallout if there was a nuclear war, because it is no respecter of boundaries. The SNP policy of leaving NATO would have serious repercussions for Scotland. Angus Robertson, the MP for Moray, has complained that there might be a delay in getting the promised new fighter plane for the Moray air bases, but if Scotland leaves NATO there will be no new planes. Perhaps Richard Lochhead will tell us how many civilian jobs would be left in Kinloss and Lossiemouth in his constituency if SNP policy were to be followed.

Over the next few months, Trident's future will be debated thoroughly. Nobody in the Parliament wants nuclear weapons to be used, but we do not all agree on the best way to prevent their use. The argument lies in how best to prevent nuclear war and how best to safeguard our country.

I move amendment S2M-5355.5, to leave out from "the publication" to end and insert:

"that the UK Government has initiated a debate on the future of the independent nuclear deterrent force and urges everyone in Scotland to take part in it; recognises that the decisions on national defence are rightly reserved to Westminster; considers that any government has a primary duty to protect the security of its people and that this includes a credible policy on national defence and international security; believes in a shared objective of a world without nuclear weapons and supports further reductions in the global nuclear arsenal; further believes that, in seeking a world free from nuclear weapons, we should utilise and develop our international engagement at every level including at the EU, the United Nations including the UK's seat on the Security Council, NATO and the G8; notes with concern the plans of the SNP to take Scotland out of the collective security arrangements of the UK and NATO and to establish separate armed forces for Scotland with greatly diminished capabilities either to contribute to international peacekeeping operations or even to defend Scottish interests, and rejects those policies on the grounds that they would threaten the security of Scotland, diminish our armed forces and destroy jobs."

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Nicola Sturgeon referred to an opinion poll. The opinion polls at the last general election were clear: they backed Labour, which in its manifesto promised the retention of nuclear weaponry. Those are the elections that count and, as we already know, opinion polls mean little.

Given that Nicola Sturgeon has concentrated on Trident in recent First Minister's question times and the fact that there was a recent debate in the chamber, will she tell me why we are debating it again? I recognise the importance of the Government's document and its wish to have a wider debate. I welcome that, as the amendment in my name suggests.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I give way to Nicola Sturgeon.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We are having the debate because it deals with a vital issue for people in Scotland—let us remember that Trident is based in Scotland. Furthermore, I remind Phil Gallie that the First Minister has called for everyone to take part in the debate.

If this is a genuine debate, can the member cast light on the fact that, on 7 December, Tony Blair wrote to George Bush that the Government had already decided to take part in the planned life extension of the Trident missile system? Does that not give lie to Tony Blair's position?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Tony Blair's position is his. I have defended his position in the past, and I have done so wrongly. I believe that he lied to the country on a particular issue, so I am not here to defend Tony Blair.

I remember Nicola Sturgeon's SNP colleagues turning out in force at Westminster to campaign to retain the nuclear submarines at Rosyth dockyard. I believe that the Conservative Government at the time took a flawed decision, but the SNP was out in force to retain those nuclear submarines. At one end of the argument or the other, there is a degree of hypocrisy.

Nicola Sturgeon spoke of issues that are important to Scotland. I agree, but health, education and justice are important too, and in recent times the SNP has not seemed prepared to debate them in the chamber when it has had the opportunity to do so. Nicola Sturgeon should consider that when she is thinking about the interests of Scotland.

Our amendment takes up two thirds—in volume at least—of the SNP's position. We welcome the debate and we probably have our own fixed views, but it is right in a democratic society that those fixed views should be challenged. That is what the debate is all about, and that is no doubt what Tony Blair envisages.

I turn to the Liberal amendment. The debate is another opportunity for the Liberals to sit on the fence. The white paper comments on the lifetime of the Vanguard submarines—do they challenge that?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Yes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Are they saying that the submarines will be okay after 20 years? Are they prepared—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No; the Liberals will have their say in a minute. They can answer then.

Are the Liberals prepared to put the lives of submariners at risk in 20 years or so by sending them to sea in out-of-date submarines that are not capable of doing the job? Do they have a wonderful vision of what the world will be like in 20 to 50 years' time? Are they prepared to put at risk the lives of people in this country by abandoning what I believe to be a successful nuclear deterrent? I do not have time to go into all my reasoning, so I point members to the debate that we had just a couple of months ago when I explained in some detail my support for the retention of nuclear deterrents.

There is much that I can agree with in the Labour amendment. However, when Labour members talk about our armed services, they ignore the fact that the Labour Government has caused massive damage to our conventional armed services. It has done that in Scotland with its abandonment of the Scottish regiments, and it has done it overseas with its overcommittment of our forces and underprovision of weapons, personal armoury and rest and training for our troops.

The Labour amendment falls short when it refers to our conventional forces. However, I go along with Labour in welcoming the debate again and on the overall objective of reducing nuclear weaponry worldwide. Sadly, I do not believe that nuclear weapons can be disinvented, although I wish that they could be. As long as they exist, we cannot turn our backs on them.

I move amendment S2M-5355.2, to leave out from "and believes" to end.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is useful for the Parliament to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, although the decision is properly taken by the people whom we elect to Westminster. I have some reservations about calling it a debate when only the fifth paragraph of the Prime Minister's foreword to the white paper says:

"We have therefore decided to maintain our deterrent system beyond the life of the Vanguards with a new generation of ballistic missile-carrying submarines. We will also extend the life of the Trident D5 missile."

I do not call that a genuine consultation.

The Liberal Democrat position, as set out in our amendment, is that we reject the reasoning in the white paper that we must rush to a decision in spring next year. We have argued a cogent case that crucial decisions on whether and how to procure a successor system to Trident need not be taken before 2014, when a clearer picture could have emerged of the proliferation of states that possess nuclear weapons and their ability to threaten directly Britain's security.

We are not alone in making the case for deferral. In June, the House of Commons Defence Committee concluded that a programme to extend the lifetime of the four Vanguard-class submarines would make it unnecessary to take a binding decision on a replacement for Trident until some time between 2010 and 2014—in other words, beyond the next UK general election, when the issue can be debated before the electorate.

So why the rush? I believe that technical procurement arguments call into question the Government's haste. The most recent Vanguard submarine entered service less than six years ago. With a design life of 25 years, to which an extension of five years is possible, such submarines could operate until the late 2020s. Moreover, the House of Commons committee has said that the United States' decision to keep the Trident missile in service until 2042 means that that cannot be said to be a driver in the present debate.

There are substantial reasons why we should reconsider our reliance on the strategic ballistic nuclear missile system, which was ordered when the cold war was particularly chilly. The international strategic scene has changed out of recognition from the world of the 1980s. Successive UK Cabinet ministers alert us to the terrorist threat but, with barely an exception, those who gave evidence to the Commons Defence Committee's inquiry took the view that a strategic nuclear defence system would

"serve no useful or practical purpose in countering this kind of threat."

General Sir Michael Jackson voiced support for the Government's Trident announcement in his recent Dimbleby lecture, but he deplored the lack of resources for soldiers' accommodation and basic fighting equipment. Yet the procurement costs for retaining our independent deterrent are estimated at £15 billion to £20 billion—more than the cost of procuring Trident at today's prices.

I was a member of the Liberal-SDP Defence Commission in 1986, which said, in respect of the original Trident procurement:

"a compelling argument against continuing with the Trident project is that of defence priorities and resources. Trident will account for at least 6% of the equipment budget during the period of its acquisition ... at a time when the defence budget as a whole is severely overstretched."

Those words have an echo of today. If that was true 20 years ago, the argument is possibly even more compelling today.

However, we need a reality check. Six Christmases ago, no one envisaged the dreadful events of 11 September 2001 and how they would change the international strategic environment. Few today would be so bold as to identify with any certainty what future threats the United Kingdom is likely to face. North Korea recently tested a nuclear weapon and Iran continues a programme of uranium enrichment, in contravention of a Security Council resolution. Their activities could trigger a course of nuclear proliferation that would change materially today's strategic equation. That is why my party has not advocated unilateral renunciation of our existing deterrent. I respect but disagree with those who argue the unilateralist position. However, with such uncertainty, I ask why we must decide to commit to replacement before we need to do so. We know that once things start rolling, they will continue.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am in the last minute of my speech, so I will conclude.

The threat of proliferation should prompt us to make a renewed effort to breathe life into the non-proliferation treaty and non-proliferation in practice. Britain should make an active contribution to supporting non-proliferation and kick-starting multilateral disarmament talks. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed going much further than the Government's intended 20 per cent reduction in the number of warheads. Our proposals would cut in half Britain's stockpile of nuclear weapons now and send a strong signal to the international community that nuclear disarmament must be back on the agenda.

All members believe that a nuclear weapons-free world would be a precious prize. I fear that the headlong rush next spring to a new generation of British nuclear deterrence would make that goal ever more distant. The prize is surely worthy of a debate more serious and genuine than the fait accompli that has been presented to us and the rush to replacement that was announced in the white paper earlier this month. I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment in my name.

I move amendment S2M-5355.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"rejects the case made by the UK Government in its White Paper on the future of the Trident nuclear missile system published on 4 December 2006 that the decision on a replacement for Trident needs to be made in early 2007 and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead with the proposals in the White Paper at this time."

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to open debate. As members are aware, time is tight; therefore, speeches will be limited to four minutes.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

It is less than three months since we last debated Trident in the Parliament. In September we were debating in anticipation of a Government decision on renewal. Today's debate is taking place in the context of a white paper that clearly signposts the Government's intentions and of the desperate need for a debate throughout the UK on the need for Trident to be replaced. None of the sentiments that I expressed in the debate on 28 September are inappropriate in this debate, so I hope that all members will take those comments as read.

I endorse everything that Nicola Sturgeon said in her opening remarks, but I might have been slightly more scathing about what I see as an international example of men with mid-life crises worrying about whether theirs is bigger than the others'. Today I want to look at a slightly different issue. I hope that all members have read the most recent publication by Greenpeace, which makes a very telling point. It highlights the narrow definition of national security that is always referred to in debates such as this. Perhaps the concept of national security should be subjected to rather more detailed scrutiny than it is usually given.

For various reasons, including the global stand-off between the west and the communist world and the various targeting strategies of the principal players, during the cold war it might have seemed obvious what national security meant for us, although I think that that was debatable even then. However, what does it mean now? No one can answer that question. In a much-publicised war on terror, it is not easy to see what the nuclear strategy is, other than to try to ensure that nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of those who may misuse them. That involves value judgments about which are right and proper regimes to have their fingers on the buttons and which are not, and cannot address the issue of the weapons' possible use by individuals or terrorist cells.

Recently, debate has centred on what even some authorities in the United States argue is the major challenge to world security—the threat of climate change. How do either of the changed realities in which we live mesh with the intention to move to a new generation of nuclear weapons? How do either of them justify spending what on some estimates may amount to £76 billion, if they are not the basis of our definition of national security?

The dangerous perception is that the continued brandishing of nuclear weapons will really be about access to resources in the future, with the rich west and its client states relying on such weapons as the big stick by which to ensure that scarce resources remain available to the west. What is happening in the middle east could be well described as oil wars, with the USA's main interest being in a continued supply of oil, instead of in addressing the issue of scarcity of non-renewable resources. In that context, nuclear weapons become a way of ignoring the reality of climate change or, at least, of allowing the west to ignore that reality.

If we accept that climate change is a threat that we will all have to face, what are we doing to address it? We know that that will cost money. Why, at a time when we are facing a cost that we all recognise will need to be borne, do we appear to have up to £76 billion available for this dubious deterrent?

Maureen Macmillan told us that the Labour Government is calling for a national debate, but she went on to express the view that that debate should take place within the walls of the House of Commons. I can tell her from experience that that kind of national debate is no debate at all. It is only right and proper that the Parliament should make a contribution to the debate and, more to the point, should encourage a debate throughout Scotland. Ultimately, members either believe that it is okay to have weapons of mass destruction or they do not. If they do not, they should vote with the SNP at 5 pm.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Phil Gallie wonders why we are having this debate—I think we know why. We are having it for reasons of avoidance. We are avoiding a debate on any aspect of SNP policy on matters that are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Are we surprised? No, we are not.

Let us consider for a moment some recent SNP pronouncements on the economy and fiscal policy, which are needed to create a stable defence policy. The SNP assumes that we will have 95 per cent of oil revenues, which would leave Scotland in absolute surplus. I am sorry, but it would not. Alex Salmond said that there would be no tax rises. Oh, I am sorry—he meant no income tax rises.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is not the member supposed to address the motion?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

She clearly linked energy and revenues to the defence budget. Her speech is in order.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Thank you.

On local government, the SNP proposes a freeze on council tax. I am sorry, but it is questionable whether that is even legally possible. When that problem was exposed, what did the SNP do? To its shame, it blamed the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Proposed student funds have been exposed as having a cost of £1.7 billion and nowhere—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That is getting a little wide.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Nowhere is any coherent case made for a stable long-term funding policy for all that, including for any defence policy. The SNP wants to talk about defence policy.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

No.

Defence policy is properly the responsibility of SNP members at Westminster. My party uses its Westminster members to reflect our views on such matters and to lead the debate. It is illuminating that the debate is being held here because of how little impact the ineffectual and confused whingeing of the SNP's members in Westminster is having.

This is a serious debate and we all know the end that we want to achieve, which is a world that is free of nuclear weapons. That would be a perfect solution.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

No.

As Martin Kettle pointed out in last Saturday's edition of The Guardian—I recommend that my SNP colleagues listen to this—

"It is smug and dishonest to expect politicians to inhabit a different moral universe to the imperfect one the rest of us live in".

He went on to say:

"As a society, we seem to be living through a collective suspension of seriousness about how politics and government should be carried out in modern Britain ... We wish for the end, but persistently ignore the means ... It is too easy to brush aside the complex web of practical issues as if they are of no account."

That is what is happening here. As Maureen Macmillan said, we are to have a consultation. We can argue over timing, but we have to welcome that opportunity.

Jim Wallace's elegant and loquacious exposition of Liberal Democrat policy was consistent. As somebody else said recently, that party is, as always, sitting on the fence—that is what it does.

I want to consider the 17 companies in Fife, many of which are in my constituency, that are involved in the defence industry and in aspects of the nuclear industry. I want to consider our place on the global stage and come up with a balanced defence policy that takes account of the various elements. I want to think about those staff in Glenrothes and Dunfermline and about the impact on the Scottish and UK economies of any defence policy. That is why I will support our amendment and will participate in the consultation.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I will return to the subject of the debate.

"There is today no direct military threat to the United Kingdom or to Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a threat ... The Strategic Defence Review has conducted a re-examination of our deterrence requirements. This does not depend on the size of other nations' arsenals but on the minimum necessary to deter any threat to our vital interests."

That was the UK strategic defence review reporting in 1998. What has changed since then? Nothing.

In August 2005 at Hiroshima, Kofi Annan said:

"We are witnessing continued efforts to strengthen and modernise nuclear arsenals. Without concerted action, we may face a cascade of nuclear proliferation."

On which side do we stand? Do we stand with those who are working hard to encourage multilateral or unilateral disarmament or with those who are rushing headlong into that "cascade"? On which side do we want Britain to be?

Dr Hans Blix, the United Nations weapons inspector, said in London in November that modernising Britain's arsenal would put the nuclear non-proliferation treaty under strain and would increase the feeling among non-nuclear states such as Iran that they are being cheated by the nuclear powers. He pointed out the "strong sense of frustration" at the way in which nuclear nations are in the process of developing new types of weapons rather than moving towards their treaty commitments.

The last time Hans Blix spoke, Tony Blair ignored him—there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and international weapons inspections and control had succeeded. Tony Blair was wrong then and he is wrong now. When Tony Blair called for Labour back benchers to follow him into Iraq, they believed him; they trusted that he had information that he could not disclose, but they discovered that he had nothing. That mistake has cost them hundreds, if not thousands, of members and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of votes. Will they follow him into the desert again, or will they stand up this time for their consciences, for what they know is right, for what they know the people of Scotland want and for what the Church of Scotland and the Catholic church have called for? Will they support the anti-Trident motions and amendments tonight—even if it means voting for the Liberal Democrat lowest-common-denominator amendment?

This is a conscience issue. It is the supreme conscience issue and it transcends party politics. I am optimistic that we will get rid of weapons of mass destruction. We might not win the vote in Westminster in March, where an undemocratic voting system maintains the stranglehold of the old parties, but that vote will mark not the end but the beginning of the campaign against Trident's replacement.

The white paper makes it clear that very little expenditure will be incurred for at least five years from now and that the main expenditure will not be incurred until after 2020. The campaign against Trident and son of Trident will continue over the next 13 years—more if necessary—because the world has two possible futures: one in which we move to disarmament and to policing the world to ensure that nations do not have or achieve nuclear capability, and another in which more and more nations go nuclear until an accident or dictator starts a disastrous nuclear war.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Like other members, I welcome the debate, which should be raging throughout Britain. The full implications of developing yet more weapons of mass destruction should be engaging all civic and democratic institutions, because the matter affects us all. The issues that are involved are huge issues of our age. Our having more weapons of mass destruction would put all humanity at risk. The debate is one in which the illegality of nuclear weapons under international law is exposed; in which doubt is cast on Britain's commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties that it has signed; and in which the fact is exposed that enormous sums of money that could be spent on health, education and social services are to go on nuclear bombs.

It is precisely in relation to issues of international legality and concern for humanity that Tony Blair does not shine—after all, his legacy of the catastrophic failure of policy in Iraq will hang around his neck for ever more. We are not surprised at his attempt to steamroller the debate because, as others have said, his Cabinet has already decided; his Chancellor of the Exchequer has already allocated the funds and his First Minister has already jumped into line. His appeal for a full and open debate is, unfortunately, another sham.

On 12 June this year, I visited Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment as part of a Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament deputation. We were taken round the perimeter fence of the base by CND activists, because the weapons establishment management would not meet us. We were shown where nuclear warheads are manufactured and where the replacement Trident system is being developed—its development is already far advanced. In the afternoon, we travelled to Westminster, where we met the former United Nations weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix, who was in London to present his latest report on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and on how the countries that had signed up to it were not honouring their commitments. That evening, Gordon Brown announced in his Mansion House speech that he had already allocated the £25 billion that is needed to replace Trident. That is the background to the debate.

The majority of Scots have already expressed their opinions on Trident—they are opposed to it and they believe that Scotland will be less safe as a consequence of what is proposed. I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would scrap Trident, just as it would not have sent Scottish troops to fight an illegal war in Iraq.

One can understand the feelings of the international community. The world wants to know who will protect the world from Kim Jong-Blair, who has weapons of mass destruction and form in attacking and invading countries such as Iraq.

As far as Britain is concerned, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will, in effect, be shredded by Tony Blair's decision in a white paper. I am reminded of what the Greek philosopher Anacharsis said:

"Laws are like cobwebs—strong enough to detain only the weak, and too weak to hold the strong."

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is apparently meant to hold back small nations—North Korea notwithstanding—but the reality is that big and powerful nuclear nations do not take a blind bit of notice of it.

Trust in politics has never been in shorter supply and Labour simply cannot be trusted on Trident.

On 19 June 1984, Gordon Blair—that was a Freudian slip; I meant Gordon Brown—said that Trident was

"unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound".

He is now all for such weapons. Brown and Blair have shown the same inconsistency. They are a pair of maverick warmongering leaders whose actions compare with any turnaround Kim Jong-il ever made.

Scottish CND has invited parliamentarians to join it on 8 January as part of a year-long protest outside Faslane naval base. I will be there. I hope that all members of the Scottish Parliament will, too.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

There are two aspects to the debate. There is the substantive topic that we are debating—the principles and morality behind our having nuclear weapons—and the opportunity that the debate offers to portray a proper image of Parliament to the wider world.

The arguments in the substantive debate—that there is no military, economic or moral case for Trident or for replacing it—have been well made by my colleagues and other members. The eye-for-an-eye principle that has come down through the centuries would simply make the whole world blind. That principle has been continued in the nonsense of mutually assured destruction—or MAD, to use the acronym. The principle has not worked in years gone by and will not work in the 21st century. We must jettison it and move towards unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not at the moment.

The debate is an important opportunity for Parliament. We acknowledged that we had to raise our game when we moved into the new chamber. Members understood that Parliament had failed to deliver on the aspirations and hopes of the people of Scotland.

As Maureen Macmillan correctly said, when it comes to foreign policy, never mind military matters, Parliament's powers are limited. However, it is the only elected chamber in Scotland in which we can come together and give the people of Scotland a democratic voice. The opportunities that this debate provides seldom come to institutions such as Parliament. We have an opportunity not only to reaffirm our opposition to nuclear weapons and to say that there is no military, moral or economic case for them, but to rise to the occasion and ensure that Scotland speaks with one voice. Whether or not we can bring about legislative change, we have been elected to Parliament and we should make the moral case that there is no basis for nuclear weapons.

I was rather gobsmacked by what Christine May said. She quoted what was said in the Financial Times—or somewhere else—about living in an immoral world, the logic of which would appear to be that, if you live in an immoral world, you should simply abandon morality.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am not prepared to give way because of the shortage of time.

We have fundamental values that we must adhere to—values that have in recent years been impinged upon by Blair. Over recent months, we have seen one of the values to which we adhere—that of not wishing to see destruction wreaked elsewhere—impinged upon through munitions flights to Israel that saw devastation taken to and levied on the Lebanon. We opposed that. In this debate, we have an opportunity to state our position on a bigger issue than the wrong that has been perpetrated by Israel in the Lebanon: we can speak as one on the whole concept of mutually assured destruction. The opportunity for Parliament is not just in the substance of the debate and what we say in opposing nuclear weapons, but in that we should rise to the occasion. To use the First Minister's words, we need to "raise our game." We need to speak for the values and beliefs of the people of Scotland, the crux of which is that they do not want Trident. The people of Scotland have expressed that view in opinion polls, demonstrations and at the ballot box. The duty of all those who adhere to those values is to vote for the non-replacement of Trident at decision time. We need no warmongering or backsliding; members must stand up for their values and principles and for those of the people of Scotland. If we do not do that, we will have let an historic opportunity for the Scottish Parliament pass us by. We will have forsaken the opportunity for Scotland, through its elected representatives, to say in the debate that we oppose Trident and we will not see its replacement brought to Scotland. We are at an important juncture: there must be no backsliding. At 5 o'clock, Parliament must speak as one and say no to Trident.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We have had as many as four debates on the subject of Trident in as many months. As ever, the consequence is that more heat than light is generated. As I did in previous debates, I reflect that, if the SNP cared so much about the issue, it should allocate more than one hour and 15 minutes to the subject, as it has done today. I regret that the debate is more about a cheap political headline than it is about genuine debate.

At the start of her speech, Nicola Sturgeon quoted from a survey. I listened carefully to what she said, so I will share the results of another survey with her. In a survey by the Electoral Commission, almost two thirds of people said that they wished—passionately wished—that the Scottish Parliament would stick to talking about the areas for which it has responsibility.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member just hold on a minute?

The SNP needs to be a bit less disingenuous. MPs at Westminster will decide the issue—the 59 MPs who were elected to represent Scotland. Those MPs, six of whom are from the SNP, have responsibility for the decision. So what have the feeble six been up to?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

In 1999, CND conducted a survey to which Jackie Baillie contributed. In a letter that she sent to the CND, she said that "no additional Trident missile bodies" should be bought. In the survey, she said that "Trident should be decommissioned". Should we not have a bit of honesty from Jackie Baillie?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Absolutely. When Nicola Sturgeon tried to tout that round the press last week, no one picked up on it. What I said is entirely consistent with a multilateral position. If Nicola Sturgeon had been honest enough to read further from my letter, Parliament would have heard that what I said was that the issue was about the need for a jobs diversification strategy. The SNP has not engaged with that issue.

I did not get an answer from Nicola Sturgeon, so I pose the question again: what have the feeble six been up to? When did they last focus properly on the issue? As Roseanna Cunningham suggested on a previous occasion, there has been no debate on the issue at Westminster. One would have to search quite far back to find the answer. Instead of debating the issue at Westminster, the SNP prefers to posture in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament, where it has no direct influence on the decision. Indeed, some less kind commentators have suggested that the debate is entirely diversionary, given that it comes in the week that an £11 billion black hole has been exposed in the SNP budget and leading experts shredded its plans for council tax reform. I would not be so unkind.

Nicola Sturgeon talked about the honourable thing to do in the debate. Everyone wants to see the decommissioning of nuclear weapons—I do, and I hope that she does, too. A world that is free of nuclear weapons is a genuine and shared aspiration, although we may disagree on whether disarmament should be done on a multilateral or unilateral basis. However, in an increasingly uncertain world, we have a responsibility to consider what is best for the nation's security.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No.

I challenge the SNP on whether it is being honourable in the debate. Since the last debate took place, what action has the SNP taken to consider the alternatives, including those for the people who are employed in the defence industry? I am referring to the 11,000 people whose jobs are dependent on Faslane and Coulport, 7,000 of whom are employed directly by the Faslane base, never mind the impact on the wider defence industry throughout Scotland.

Has the SNP moved on from its previous position? Let me remind its members what that was. Alex Salmond said that the Scottish navy would be at Rosyth. Great. However, someone in the west said that the Scottish navy would be at Faslane. My goodness, but the Scottish navy will be massive. We are not that stupid; the SNP's position is inherently dishonest.

There is also the sheer hypocrisy of SNP members who argue for Trident submarines to be refitted at Rosyth. The SNP has no answers and takes no responsibility for the consequences of its actions. God forbid it, but if the SNP ever ended up in charge, 11,000 P45s would be issued to hard-working people in my area and to thousands more throughout Scotland. If the SNP was serious, it would rise to the challenge of considering alternatives, but it is not.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It has been a short but interesting debate in which many points have been covered. I want to address those that were made in two or three speeches.

First, Maureen Macmillan said that she is against nuclear weapons. However, her amendment bears no relation to what her party leader in the Scottish Parliament wants to do or to what her party leader in London wants to do. Christine May had a go at the Liberal Democrats, following an excellent speech from my colleague Jim Wallace. The Liberal Democrats take a highly measured approach: we do not support a headlong rush into an unnecessary decision to spend up to £25 billion—a vast amount of money—on a replacement system, when Christine May's Labour colleagues on the House of Commons Defence Committee say that no decision needs to be taken for up to another seven years. Why is the Prime Minister in such a rush? We all know the answer to that question.

I am not surprised about the Tories' position, which Phil Gallie outlined in his speech. He said that he believed the Prime Minister over the Iraq war, but on several occasions he has told Parliament that he was wrong to do so. Now he says that the Prime Minister is right in what he says in the white paper, but could not Tony Blair be wrong again? On nuclear weapons, the Tory party is renowned for its deference and now its irrelevance.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Is the member aware that at one time Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid were unilateral disarmers? That means that at one stage of their lives they must have been on the right side.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is an interesting observation. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is absolutely right—they probably were on the right side at one stage of their lives.

I want to focus on our amendment, which we lodged because Liberal Democrats north and south of the border have a long-standing commitment to multilateral elimination of nuclear weapons, but also to retaining the UK's current nuclear deterrent until such progress has been made. Although the decision on the replacement of the Trident system is, as we all know, reserved to Westminster, the Liberal Democrats believe that it is vital that Scotland's voice, through the Scottish Parliament, be heard in the debate.

Successive UK Governments—Tory then Labour—have made little progress on nuclear disarmament. Indeed, the failure earlier this year to make any meaningful progress on disarmament of both the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference and the United Nations summit has been hugely disappointing.

I hope that at decision time at 5 o'clock all of us in the Scottish Parliament can speak with one voice and send a clear message to our colleagues in the House of Commons that we reject the UK Government's case, and that we urge MPs to vote against the proposals in the Government's white paper when they make their decision next March. I encourage MSPs from all parties to unite behind the Liberal Democrats' amendment and to send a clear message to the UK Government from the people of Scotland.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Debates on this subject always generate great passion, as a number of speeches have demonstrated. I cannot agree with Jackie Baillie that we should deprecate people who hold a sincere political view, although I am singularly unpersuaded by the arguments of the Scottish National Party.

In her opening speech, Nicola Sturgeon talked about the moral dimension to the argument. I think that we all agree on aspects of what she said. She must realise that the SNP benches do not have a monopoly of concern about the possible consequences of the launch of a Trident missile. However, to suggest that the country is not safer because we have had nuclear weapons during the past 60 years or so is to deny the lessons of history.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does Bill Aitken think that the 180 countries throughout the world that do not have nuclear weapons are less safe because of that?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The 180 countries that do not have nuclear weapons have not been in a position to acquire them—that is the bottom line.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Should they acquire them? Will the member give way on that point?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I must move on.

The fact is that members are part of a cosseted generation in that none of us has had to go to war. My father had to go to war, as did his father, but that has not happened to us because of the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. To suggest that there is a lack of candidates who might cause trouble in the world is to demonstrate a degree of naivety that I find astonishing. We need look no closer than the middle east, where one country has built up significant conventional and nuclear forces and is led by a president whom we might kindly describe as a megalomaniac—[Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is irresponsible to suggest that we should not retain our nuclear deterrent in such a climate.

The amendment in Jim Wallace's name represents a typical Liberal exercise in stalling and deferring decisions. The Liberals will have to come off the fence eventually: I remind Mike Rumbles that he who constantly sits on the fence ends up speaking in a high-pitched voice.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member give way?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

The Liberal party will eventually have to decide where it stands.

Jim Wallace is right that the threat that we faced changed completely in the 1980s. Of course it did: the cold war ended as a result of the firm line that was taken by President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher. However, who can say that the threat will not change again? History shows that events are always fluid and we must acknowledge that.

I think that all members genuinely wish that nuclear weapons had not been invented, but the nuclear genie is firmly out of the bottle and we must deal with the situation as it is and not as we wish it was. To suggest that this country should not have a nuclear deterrent is not just to fail to learn the lessons of history but to demonstrate a naivety and irresponsibility that Parliament should reject.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

The SNP motion notes that the Government has initiated a debate about the nuclear element of Britain's defence capability. The white paper on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent has been published. The public debate continues and a decision will be taken by the House of Commons next year.

Some of us are genuinely sceptical about the credibility and value of nuclear deterrence. Others—including the Liberal Democrats, I think—believe that it is essential for the protection of our national and collective security. However, we should all be able to welcome the proposal in the white paper for a further 20 per cent cut in the number of nuclear warheads, which will add up to a 50 per cent reduction in warheads since 1997. That is a significant achievement by the Labour Government, but the bad news is that North Korea, Israel and India now have nuclear weapons. Such proliferation may be a justification for keeping Britain's capacity to deter.

The debate is serious, and we are all entitled to have our say as British citizens. If we were not British citizens, we would have no say, but we would still face a risk if Britain were to be attacked with nuclear weapons.

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

Will the member give way?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

As we approach the election next May, let us have a debate about the military, economic and political consequences of the nationalists' defence policies. The SNP is always keen to jump on bandwagons to support infantry regiments and Royal Air Force squadrons in Scotland, although it tends to criticise the deployment of those forces as "unpardonable folly". However, I have not heard the nationalists complaining about Royal Navy warships being built on the Clyde and, like Jackie Baillie and Phil Gallie, I remember them campaigning for Trident nuclear ballistic missile submarines to be refitted at Rosyth.

The fundamental nationalist objective—independence—would mean a Scottish ministry of defence, although I do not know where; the withdrawal of Scottish personnel from the British armed forces; and the establishment of a Scottish army, navy and air force. The SNP has suggested that its independent Scotland would have armed forces similar to those of the Scandinavian countries that are outside NATO. It would be expensive to maintain so many trained professional service personnel, so the SNP might have to resort to conscription. National service for neds could be one way of hiding the unemployment that would arise from the break-up of the United Kingdom, but it would not be the same as a professional army.

There is also the small matter of equipment for Scottish forces. An independent Scotland would end up with lightly armed territorial defence forces that were outside NATO and incapable of taking part in major peacekeeping operations. So much for the nationalists' stated commitment to the historic battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. There would be no prospect of state-of-the-art Typhoon jets for Lossiemouth or Leuchars and I do not think that the SNP would buy new Clyde-built type 45 destroyers for the Scottish fisheries protection fleet. Those important issues must be understood as we approach the election in May. Independence for Scotland would be the end of a proud military tradition and would destroy thousands of defence-related jobs, not only in Dunbartonshire.

Our Labour Government is making real progress with multilateral nuclear disarmament. I welcome that and I trust the House of Commons to make the right decision on the issue next year. The economic case for the United Kingdom is well known, but I welcome the opportunity to begin a debate about Scotland's interests in British security and Britain's armed forces. The choice next May will be between a weak and inward-looking nationalist Scotland and a strong and confident British Scotland with all the advantages of the union dividend. The time has come to settle that argument once and for all. Think of Alex Salmond as the commander in chief of a Scottish army—I rest my case. I urge the Parliament to support Maureen Macmillan's amendment.

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

I say to John Home Robertson that £25 billion buys a lot of conventional weapons. I wonder whether his loyalist speech was his application to get into the House of Lords—he will no longer be able to buy a place there, because the SNP MPs have put a stop to that nonsense.

Nicola Sturgeon raised the moral case against the renewal of Trident, which she rightly described as being against the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I want to expose the flaws in the incredibly dodgy dossier—the white paper—which is another dodgy dossier from a dodgy Government. Maureen Macmillan's amendment states:

"the UK Government has initiated a debate on the future of the independent nuclear deterrent force and urges everyone in Scotland to take part in it".

However, according to Labour members, that means everyone except members of the Scottish Parliament. How contradictory can people be?

This must also be the shortest debate in history.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

The SNP timetabled it.

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

I am talking about the debate on the white paper, not the one that we are having today.

On 7 December, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wrote to George Bush and said:

"We have decided that we will replace the Vanguard submarines with another class of submarines in the 2020s, and would like these submarines to continue to carry Trident II D5 missiles.

Accordingly, we wish to participate in the planned life extension programme for the Trident II D5 missile, which we understand is intended to extend the life of the missiles into the 2040s."

"Please, George, can we be in your gang?" That is what that letter was all about. On the same day, George Bush replied:

"the United States fully supports and welcomes the intention of the United Kingdom to participate in the life-extension program"

of Trident.

The decision has already been made by Blair and Brown and Jack McConnell, and the rest of the Labour Party is following along nicely.

Phil Gallie accused the SNP of trying to stand up for Scottish jobs in Rosyth. I say that the SNP is right to argue that, if we are taking the risk, our people should be getting those jobs. As a consequence of Malcolm Rifkind's decision, we now have seven rusting hulks in Rosyth. That is our inheritance from a Tory Government. Further, the Labour Party can give us no lectures on jobs, given the thousands of jobs that have been lost in Rosyth since it came to power.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

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

Jackie Baillie asked for honesty, but she should be more honest. She said that 11,000 jobs would be lost if we did not have Trident. However, in a written answer, Geoff Hoon, the then Secretary of State for Defence, said:

"The number of civilian jobs which directly rely upon the Trident programme is estimated to be 936 in Scotland, with an additional 6,640 in the rest of the United Kingdom. The number of civilian jobs which indirectly rely upon the Trident programme is estimated to be 300 in Scotland and 5,700 for the rest of the UK."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 February 2005; Vol 431, c 128W.]

Jackie Baillie says that her position is multilateralist. If that is the case, she also wants to negotiate away those weapons, which means that she also has to answer the question of what she would do with Trident on the Clyde.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I would be delighted to.

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

Sit down. The member has had her chance to speak.

Christine May said that we are having this debate because we want to avoid other issues. However, she then airbrushed out any Trident content from her speech. The purpose of this debate is to ensure that the members of the Labour Party are held to account and are forced to debate these issues in the Scottish Parliament.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

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

I want to make some progress on the issue of Trident being a deterrent.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

This is not a debate, it is a lecture.

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

Michael McMahon is right to say that a debate is not happening in the country. However, he is one of the people who signed up to the position that he does not approve of—our having the Trident weapons system in the future. We will see how he votes at 5 o'clock.

In the past, an intellectual argument was made for having Trident as a deterrent. People who held that view said that the Russian bear was a problem and that the Soviet bloc posed a threat. I never accepted that argument, but at least it had some intellectual rigour. Today, however, we should be asking ourselves who the Trident weapons are aimed at. The answer is no one. Who will they be aimed at in the future? No one really knows. Occasionally, when Blair, Brown or other Labour members get into a hole, they start trotting out the names of Korea or Iran or even suggest that the Russian bear might return. That is no way in which to properly formulate foreign and defence policy. Certainly, it is not a sound basis for spending £25 billion on a new weapons of mass destruction system—a deterrent with no clear enemy targets.

The white paper is a policy of hopelessness and despair. The truth is that Blair, Brown, the First Minister and probably many of the Labour back benchers have now abandoned multilateralism in favour of retaining nuclear weapons for all time.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

What?

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

The white paper kills multilateralism stone dead. I suggest that Labour members go and read it and find out the truth of the matter. Paragraph 3.8, on page 19, says:

"Currently no state has both the intent to threaten our vital interests and the capability to do so with nuclear weapons"

and paragraph 3.10 says:

"Over the next 20 to 50 years, one or more states could also emerge that possess a more limited nuclear capability".

[Interruption.]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Read the white paper. It is all in there.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order. Mr Crawford is speaking; nobody else should be.

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

If Labour's policy is built on not knowing what threats there will be in the future, it can only be a policy to retain weapons of mass destruction for all time. Yes, it is time for honesty, but let us be honest that multilateralism is dead in the Labour Party. There is no question about that.

As MSPs, we will have a clear choice tonight. We can decide to support the position of Blair, Brown and McConnell, whose vanity will throw away any moral authority that the UK still has and waste £25 billion, or we can be on the side of the Scottish people and say loudly and clearly that there is no moral, military or economic argument for a new era of weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde. The SNP stands four-square with their removal and with the people of Scotland. Where do Labour members stand?

Post Offices

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5349, in the name of John Swinney, on post offices.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

This debate is an opportunity for the Parliament to express its concern about the future of the post office network in Scotland and the sweeping changes that the United Kingdom Government proposes.

A couple of weeks ago, I hosted a members' business debate on the issue, which attracted a tremendous amount of interest from across the political spectrum. Subsequent to that debate, the UK Government announced that it plans to close 2,500 post offices throughout the UK, which will have a significant impact on Scotland. The issue is of such significance that it must be addressed by the Scottish Parliament. The matter is reserved, but the decision will have major consequences for a range of communities in Scotland.

Post offices play a vital role in our communities. They are often the hub of local activity and a gathering point for local people. They are an essential link in maintaining the viability of the last shop in the village or, in many cases, they are the only shop that provides a local service in isolated urban communities within our larger cities. Whether they are in urban or rural settings, post offices are vital to the health and well-being of countless communities in our country.

Scotland has 1,116 rural post offices, 343 urban post offices and 211 post offices in urban deprived areas. In total, there are 1,670 post offices throughout Scotland. Evidence on the effect of the changes that have been made to the post office network so far shows that, when a post office closes, more than 80 per cent of the shops associated with it also close. It is reasonable to assume that, if there is a substantial decline in the number of post offices in Scotland, there will be a subsequent reduction in the availability of local retail facilities in rural and urban communities. The exposure of deprived urban communities to that problem is enormously significant. The loss of footfall when a post office closes means that other shops and services close as well.

The UK Government's decision to engineer the closure of 2,500 post office branches poses a massive threat to the viability of a comprehensive post office network in Scotland. It takes no account of the issues of geography that affect the delivery of the network in Scotland's most sparsely populated communities, particularly those in the rural north and south. In arguing for that change in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alistair Darling, said:

"Traditionally, the post office was the place where people went to post a letter, to pay their utility bills and to collect their benefits. Many still do, but increasingly people choose to send an e-mail or text, they pay bills by direct debit or internet banking, and they pay for their tax disc online and have pensions or benefits paid into their bank accounts."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 14 December 2006; Vol 454, c 1026.]

The secretary of state says those things as if they have happened by osmosis and have absolutely nothing to do with the intervention or encouragement of the Government. The present Government has been making it ever more difficult for people to use exactly those post office services that the secretary of state commented upon. The option to have pensions paid at the post office has been in the small print of forms that are structured to encourage people to have pensions paid by direct debit. The Government introduced the Post Office card account, but then allowed it to drift away with uncertainty. One Government department has given the Post Office financial support, whereas other departments have encouraged individuals to take business away from the post office.

Ministers have lectured us about the importance of using sustainable transport and public transport. However, as a consequence of decisions that the Government has taken about the post office network, post bus services, which provide part of the essential rural transport network, are being removed. That is another laughable advert for supposed joined-up government of the United Kingdom.

We accept that the post office network cannot remain the same forever. Patterns of life change. We argue that the Government could and should be doing much more to maximise the possibility of the network remaining viable. The Government could be encouraging more transactions to be carried out in post offices. The Government could be encouraging the linking up of post offices to other public services to create viable units in communities, which would have the benefit of expanding multiple functions and improving access to public services. The Government could be examining ways of working in partnership with local providers to continue service provision in a different fashion, but with the key requirement of ensuring that the services continue. As part of its public service reform agenda, the Government could be encouraging local authorities to ensure that local people are able to use post offices for many more transactional services.

But no: the Government instead chooses the blunt approach. It simply decides how many post offices will close and then forces the network to change accordingly. That approach is consistent with the Government's inability to improve the delivery of services at the local level, and it should be resisted by us all. The Scottish Parliament has the chance to do that today, and to ensure that we speak up on an issue that will have significant consequences in the communities of rural and urban Scotland. I invite members to put pressure on the UK Government today to protect those vital local services for the communities of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament expresses its concern at the reductions in the post office network proposed by the UK Government and calls on the Scottish Executive to make representations to the UK Government to ensure that Scotland retains a comprehensive and accessible post office network.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

I am pleased to speak in this debate. My constituency is both urban and rural, and constituents, particularly those belonging to the National Federation of SubPostmasters, have always lobbied hard to maintain the post office network. I gather that recent news coverage on the issue included constituents from west Stirlingshire.

Although I share similar sentiments to those expressed in the Scottish National Party motion, and while I accept that it is necessary to examine carefully the UK Government's proposals for the future of the post office network, including the consultation paper, to ensure that the special needs of Scotland's remoter communities are properly taken into account, my amendment seeks to go further than the SNP motion by building on the statement that the First Minister made last week at First Minister's question time. My amendment therefore

"welcomes the Scottish Executive's proposal to apply four criteria"

in assessing the statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Those criteria are, first, whether there will be an acceptable level of future services, especially in remote rural and disadvantaged communities; secondly, whether there will be recognition that post offices do not play a purely commercial role in our communities, but have an important social role as well; thirdly, whether there will be proper consultation with affected local communities; and fourthly, whether there will be a continuation of Post Office efforts to promote innovative means of service delivery. Those important points have been taken on board.

I emphasise the social role of post offices in our communities, particularly in areas where the post office, with its associated shops, is the only facility that offers certain services. Elderly people and those who are without ready access to transport are the most dependent on those limited yet vital services.

Vulnerable communities must be protected—I agree with John Swinney on that point. I regard such protection as the key aspect of the criteria listed by the First Minister. For that reason, I have added to my amendment the words:

"it is important that the vital social and economic role of post offices has been acknowledged".

Changes that have already been made to the post office network have presented problems. From speaking to more elderly constituents, I know that there have been difficulties in using keypads and personal identification numbers. Such changes are seen as challenges by most of us, but we often fail to realise that certain people, particularly the elderly, are unable to manage those changes and therefore find an alternative route for dealing with their finances, and when that happens the loser is the post office.

Although I wanted to make that point, we accept that changes continue to occur at all levels—which is the point that John Swinney slightly misses—and that some of the changes have been for good reasons, such as combating fraud. There are no easy answers. We cannot suddenly stop the increased use of computers in our homes or the use of telephone banking, for example. Those changes help busy people such as us to deal with their finances quickly and efficiently.

There is no doubting that the post office service will need to keep adapting if it is to survive, as we want it to. Recent statistics show that every week last year the Post Office made a loss of £2 million. That loss has increased to £4 million a week this year.

There are good examples of innovative practices where communities have worked together, usually with other agencies, to develop a community post office and shop facility. Gartmore in my constituency is one such example, and another is developing in Fintry. My point is that communities have a responsibility too—to be involved and to stay involved, and not simply to go down to the supermarket in the nearest town or city. However, partnership working and establishing innovative practices will need money, which is why I added to my amendment the words:

"pleased to see the commitment of £1.7 billion to support the network and to pay for restructuring".

The statement by Alistair Darling suggested opening at least 500 new outreach locations and other innovations on that theme. I support such initiatives. That approach is to be welcomed, as is the desire to provide more new services for post office customers. As many members will know, the post office is the market leader in foreign exchange provision.

The helpful briefing that we received from Help the Aged says that

"it is of paramount importance that a 'one size fits all' approach is not adopted"

here in Scotland. That comment fits well with the First Minister's criterion for local consultation. I ask everybody to support my amendment.

I move amendment S2M-5349.4, to leave out from "expresses" to end and insert:

"believes that it is necessary to look carefully at the UK Government's proposals for the future of the post office network in full and the consultation paper itself to ensure that the special needs of Scotland's remoter communities are properly taken into account; welcomes the Scottish Executive's proposal to apply four criteria to this assessment, namely whether there will be an acceptable level of future services, especially in remote rural and disadvantaged communities, whether there is a recognition that post offices do not occupy a purely commercial role in our communities, but have an important social role to play, whether there is proper consultation with affected local communities and whether there will be a continuation of Post Office efforts to promote innovative means of service delivery; believes that it is important that the vital social and economic role of post offices has been acknowledged; is pleased to see the commitment of £1.7 billion to support the network and to pay for restructuring and that the annual social network payment will remain in place meantime, and is encouraged by the push for outreach locations for remote communities".

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the debate. As we have heard, the future of the rural sub-post office network is a vital issue for much of Scotland. I appreciate that support for sub-post offices is reserved, but it impacts on the economy of rural Scotland. Accordingly, the Scottish Executive must take an interest. Even the Labour amendment acknowledges that point.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Given what the member has just said, and given the impact of the issue on vulnerable communities, does the member not find it quite disgraceful that not a single minister is here to speak? Is the member aware that, in a debate on this issue several years ago, ministers responded?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Christine Grahame makes a fair point. The motion and the Labour amendment refer to the Scottish Executive but no one is here to represent the Executive's view on the matter. Ministers require to reflect upon that.

For people living in rural Scotland, local sub-post offices are part of the fabric of local life. Over a long period, many local communities have seen services being run down. We have seen the closure of local shops, primary schools and churches in many communities. In many of those places, the local sub-post office remains the sole hub of community life. This is not just an economic issue but an important social one. Rural sub-post offices are particularly well used by the elderly, many of whom lack their own transport. The closure of those sub-post offices would increase the social exclusion and isolation of many in that group. I listened with interest to the warm words of Sylvia Jackson, on behalf of Labour, about the post office network. The fact is, however, that under the Labour Government at Westminster we have already lost a quarter of the United Kingdom's post office network. The impact of such closures has been felt throughout Scotland.

Last week, Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, outlined the Government's approach to post offices, which included a prediction that 2,500 more post offices throughout the UK would close from the summer of next year. That is a depressing picture. It will have a serious impact throughout rural Scotland.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to make some progress, if I may.

The Labour Government uses as its excuse for those closures the fact that post office revenue has declined. The irony, to which I refer in my amendment, is that that decline in revenue comes largely as a result of conscious decisions by the Government to take business away from the post office network and make it uncompetitive. As Sylvia Jackson said, society has changed and people are behaving in different ways, but that should not be an excuse for the Government taking deliberate actions that have exacerbated the situation. For example, switching benefit payments from post offices to bank accounts effectively withdrew a major source of revenue from local post offices. They lost not just the transaction costs but the footfall—those who collected benefits often spent cash in the post office or the attached local shop.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am afraid that I am in my last minute, Mr McNeil.

The Government introduced the Post Office card account then pledged to discontinue it but, in the teeth of widespread opposition, supported by my Conservative colleagues at Westminster, I am pleased to say that it has performed a U-turn on that proposal. There are other examples, such as the television licence situation, which has been referred to, and the situation with road tax.

We need a new approach. My Conservative colleagues at Westminster have already pledged that they would rewrite sub-postmasters' contracts to allow them to provide a greater range of products and services, including private mail services. The long-term future of the network will be best secured if post offices open up to new markets and new customers. The Scottish Executive could be doing much more with new schemes to support the post office network directly.

Last week, Alistair Darling announced a consultation exercise, which is due to end in March—a cynical exercise to try to park the issue until after the Scottish Parliament elections. If that is his intention, he will be sadly disappointed. Post offices will be a major issue in the Scottish Parliament elections.

I move amendment S2M-5349.1, to insert, after first "Government":

"notes that decisions taken by the UK Government have themselves contributed to the losses being made by the post office network and that it is therefore disingenuous for ministers to justify the extensive scaling down of the network on the basis that it is losing money; believes that the UK Government should seek to bring new business opportunities to the network rather than merely manage its decline".

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The future of our post offices is an important, although reserved issue. Research by the Liberal Democrat party indicates that between 1999 and this year, just over 300 post offices in Scotland closed. In my constituency, there were 42 post offices when I was first elected. By 2005, 36 remained, but I can think of three that have closed this year alone. Nowhere in the country—urban or rural—is immune from that trend, which will simply get worse, because in March 2006 the UK Government's policy of avoiding unnecessary branch closures was ended. That policy had slowed down the rate of closures, particularly in rural areas.

The proposal—or suggestion or whatever it is—for a further 2,500 post office closures throughout the UK is likely to lead to dozens more local communities losing their post offices, unless the UK Government takes resolute action to prevent that. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to stop the unnecessary closure programme and instead to free the Royal Mail from restrictive regulation, to invest in the future of the post office network and to stop removing Government business from it, in order to safeguard our post offices.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is it still Liberal Democrat policy to privatise the Post Office?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is not and never has been Liberal Democrat policy to privatise the Post Office, and Mr Fraser is clearly mistaken in his view that it was.

The UK Government has directly or indirectly overseen the Post Office's loss of TV licences, vehicle excise duty and passport authentication work. We heard from previous speakers about the transfer of benefit and pension payments to direct payment into bank accounts, which resulted in the loss of about £400 million of income. That is a classic case of Government looking at the narrow cost saving without any proper consideration for the wider consequences.

The UK Government has announced that it will not extend its contract for pension and benefit payments using the Post Office card account beyond 2010. The current contract is worth £1 billion in income for post offices between 2003 and 2010. It is said that a replacement will be put in place, but the competitive tender process means that the Post Office could lose that work altogether.

As we all know, and as Mr Swinney eloquently suggested, post offices are focal points for, and play an important social role in, our communities. They can be key components of local shops and hubs of local activity and information services. If the post office goes, the village shop is put under threat, as has been the case in a number of communities since 1999. Sub-post offices cannot live on good will or fresh air. They need to be allowed to compete and to win business. There should be less regulation, and sub-post masters should be properly rewarded for carrying out tasks for local and national government at local level.

In Germany, Deutsche Post has introduced access to the eBay auction system for people without computers. That is run via its post office network. Devon County Council is considering a system for ordering, collecting and returning library books via post offices. Other innovations occur, such as the one in my constituency in which the police use a post office in Chirnside in Berwickshire as a contact point. Post offices can become one-stop shops for Government and local government services and for quangos and agencies, many of which could do with raising the profile of what they are supposed to do for the general public.

The Royal Mail is increasingly exposed to competition but needs £2 billion of investment and has an estimated deficit or shortfall of £4 billion in its pension fund. The Royal Mail parallel to the Post Office crisis is that universal postal prices and door-to-door deliveries will end unless action is taken. We need a statutory guarantee requiring maintenance of the universal service obligation. Unlike other parties, the Liberal Democrats have a comprehensive plan to support the Royal Mail and ensure its continuation.

I move amendment S2M-5349.3, to leave out from "expresses" to end and insert:

"believes that the post office network plays a crucial role in Scotland; notes that this is a reserved issue and supports the Liberal Democrats' rejection of the recommendation of the UK Government's post office network consultation paper that a further 2,500 post office branches be closed across the United Kingdom."

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

It is important to place the debate in context, including a political context. The Central Scotland region lost a total of 19 post offices in the most recent wave of closures. Nine of those were in socially deprived areas of North Lanarkshire such as Sikeside, Viewpark, Clarkston and Holytown. That did not happen by accident or in isolation. It is part of the Government's ideologically driven right-wing offensive on public services.

I am sure that, as is always the case, the Tories will confirm that point. They are prepared to be honest about that kind of agenda but, since the Labour Government came into power, it has used the politics of stealth. At least Thatcher was honest about what she was doing. Public services, including the Post Office, have been subjected to the unbundling, as it is called—as business calls it, in fact, because it recognises the process that is going on and is prepared to be honest about it—of parts of the business. That unbundling has taken place not only in post offices, but in the Royal Mail, in the job cuts that are proposed for the civil service, in local government and in the national health service. Either Labour members have been hoodwinked about that or they are complicit in and collude with the Government's smoke and mirrors tactics.

The closures are part of a strategic, co-ordinated and systematic ideological offensive on public services and on the concept of community planning and social need in favour of the eventual complete marketisation and privatisation of all Government and public services. That is a global agenda, which the Parliament should be capable of debating and confronting.

The offensive needs to be confronted with a coherent alternative ideology—that is why I am a socialist and I am clear about that. However, that is where the main opposition parties run into bother, especially the Scottish National Party. It does not put forward any coherent ideological opposition.

As the Tories have confirmed, the Government's excuse for closing post offices—that they are not viable—is a direct result of their policies of unbundling and privatising Government services. Post offices should exist according to social need, as the Communication Workers Union makes plain in its briefing, which I recommend. It contains several recommendations that would make post offices viable, even in the current climate. As the CWU says,

"No counters network in the world has achieved stable and sustained profitability."

Using the Government's measure is a con trick, and unless members understand the ideological context that the measures are part of, they have been successfully conned. Either that, or they accept that context, which would at least be honest.

As we have heard, if services are not planned according to community and social need, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. I remember Labour in opposition goading the Tories for having a go at the same vulnerable groups who will be most affected by post office closures.

Appealing to this neo-liberal, ideologically driven Government to help protect public services is like appealing to Dracula to stop drinking blood. Unless there is a complete reversal of Government policy on the post office network—by returning Government business to post offices, by expanding the Post Office card account to deliver free and accessible banking to excluded communities, and by paying the proper rates for the services that post offices provide—closures are inevitable. They are inevitable because the Government has planned it that way, and we need to confront that and deal with it.

I move amendment S2M-5349.2, to insert, after second "Government":

"to begin paying post offices adequately for the government services they provide, to return services that it has withdrawn, such as issuing television licenses, to post offices, to begin the development of post office accounts as a banking facility for those living in deprived and rural communities and to consider providing assistance to communities in deprived urban and rural areas to open community post offices to prevent the loss of vital local services, and thus".

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am delighted that the SNP has chosen to debate this vital issue, but I am extremely disappointed that ministers have chosen to be absent. That shows contempt for our rural communities and undermines the Parliament as an institution. The empty row of ministerial chairs sends out a loud and clear message to rural communities.

Last week's statement in the House of Commons on the future of the rural sub-post office network struck fear into the hearts of rural communities. We are in the run-up to Christmas, which is the busiest time for the post office network in rural communities, and many communities and post office staff will be wondering whether their branches will be open in 18 months' or two years' time. Scotland is bound to take the biggest hit from any closure programme. The figures quoted so far are that Scotland could lose anything from 300 to 600 sub-post offices. Anything remotely on that scale would be devastating for our rural communities.

Moray Council is currently discussing the future of nine rural schools in my constituency. Those communities will have sub-post offices as well, so they will find themselves in a position in which not only their schools but their sub-post offices are under threat. Those same communities have lost their petrol stations, shops and local bank branches in recent years.

It is about time that UK ministers in London asked themselves what their vision is for the future of rural communities in Scotland, because we are in real danger of turning rural communities into a preserve of the wealthy. People will have to have a car to travel to post offices elsewhere if their local post office closes, and there will be no schools, so people will have to use their cars for that too. Vulnerable local people, those without work and the elderly will be left in the lurch if rural facilities continue to close. It is hypocritical for the UK Government to say that the fact that the post office network is making a loss is the reason why its future has to be reviewed when, as others have said, the same Government has withdrawn the very services that provided that network with vital income.

The crux of the debate is that the rural post office network does not play simply a commercial role. It also has a social role. The Scottish Government's research from July this year, which was published after examining three case studies in rural Scotland, listed the many reasons why local communities value their rural post offices. Those reasons include the fact that rural post offices provide

"access to post office services to community members who are restricted from using other services due to their geographical location, regardless of income or physical well being"

and

"promote financial inclusion ... Accessing these post office services locally is reported to be useful by more vulnerable groups of the communities, such as groups of older people, who draw their pension from the post office, groups of disabled people"

and others who do not have access to local bus services. According to the research, a post office provides a hub in the community and plays a role in the local tourism industry, by providing information for tourists.

In the Scottish Government's Environment and Rural Affairs Department's business plan, the list of priorities for rural communities in 2006 says that ministers will contribute to UK policy on the post office network. It is vital that the Parliament finds out what was said. The time for submissions to the UK Government was in June, July and August—before Alistair Darling made his statement in the House of Commons. We must have transparency. Our rural communities deserve to know what input ministers in this Parliament made to UK ministers before the statement was made and that input should be published. I hope that Parliament will use the opportunity today to stand up for our rural communities.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Presiding Officer, if you will indulge me, I will welcome to the Parliament the pupils from Earnhill primary school in my constituency. I am sure that everyone wishes them a merry Christmas.

We all understand that many members have genuine concerns about post offices in their constituencies. I therefore take comfort from the Labour Government's commitment to maintaining a network of post offices throughout the UK. I welcome the fact that the Government will lay down rules to govern the location of post offices in the network and the fact that those network access rules will take care to ensure that remote and rural areas and deprived urban areas are served properly.

Apart from anything else, the Government proposals will allow Post Office Ltd to manage the network actively. Contrary to what John Swinney says, that will put the right people in the right locations rather than being a case-by-case response to choices that individual sub-postmasters make.

However, those are just boring facts that the SNP chooses to ignore because they do not fit its pantomime view of the world—told to us yet again by Buttons, played by John Swinney—in which the wicked stepmother Westminster beats and deprives poor wee Cinderella Scotland. Like the younger audience members at the Pavilion and the King's this month, SNP members do not care if the story is a bit far-fetched. As long as the songs are easy, there is lots of shouting and they get an ice cream at half-time, they go home happy.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Look behind you!

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

How would the story go if the fairy godmother across the Thames—possibly played by Ian Krankie, with Jimmy Krankie as Nicola—waved her magic wand and made Scotland independent? For a start, as has been said, Scotland has a disproportionately high share of the UK's post offices. Scotland has 11.7 per cent of the UK network, but 8.6 per cent of the population. We have 14 per cent of the rural network and 9 per cent of urban post offices, but because we are part of a UK-wide system, the cost of funding those post offices is spread throughout the UK. That would not be the case under independence.

The SNP needs to tell us by how much the cost of a stamp would rise to pay for Scottish post offices that the union currently subsidises. How many postal workers would the SNP need to sack? Which post offices would it end up closing anyway? Why should we pay international postage rates to send, say, Christmas cards to friends and family abroad in England?

What about the cost to business? Sending post from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland costs 20 per cent more. Such a price hike would be passed on to Scottish businesses, and if those companies' main consumer bases were in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, why would they simply not relocate? How long would it take this pony express to deliver a letter from Stornoway to Sussex? How would the economies of scale that we would lose be paid for us? I could go on, but I am used to the wheels falling off SNP bandwagons. This one has turned back into a pumpkin, and it is not even midnight.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the SNP for giving us another opportunity to discuss in the chamber the future of the post office network.

The motion that we are debating refers to

"a comprehensive and accessible post office network",

but the issue goes far beyond that. We are debating the future of our communities and of our local economies to boot. It will be a false economy to strip away the £150 million subsidy from the rural network, because we will be left with a degenerated rural economy that will need rebuilding yet again in other, more expensive ways that will be unavailable in future as European Union funds disappear.

It is not just about rural post offices. Over the past couple of years there have been no less than eight urban post office closures for each rural post office that has been forced out of business. A recently published report by the New Economics Foundation demonstrated the benefits that urban post offices offer to their local economies. The report showed that each urban post office saves small businesses more than a quarter of a million pounds each year. Around 60 per cent of local businesses reported significant negative impacts on their business, their clients or their area in general following the closure of an urban post office. The lead author of the report issues us a stark warning of which we should take heed. He says:

"post office closures deal a double blow as they are not only an anchor for the local community, but also for local enterprise. The closure can trigger a tipping point leading to a downward cycle that leaves ghost communities with very few shops and services left".

The question at the heart of the debate is how much we value our local economies, full stop. In an era of globalisation, it may be tempting to think that we do not need them, that we can get everything online and that too much reliance on local services is a hangover from an earlier, less efficient age. However, I argue—as many members have argued in the chamber this morning—that if we are to build a sustainable Scotland, we need sustainable communities that incorporate sustainable local economies. Unless we and local communities support both rural and urban post offices, that simply will not happen.

Many members have talked about the UK Government, which has a crucial role to play in keeping the subsidy arrangements fair and in ensuring that Government services continue to be delivered through post offices. It is important that any proposal to change arrangements in Scotland is not decided on until the Parliament has reconvened after the election and we have had a full parliamentary opportunity to scrutinise the impact of any potential changes.

However, we cannot rely on Westminster alone. Allan Wilson, who, sadly, is not with us this morning, acknowledged the following in a parliamentary answer to me two weeks ago. I will play the role of Allan Wilson, although not in his inimitable style. He said:

"community engagement is vital to ensure that people have a say in the future of their communities' development and that, where post offices play an important role in community development, there should be full consultation and engagement with communities."—[Official Report, 7 December 2006; c 30163.]

I agree. That approach must be strengthened and developed further, because protecting post offices and wider local economies requires action by those who are reliant on them.

I would like local businesses, in conjunction with community councils, local authorities and Scottish Enterprise to prepare local plans to keep the heart beating in their high streets. There are good examples of rural community-based initiatives, from Gartmore and Fintry, which Sylvia Jackson mentioned, to Blackford in Perthshire, where community action to support post offices has created hubs where both public and private services can be delivered together. I want the Executive to fund a much more structured form of support to communities that need to retain those hubs to prevent the degeneration of their communities. In the words of the minister, a community development approach—something for which Scottish Enterprise is not exactly renowned—is required.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Post offices are the lifeblood of communities in both rural and urban areas, particularly when they are combined with other services, such as the local shop. However, over the past two decades they have been closing at a rate of more than 300 a year. In many communities in my constituency, the post office is the last remaining service—if we do not count the school—so post offices in my rural communities play a particularly crucial role. They have an existence value in holding communities together by giving them a focal point. They also provide vital face-to-face access to Government, postal and commercial services for communities, most of which no longer have a local bank branch.

According to Postcomm, 90 per cent of rural sub-post offices are unprofitable. It is vital that the true social value of the network is considered, as well as its economic value, when looking at its long-term future.

The sub-post office network has been in steady decline. Sub-post offices often have no value as businesses because of their uncertain future, but the premises from which they are run have a high value as purely private residences. When owners want to retire, they cannot sell their businesses and post offices close. That is exactly what is just about to happen in Old Rayne in my constituency.

The maintenance of a comprehensive network of sub-post offices covering the whole country, right into the most remote and rural communities, depended on the wide range of services that the Government chose to deliver through them. Tragically, the UK Government is washing its hands of the post office network. Its approach has been a combination of neglect and death by a thousand cuts.

The UK Government has directly or indirectly overseen the post office losing television licence, vehicle excise duty and passport authentication work. The transfer of benefit and pension payments to direct payment into bank accounts resulted in a loss of £400 million in income. Although the Government saved money, it had no proper consideration for the wider consequences. How the transfer was done was pretty ruthless too. Postmasters were strictly forbidden to do anything to dissuade their customers from moving to direct payments. That the take-up of the Post Office card account was far greater than the Government expected reflects the difficulties that people face in opening basic bank accounts and the advantages that they see in using the post office. During the period 2003 to 2010, the card account contract is worth £1 billion in income for post offices.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

If the Liberal Democrats take the issue so seriously, why are their ministers absent from today's important debate?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

That is not worth answering.

The UK Government will not extend its card contract beyond 2010, claiming that it never intended to renew the POCA contract. That was news to the long-suffering postmasters, who feel betrayed yet again. It was news to the users of card accounts, who have now got used to them, and it was news to the House of Commons. The Trade and Industry Select Committee pointed out that most people assumed that the contract would be renegotiated after 2010, that a lot of commercial decisions were made on that basis, and that there has been a real sense of betrayal. I confirm that in spades from a survey of the post offices and sub-post offices in Gordon, carried out in conjunction with my Westminster colleague Malcolm Bruce.

On 14 December, the UK Government announced plans for post office restructuring that it expects to lead to the closure of a further 2,500 post office branches by 2009. Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to stop the unnecessary post office closure programme and instead—as it could—free the business from restrictive regulation, invest in the future of the network and stop removing government business to safeguard our post offices.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should finish now, Ms Radcliffe.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Post offices play a crucial role in the community, particularly in rural areas, and must be protected. Much could and should be done to maintain a unique network that is a valuable asset. If we do not use it, it will be lost and that will be a tragedy.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

I welcome the debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss the future of the post office network.

Over the past few months I have visited a number of sub-post offices, both rural and urban, in my region. Their concerns are similar. Age Concern carried out a poll that showed that 99 per cent of older people in rural areas consider the local post office to be a lifeline and more than half of them feared that closures would leave them more isolated. Likewise, in urban areas, the sub-post office staff said that the post office was a lifeline for the elderly, disabled and vulnerable. That applies particularly to the most deprived areas of our towns. Help the Aged points out in its briefing that post office closures will have the greatest impact on people who are already vulnerable to social and financial exclusion.

Of the post offices that have already closed, 76 per cent had a shop attached and 82 per cent of those shops closed when the post office did. Those lifelines are being lost in our communities with little reference to the community campaigning that is going on. The Dumfries and Galloway elderly forum campaigned hard to save rural post offices as well as the main post office in Dumfries, but it was unsuccessful. It has also lobbied extremely hard for Post Office card accounts to be retained. I hope that someone somewhere is listening to those people, because the situation is similar in Irvine and Kilwinning, where the main post offices have closed despite a huge campaign to keep them open.

It seems that whatever the voice of the people is, it is not being listened to. I note—and I am sure that the Dumfries and Galloway elderly forum and the elderly forum in Irvine and Kilwinning will also note—that no ministers are here today to listen to this extremely important debate.

The withdrawal of the Post Office card account could cost the network at least £100 million a year in lost income. Add to that the impact of the loss of services such as TV licence contracts and passport processing.

There are on-going reductions in services, job losses, reductions in wages and a worsening of conditions. The closure of main post offices and the transfer of services to Spar shops and so on have meant that conditions have worsened and wages have been reduced. That has a direct impact on the local economy, as Mark Ruskell said. The post offices are a vibrant part of the community and make a difference to the local economy and small businesses.

Post offices are frequently the only place to access cash locally; only 4 per cent of villages have a bank, but 60 per cent have a post office. Many elderly people do not have bank accounts either. Some 60 per cent of bank current accounts are still not accessible in post offices. There is absolutely no question but that opening up post office services could save them. Some 4.3 million people use the Post Office card account each week and around 1 million older people in the UK do not have bank accounts. We can address that and save the post offices, but we have to ensure that someone somewhere is listening. At the moment, not much listening is going on in here and there is certainly no listening to the communities that are campaigning to save these services.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

One of the roots of the problem is that there has been not a lack of Government support but a lack of consistent Government support for the post office network over the years, and there has been ambivalence about the post office. John Swinney alluded to the fact that when benefits payments through giro books were withdrawn, the facility to get payments via the Post Office card account was introduced, but people had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get them. They had to phone up to get the application form, and then submit it separately. People thought that it was much easier simply to have the money paid to them directly. Of course, the situation then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the Government can say, "Ah—but no one is using the post office." The lunacy is that one part of the Government is paying the post office network a subsidy because it is not economic and another part—the TV licence payment collection system—is privatising its operations and taking money away from the post office, presumably so that the Government has to put more subsidy in at the other end. That is the economics of the madhouse.

When Stephen Byers launched the Post Office card account, there was no suggestion that it was time limited and would be around for only 10 years. The House of Commons understood that it would be around for ever, but the project suddenly became time limited and the Government has had to do a U-turn. What has happened has resulted in huge uncertainty for people who use post offices and for people who run them.

One of the biggest causes of post office closures is that replacement postmasters or postmistresses cannot be found when postmasters or postmistresses retire. There is no wonder that they cannot be found if people do not know whether there will be a business for them to run. That cause is, of course, the easiest cause for the Post Office to defend. It says, "We can't get anyone to do the job" and the Government says, "Nobody wants to run post offices." They simply wring their hands as if the matter had nothing to do with them, but the problems that we face stem from the complete lack of a coherent Government strategy. We must say what post offices are for first and then decide what action to take.

The Post Office was given a duty not to make avoidable closures after 1997, but nobody defined "avoidable closure". Without it being said what post offices should exist for, that duty meant nothing.

Euan Robson spoke about an issue that has not been explored nearly enough—sharing of services. The odd post office is run from a pub or a back room and services are occasionally shared, but no coherent strategy on that exists. Things simply happen in certain places by accident. We must consider the local delivery of Government and council services in rural areas, including post office services, and we must try to ensure that all of them—even though they may not be economical—are run sensibly. We must see post offices as part of our infrastructure. We do not stop tarmacking rural roads—at least some of them—because not many cars run on them, although we may have to deal with that matter once road charging kicks in. Post offices are as vital for local industry as roads are. As long as we continue to consider the post office network in isolation or simply as part of a business rather than as part of our essential infrastructure, we will have to come back to Parliament to fight to defend it. We must take a coherent approach.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to winding-up speeches. Carolyn Leckie has a tight four minutes.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I will do my best to stay within that time.

I want to pick up on issues that I did not have time to talk about earlier. A big argument, on the wider impact of post offices on the economy even in the current political and economic circumstances, has been missed in the debate. Members have said that the last shop in the village will often go when the post office closes, but post offices bring wider economic benefits. Research by the New Economics Foundation shows that for every £10 a post office earns, it generates £16.20 for its local economy, including £6.20 in direct spending on local goods and services. That means that each post office will contribute around £310,000 to its local economy each year, of which £120,000 will be direct spending on local goods and services. Those figures are based on an in-depth analysis of urban post offices in Manchester. Figures for many areas of Scotland have not been quantified or examined.

The withdrawal of post office services has a massive impact. [Interruption.] The Executive should take into account that impact and be prepared to take action within its remit. Obviously, I would prefer the Executive to have full powers over such matters. It does not have such powers, but it could provide support and funding to help communities to establish community post offices.

Such an approach would be possible, viable and realistic in the short term.

It is disgraceful that no Scottish minister is in the chamber, as my amendment and other amendments refer to the Scottish Executive. My amendment refers to something that the Scottish Executive could do using its current powers, but no minister is here to examine or to rubbish my arguments or suggestions or even to agree with me—it is Christmas, after all.

Communities in Scotland that are threatened with the closures and loss of services, which threaten the viability of those communities, should be really angry. When it comes to putting their cross on the ballot paper, I hope they will let the Executive parties know that.

In turning to the SNP contribution, I return to what I was saying at the outset. Although I agree with much of what John Swinney, Alasdair Morgan and other SNP members said, I disagree with them that the problem stems from the Government's incompetence, its inconsistent support for the post office network, or from a lack of joined-up government. The Government has been very competent in promoting a right-wing neo-liberal offensive on public services. It has achieved more for that right-wing ideology and for the interests of big business than Thatcher did. She started the neo-liberal offensive, but Labour has continued it. Labour has used the lessons that it learned from Thatcher's direct, confrontational and wolfish style—all we have had from it is a change into sheep's clothing. Labour has continued the same process and, indeed, it has accelerated it, which is why the Tories are in bother over the issue; they have no ground.

Will Labour members join us today? Will they at least support the 34 Labour MPs at Westminster who supported the return of TV licence payments to post offices?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing now, Ms Leckie.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

What is the position of Labour MSPs? None of them has commented on that. Will Labour members support the position of the 39 Labour MPs who opposed the franchising of Crown post offices to WH Smith? What is their position on further privatisation of the post office network? Labour members have been remarkably silent on that.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before I call Jeremy Purvis, I remind members that their mobile phones have to be switched off, not switched to silent.

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

There is no doubt that there is no agreement between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats on the decision of the UK Government on this matter. There is agreement that reform is needed, but we are very clear that the way in which the UK Government has set about it is the wrong way. I am disappointed that the Labour amendment is not clearer in stating that and I am disappointed that the SNP motion is not clearer in stating that the Government is taking the wrong way forward. It should be doing that and not calling for representations to be made.

There is a requirement for the types of reforms that Alasdair Morgan highlighted. For example, in my constituency, constituents in Ettrick Bridge should have more central and local government services delivered to them through the post office. If services were combined in that way, the entire Ettrick valley could receive those services locally. In Innerleithen, planning should now be under way on future services so that there is no repeat of what happened in Nora Radcliffe's constituency, where the post office is the last service to remain. Given that the police station in Innerleithen has closed, the time is right to start on a real community plan. The UK Government's decision on its consultation is the wrong way forward; it serves only to work against the community planning approach.

On reform, it is clear that the Royal Mail has outdated sorting equipment: only 50 per cent of mail is sorted electronically, whereas 90 per cent of the mail that its competitors in TNT or Deutsche Post handle is sorted electronically. The Royal Mail estimates that it needs a £2.2 billion investment if it is to modernise. The Postal Services Commission, the regulator, allowed only £1.2 billion, of which £900 million is to come by way of a Government loan. That is woefully inadequate investment, particularly when the Royal Mail is hidebound by regulation. It is interesting to note that the DTI consultation majors on the loss of £4 million a week for the network. That should have been put in the context of the Royal Mail Group's operating profit in 2005-06 of £355 million, on record revenues of £9 billion.

As Parliament has heard, from April 2003, the Government started paying benefits and state pensions directly into customer's bank accounts and established the Post Office card account through Post Office Ltd. One of the problems with the card account is that it has been a success: 3.7 million Department for Work and Pensions customers have continued to use post offices through opening a Post Office card account. In January 2006, the DWP made it known that it would not renew the contract for the card account when it comes to an end in 2010. As Alasdair Morgan pointed out, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had received no information from the Government that the decision to establish the card was a temporary one. In its report of 30 October, it makes clear its disappointment on the matter. There continues to be a need for clarification on the Government's position, post 2010, on the Post Office card account. It is the second-highest earner—second only to postal work—for rural post offices, so the decision on its future is crucial to continuation of the network. The uncertainty is compounding the reduction in business and footfall that we have heard about.

The Select Committee on Trade and Industry was clear that the rural network is supported not for purely economic reasons. In its report, it states:

"If the Post Office network were just a commercial entity, it would not deserve to be supported by Government. However, it fulfils a wider community need. In many places Post Office branches serve as the heart of the community."

Another paragraph from the report states:

"Some Post Office branches, especially those in rural areas, will always remain unviable. We believe that it is vital that across the whole of Government there is a clear recognition of the role that Post Offices play in delivering Government objectives in the community."

The Government in London is failing to recognise post offices' role. Its consultation paper is seriously flawed and needs to be rejected. Parliament should be clear about stating that, rather than just asking the Executive to make representations to the Government, as the SNP has asked us to do.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Most of us would agree that post offices play a vital part in communities, especially in rural areas. I am sure that the communities in the south of Scotland provide a better example of that than most, whether we are talking about those in East Lothian and the Borders or those in Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway in the west. As Murdo Fraser said, the continuation of the post office network is not just an economic issue, but a social issue. Instead of trying to reduce the services that post offices offer, we should be giving greater consideration to what we can do to expand their role to make them viable.

Murdo Fraser mentioned the consultation timescale, which is worth remarking on again. I am sure that we would all agree that the Government at Westminster has a keen eye for timing. The fact that the consultation responses will be considered while Scotland is voting and will not be published until after the May election is highly convenient for the Executive parties.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No—I want to make some progress.

Many members have expressed surprise that no Executive minister is present to respond to the debate. It appears that we have moved on from the parliamentary convention of a few weeks ago—when we were told that in Opposition debates, it was appropriate only for a deputy minister to respond—to a new convention, whereby it is appropriate for no one to respond on behalf of the Executive.

Only 15 days ago, the Executive found a minister—Rhona Brankin—to respond to a debate on post offices. Let us remind ourselves of what she said then, before the consultation document had been published. Speaking on behalf of the Executive, she said:

"we have made absolutely clear to United Kingdom Government colleagues the need for future arrangements for post offices to acknowledge the wider economic and social dimension".

She said that the importance of the network to Scotland had been raised with ministers in London and accepted that there is a need for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to adopt a joined-up approach. She went on to say:

"I am pleased that UK Government colleagues have acknowledged the force of those arguments".—[Official Report, 6 December; c 30090-91.]

A week later, the Government announced that 2,500 post offices throughout the UK would close.

Duncan McNeil made the fair point that in Scotland we have a disproportionate share of the number of branches, but he did not say whether we would have a disproportionate share of the number of closures. Even if we have just a proportionate share of the number of closures, a significant number of post offices throughout the country will close, which is why people the length and breadth of Scotland are concerned.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member give way?

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I want to come on to the member's coalition partners, if I may.

Euan Robson said that it was not the Liberal Democrats' policy to privatise the Post Office. That may be true, but he might have been dancing on the head of a pin, because the information on the save our post offices campaign on the Liberal Democrats' website says:

"Our proposals would create a new ownership model for Royal Mail which would allow it to borrow to invest without it having to compete with schools and hospitals as it is no longer wholly owned by the public sector."

If that is not privatisation, I do not know what is. Euan Robson does not accept the force of the argument for Scottish Water, but he accepts it for Royal Mail.

Jeremy Purvis said that the Royal Mail needs to invest £2 billion in automation, but the Lib Dem save our post offices campaign says that that £2 billion is earmarked to keep Post Office branches open. Is there a £2 billion black hole in the spending plans of the Liberal Democrats? They cannot claim that the Royal Mail and Post Office are separate and then try to spend the same £2 billion twice. It is time for clarity from both Executive parties and it is time for an Executive response to the consultation, so that we can find out precisely what the Executive parties are saying to the Government at Westminster.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I welcomed Alistair Darling's statement last week in the House of Commons—the primary forum for a debate of this nature—in which he set out a clear strategy for the preservation of our national post office network.

We all appreciate that the network must change and adapt if it is to meet the needs of citizens in 21st century Britain. The notion that Government can ignore how citizens choose to do business, which some members have promoted, is laughable.

Of course we must acknowledge—as many members of all parties have done—the post office network's role in the economic and social well-being of our islands. In my constituency in the Western Isles, some 64 post offices serve 28,000 people. Some members' comments on rural Scotland seemed to suggest that people who are fortunate enough to live in rural or island Scotland are incapable of embracing new ways of doing business in an ever-changing world, but I can happily report that my constituents are more than capable of embracing change in their lives and work and in how they engage with public services.

On the island of Great Bernera, off the Isle of Lewis, the community faces the prospect of losing its post office. However, because the community is part of the initiative at the edge programme, it has found innovative and sound ways of delivering public services. At the modernised village hall site, the local authority has based a couple of development officers, the health board has constructed a surgery for visiting general practitioners and the fire board bases its volunteers' fire tender. The pre-school facility and local historical society are on the same campus. The approach demonstrates sensible and pragmatic thinking about how to share costs. Such innovative and practical action helps to sustain and maintain services in areas that are distant from the headquarters of the council, the fire board, the health board and the Post Office.

For far too long, public agencies have presided over the demise of many communities, but as a result of programmes such as the initiative at the edge, agencies are working together to provide services in places like the Western Isles and the west Highlands—all it took was insistence that public servants sit down together to discuss their plans and priorities and how to refigure and deliver services. The postal service is no different. It must ensure that it finds ways of providing services throughout the country. It is doing that, but four million fewer people are using post offices than were using them two years ago, as I think Duncan McNeil said.

John Swinney, who moved the motion, blamed Government and claimed that Government has decided to "engineer the closure" of post offices. He did not acknowledge the £150 million per annum that has been paid to post offices since 1997, although his colleague Alasdair Morgan had the good grace to acknowledge that contribution. Mr Swinney went on to berate citizens for using modern methods to receive pensions and benefits. He said that the Government should encourage more transactions. He wants people in nationalist Scotland to go back to queuing in the rain for their pensions and benefits—[Interruption.] I applaud Duncan McNeil's humorous dissection of the fallacies that the nationalists promote. I hear the nationalists shouting from the sidelines, but I will not comment on the dreary and mournful dirge from Richard Lochhead.

Sylvia Jackson rightly referred to the prospect of substantial investment, subject to European state-aid approval, of up to £1.7 billion over the next five years, to support the post office network and enable it to be rationalised, modernised and placed on a more stable footing.

The UK Government wants the Post Office to identify opportunities and to set up 500 innovative outlets for small communities, which will include mobile post offices. For 60 years, the Royal Bank of Scotland has provided banking services to Western Isles villages. Last year it bought a new fleet of mobile banks, which bristle with the latest technology. Although there is understandable attachment to bricks and mortar—or stone and lime, in the Western Isles—we must embrace new ways of doing business.

I hope that Alistair Darling, in discussion with the Post Office, will urge it to extend the mobile post office pilot, which currently runs in Wick, serving five villages. I have great confidence in the secretary of state and his commitment to the post office network. I urge him to examine the Western Isles and west Highlands in considering ways of delivering postal services in rural Scotland. I urge members to support Sylvia Jackson's amendment.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I congratulate some of the many members who have spoken and who made serious comments in what is an important debate on issues that impact particularly on vulnerable people and communities. I exclude from that Duncan McNeil, with his disgraceful trivialisation of the debate. I intend to circulate his flippant speech to postmasters throughout Scotland for their contemplation.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

You are hoist by your own petard, sunshine.

I do not need to exclude Government ministers from my congratulations, because the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and the Minister for Communities, both of whom could have been involved in the debate, have excluded themselves. Scotland's rural communities will not fail to notice that fact. In previous debates on the issue in Parliament, the Minister for Communities has spoken and, in John Swinney's members' business debate on the issue, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development was here. However, no minister has been present during today's debate. That is an insult to Parliament and to Scotland's vulnerable people and communities. I point out to Euan Robson that social exclusion and vulnerable communities are not reserved matters—Derek Brownlee was right to draw attention to that.

As many other members did, John Swinney made clear the vital role that the post office has as a hub in our communities. He and others also made it plain that there has not been—to use an abominable expression—joined-up thinking between the various Westminster departments that have eroded the stability of rural post offices. As Alasdair Morgan rightly said, that has resulted in people retiring and no one else taking up their businesses, because people do not know whether there will be a proper business to run. I can think of many examples of that, although, for once, I will speak not about the Borders, but about Flotta, where my sister is the sole and head teacher in the primary school. Flotta post office, which is in the middle of that rural area, is the centre of information, the local shop and a tourist information centre. It is extremely important to the community, which is a vulnerable one that has just managed to hang on to its school, thanks to my sister.

Richard Lochhead raised the issue of rural schools and communities that are fighting to keep their schools. I will have to mention the Borders: Oxton has kept its school, but the question is whether it will keep its sub-post office. Many places are fighting on that issue. When people are deciding on a place to live and see a village that has a school and a post office with a shop attached, they think that it is a living place. However, when they go to a village that has no school, post office or shop, they pass through. Many of the people who live in such places leave, too. The people who are left are the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable, who cannot move and who will have to go long distances to access post office services.

That is made plain in research that Postwatch Scotland has carried out. One disabled customer who would have to travel between 8km and 16km to the nearest post office said:

"It would cause great difficulty in more ways than can be described as I am disabled. Travelling alone causes undue and unnecessary pain and suffering."

Another elderly customer said:

"It would be over 40 miles in a boat to collect pension and get any cash. Would be unable to do any posting."

Those are the people who should be protected and looked after. We should make their communities thrive. We must not think of the system of post offices only in terms of a balance sheet, with debits and credits in bold black figures on the paper; we need to think of the more subtle effects that the system has in keeping communities hearty.

Help the Aged in Scotland supports John Swinney's motion fully. It has stated that it welcomes and supports John Swinney's motion on the threat to the rural post office network in Scotland and that it has campaigned for some time on issues relating to the future of the post office network, including a recent campaign on the future of the Post Office card account. Many members have mentioned the card account.

I return to the most disgraceful matter at hand, which is that no minister has sat through any part of the debate, contributed to it or responded to the serious issues that members of different parties have raised. I hope that I never have to experience a similar situation again in Parliament. It will not be forgotten.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects to make an announcement about the future of Careers Scotland. (S2O-11503)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Following consultation, the Executive remains committed to transferring Careers Scotland out of Scottish Enterprise. In January we will begin a full options appraisal on the future structure of Careers Scotland involving all key stakeholders. In the meantime, we are asking Scottish Enterprise to make Careers Scotland a more distinct entity within its structure.

A further announcement will be made in the new year and we will look to implement the outcomes of the options appraisal from summer 2007 onwards.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

What are the options, and can the minister guarantee that the Executive will break the habit of a lifetime and announce the outcome to the Parliament instead of the Sunday papers?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We certainly intend to announce the outcome of the options appraisal to Parliament before any other source. I give a personal commitment to keep the member and his committee fully informed in that process.

The options are as considered in the consultation document. To an extent, we are continuing in the same general direction of travel, even if the pace has altered somewhat. That is the correct decision to take in the context of current and future events.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does the minister appreciate that a number of places in Scotland have become proportionately more deprived, according to recent statistical evidence? Does he agree that good careers advice for young people in those areas of Scotland is extremely important? Will particular attention be paid to those areas in the options appraisal that is being done?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I take the view that one of Careers Scotland's key functions is to focus its activity on those who need its guidance services most, for example, 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. There is a need to refocus its activities in our secondary schools, in relation to pupils in secondary 2 to secondary 6. It is important that those who are in most need of careers guidance get it at that stage and that it is properly focused on their future career prospects.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to reduce crime in town centres. (S2O-11562)

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

The Scottish Executive supports the police, community safety partnerships and antisocial behaviour teams in preventing and tackling crime. We recognise that many town and city centres face additional public order issues at weekends and in the run-up to the festive period. Last week, I announced additional funding of £600,000 for community safety partnerships in four cities and eight towns to help improve safety on our streets.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I understand that, in the course of her duties as an MSP, the minister recently had an opportunity to have a Saturday night out in Kilmarnock. I hope that she had a quiet evening, but Margaret Jamieson suggests otherwise.

Will the minister give an assurance that the resources that have been found for those initiatives will continue, so that local authorities, local retailers, the police and many other agencies can continue to work in partnership to ensure that, when people go into our town and city centres to enjoy themselves—particularly over the festive season—they will be free of the fear of crime?

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

I should put on the record the context of the night out that Mr McAveety mentioned. Margaret Jamieson and I were the guests of the police, who invited us to examine the operation of policing activities in the town. I know that Pauline McNeill took part in the same initiative in Glasgow, but I think that she had a bit more staying power and was able to stay out further into the early hours of the morning than Margaret Jamieson and I did.

If the new measures—not only the important measure of having more police officers on the street, but measures such as taxi marshals, stewarding and so on—prove effective, I would want to replicate them in future.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Is the minister happy that the police have sufficient resources to ensure that there is an adequate police presence at the weekends in our smaller towns?

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

I remind the member that we have invested record levels of resources in Scotland's police. The figure now stands at more than £1.1 billion per year. Every police force now has additional police officers whom they can deploy and additional support staff.

It is, of course, for the chief constable in each area to secure the best use of those resources. I know that Alasdair Morgan has a particular interest in the south of Scotland and Dumfries and Galloway, and the local chief constable has always looked to ensure that small towns are adequately policed as well as larger ones.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that, if resources were targeted at recruiting full-time police officers instead of community wardens, the possibility of increased police numbers and high-visibility policing in town centres could become a permanent reality?

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

I am sorry to hear Margaret Mitchell once again decry the use of community wardens, which is one of our most popular initiatives. As I travel the length and breadth of Scotland, I am told that areas that have community wardens want to keep them and that areas that do not have them yet want to get them. We should take that seriously.

The use of community wardens is not a substitute for front-line policing but complements that. Community wardens add value. They provide a different service and one that our communities want. The Tories are on the wrong side of the argument on the matter.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it encourages transport partnerships and local authorities to specify the provision of vehicles that are fully accessible to passengers whose mobility is impaired, when procuring subsidised bus services. (S2O-11552)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

In awarding grants under the rural public passenger transport grant scheme, we ask local authorities to specify vehicle standards. It is a requirement of grants made under the rural community transport initiative that vehicles are fully accessible.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Before the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority was abolished, it managed to procure low-floor, accessible vehicles for 90 per cent of its subsidised bus services. That shows that, if there are contracts of reasonable length, the bus industry in Scotland can respond to the agenda. Vehicle standards are formally reserved to Westminster, but I would like the minister to encourage the new transport partnerships and local authorities—in the context of subsidised social services, school transport and the increased use of buses by senior citizens under the free transport scheme—to take a procurement approach that leads to fully-accessible buses throughout the country.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I recognise the points that Mr Gordon makes, and certainly his point about what has been achieved in the west of Scotland. It is important to recognise and build on that success. He makes a number of pertinent points about the length of contracts and what we can do in relation to school transport contracts and the national concessionary fares scheme. As he knows, we are investing a considerable amount of public money in the delivery of a successful scheme throughout Scotland, and in doing that we can work with the bus operators to deliver more buses of the kind that people have come to expect and wish to see in all parts of the country.

We will consider the point about contracts and I am happy to keep Mr Gordon up to date with the progress that we make both in proactive discussions and in any formal contract arrangements that we make in future.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In large parts of Scotland, disabled people cannot access bus services because there is simply none available to them. What plans does the Executive have to ensure that community transport groups are supplied with the correct vehicles to offer a service to those people?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Davidson will be familiar with the national transport strategy and, more important, the bus action plan within that. I stress the use of the word "action" in dealing with gaps that may exist in different parts of the country. Many of these matters are to be built from the ground up. In other words, it is for local authorities and community groups to design the services that they want and to consider the type of bus that best meets their needs.

Clearly, a 50-seater bus will not necessarily suit more rural locations, because of the roads and, more important, the level of need. We have invested heavily in facilities through a number of mechanisms, and we will continue to do so. I would be happy to consider any particular examples that David Davidson might have.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to encourage recycling over the festive period. (S2O-11571)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We are supporting the Woodland Trust's Christmas card recycling scheme, and a number of local authorities run schemes to recycle Christmas trees. We also support the waste aware Scotland campaign, which, through its website, provides advice to the public on how to recycle wrapping paper, decorations, cards and Christmas trees. More generally, recycling facilities across Scotland for use throughout the year—not just at Christmas—have improved as a result of strategic waste fund investment.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will the minister join me in commending the work of North Ayrshire Council, whose let's get it sorted this Christmas and Frosty the Snowman web links encourage both young and old to get involved in the recycling of Christmas waste? Does she agree that involving primary-school-age pupils in recycling will pay particular dividends for the environment in future years?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I thank Irene Oldfather for her question. It is helpful at Christmas time to remind ourselves of our responsibilities with regard to waste, and I thank her for her commitment to raising rates of recycling in general. I am delighted to hear that North Ayrshire Council is using a creative, innovative way to get the message across to young people. As we all know, young people then get the message across to their parents. I congratulate North Ayrshire Council. It is perhaps as the result of such innovative schemes involving young people that North Ayrshire's recycling rates are above the Scottish average.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what it expects road traffic levels to be in 2021, in light of the statement in Audit Scotland's overview of the performance of transport in Scotland that "latest forecasts estimate that traffic will grow by a further 27 per cent" by 2021. (S2O-11574)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The latest projections using the transport model for Scotland suggest that traffic volumes will grow by 22 per cent between 2005 and 2022. The national transport strategy is addressing traffic growth on a number of fronts through three strategic outcomes: improving journey times and connections; reducing emissions; and improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of public transport.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

The national transport strategy that the minister mentions retains the aspirational target

"to stabilise road traffic volumes at 2001 levels by 2021".

Can he explain what an "aspirational target" is? Does he think that that aspirational target will be met through the current provisions of the national transport strategy?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We will strongly work towards meeting it. Under the national transport strategy—I hope that Mr Ballard might give us some credit for this—we will develop a carbon balance sheet to develop the carbon impact of projects and policies. That measure is very much designed to make progress in this area, in addition to strategic environmental assessments, which I know Mr Ballard's party supports and which will govern the introduction of transport policies and specific projects of a nationally significant scale across the country. Those are important developments in tackling this serious issue.

It is important also to reflect on the spend and on the spending profile, which has changed since the coalition was formed. We are moving towards, and delivering on, a target of 70 per cent of our transport spend on public transport. I strongly argue that, over the longer term, that will make a considerable difference.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister will accept that one way to tackle rising car use is to promote public transport. Rather than investing in a flawed tram scheme, would it not be better value to promote and support an excellent bus service here in the city of Edinburgh? Is he aware that, for the £700 million that is likely to be the cost of the city of Edinburgh tram scheme, every bus in the whole of the Lothians could be replaced with state-of-the-art, low-boarding, low-emissions vehicles, and the entire service in the city of Edinburgh could be run free for seven years? Would that not be a better investment of public funds?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr MacAskill flip-flops from one side of the argument to the other. He is on record as supporting Edinburgh trams, but I heard him on Forth One just the other morning saying that he was against them and that they were a complete waste of money. We disagree with that view, and in the City of Edinburgh Council there will be cross-party disagreement with that view in the coming days when the council supports the scheme. The scheme will be important for our capital city. It represents a vision for our capital; clearly the Scottish National Party has none. We will build on that vision and ensure that the scheme is an important contribution to improving public transport choices around Scotland. That is the decision that this Government has taken.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to ensure that a skilled workforce is available to the oil and gas industry. (S2O-11544)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We are working through PILOT, the joint industry-Government taskforce, on the key issues that are vital for the oil and gas industry's future success. PILOT and the industry, together with Scottish Enterprise, are working together to deliver a range of training programmes that have focused on companies' immediate need for technicians, new starts and riggers. These include the accelerate programme for technicians, which has successfully attracted 646 new recruits, with 96 per cent having completed their studies within the time schedule.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that addressing skills shortages in the oil and gas sector—an issue identified both by operators and by offshore contractors—is crucial to the sector's future growth? I am sure that he will agree that his announcement that Labour is committed to an oil and gas skills academy in Aberdeen is an important boost to the industry.

Does the minister further agree that the academy will benefit the industry, in contrast to what would happen under the economic instability that would be caused by the separation plans of the SNP? Those plans would threaten the industry's success in Scotland.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I have much pleasure in agreeing with my colleague. He has put his finger on the pulse of the political issues of the day.

The announcement that we made today was a political announcement on behalf of the Labour Party; it does not represent a partnership commitment per se. However, I hope that we can build consensus across the chamber—perhaps even with our friends and colleagues in the nationalist party—that an oil and gas skills academy, with its hub in Aberdeen and with spokes across Scotland, would be of great benefit to the industry. The idea and concept came from the industry itself.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that it would help the oil and gas industry in the recruitment and retention of its workforce if Labour politicians stopped saying that oil was running out? Saying that is a vain attempt to scare Scottish voters into thinking that Scotland is too poor to look after itself. If those politicians said that there was still much oil to come out of the North sea and that the skills and technology learned in the North sea were exportable worldwide, it would be much easier for the industry to retain its workforce.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Executive does not need to scare the Scottish people; the nationalists do a good enough job themselves—which is why they are continually rejected by the Scottish people. However, that is another story.

There can be no denying the fact that oil and gas fields in the North sea are maturing. However, it remains the case that the oil and gas industry represents a good and positive career choice for generations of young Scots still to be born. We look forward to the production of oil and gas in the North sea benefiting the United Kingdom Exchequer for a long time to come.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive what impact the Faslane 365 demonstrations are having on local police numbers in Clydesdale. (S2O-11550)

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

One thousand and ninety eight tours of duty were conducted by Strathclyde community police officers at Faslane over the 12 months from the beginning of November 2005. That is the equivalent of about three community police officers per day. The deployment of police officers in Clydesdale is, like that in the rest of Strathclyde, a matter for the chief constable. Strathclyde has benefited, as have all Scottish police forces, from the record levels of resources that we have invested in the police.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank the Executive for its investment in the police force. However, the minister must be aware that—in her constituency as in mine—this type of demonstration is beginning to have an impact on local police numbers. Will she meet me to discuss how to make progress on such matters? I accept that the road needs to be kept open, but the impact on local communities is beginning to bite. That should be taken into consideration by the chief constable.

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

As I indicated in response to similar concerns that were raised by Paul Martin MSP, responsibility for policing is primarily for chief constables. I am sure that members would wish to make representations directly to them, but I am more than happy to discuss with Karen Gillon and, indeed, Paul Martin the particular issues that are relevant to their local constituency areas.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before First Minister's questions, members will wish to join me in welcoming to Parliament His Excellency René J Mujica Cantelar, the Cuban ambassador to the United Kingdom. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I wish the First Minister a speedy recovery and everyone else a very happy Christmas.

To ask the Deputy First Minister when he—or indeed the First Minister—will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2629)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I add my good wishes to those of Nicola Sturgeon and wish Nicola Sturgeon a merry Christmas and a very happy, prosperous and successful new year in her continuing role as the leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament.

Neither the First Minister nor I have any plans to meet the Prime Minister before the new year.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On a serious matter, does the Deputy First Minister share my concern that the number of schoolchildren being recorded as drug abusers has more than trebled since the Labour-Liberal Executive came to power in 1999?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I share concern about any rising trend in drug abusers. It is important to emphasise, though, that the Executive has made significant progress in that area. Significant additional funding has been made available for drug treatment in Scotland. The amount invested in 2000-01 was £12.3 million; in 2005-06, it had risen to £23.7 million. Drugs in our schools and our prisons is a vital issue for the future of Scotland.

I am the father of four young children. Parents often say to me, "You're lucky—your children are still at primary school. We have teenage children and we have to face up to this problem now." My concern is that by the time my children are in secondary school, the problem should have got better rather than worse. That is a big challenge for Scotland and for everyone here, because of global trends. We see the scale of the issue throughout Scotland, the United Kingdom, Europe and the world. There are rising problems—for example, the recent statistics on cocaine use—but there are also some encouraging trends. Through the concerted efforts of education authorities, drug treatment facilities and health boards in Scotland, we are making progress, but we can never be complacent on this issue and we have more work to do.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Indeed. I draw the Deputy First Minister's attention to figures that have just been published. Is he aware that, in 1999, 53 schoolchildren under the age of 15 were reported to the Scottish drug misuse database and that there have been 188 such reports this year? Since 1999, 1,000 schoolchildren under the age of 15 have been recorded as drug abusers. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that those figures are not progress, that they are deeply shocking and that they should sound a loud alarm bell about the effectiveness of current policies to tackle drug misuse among children and young people?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree that those figures are shocking. Firm action is required to tackle the issue. Drug-misusing parents must take their responsibilities seriously so that their children do not follow. There should be cross-party consensus that action must be taken on the issue. This should not be a party-political issue that divides the parties. Some tough decisions require to be taken. The Executive is facing up to the issues and is currently debating the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the young person who might be affected. As in all other areas of policy, the rights and best interests of the child should be at the centre of our decision making.

If there are young people who are abusing drugs in Scotland, we need to find out about them and to be able to take firm action. I finish where I started: the increases are a worrying trend, but one is too many and we need to work together to take action to tackle the problem, which afflicts too many parts of society and too many communities in Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I hope that we can find some consensus today. Does the Deputy First Minister share my concern that the Executive is not taking firm action? I remind him of an exchange between the First Minister and me in early February this year. Does he recall that I expressed deep concern about the withdrawal of all dedicated funding for drugs education in our schools? The First Minister said that he was about to receive a report on the effectiveness of drugs education that, to quote its remit,

"will be of value to ... policymakers and schools".

That report has been submitted to ministers but, nearly a year later, it has still not been published. In light of the shocking figures that show that young people are abusing drugs, will the Deputy First Minister agree to publish that report today?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I believe that that report should be published in due course. It is currently with the Minister for Education and Young People.

It is important that we do what the Scottish National Party called for in June, when it demanded a summit on the issue and called for co-operation, not confrontation, on it. Last week, we had a statement from the SNP that it is time for a Scottish drugs commission to reach a consensus on long-term action. I can support that policy and both of those calls, but the problem requires concerted effort on a variety of fronts. It requires more to be done on drugs education, on enforcement, on support for rehabilitation and treatment and on drugs seizures. For example, we have had record drugs seizures, worth more than £20 million, this year.

There are some positive trends, but there are also some worrying issues. Nicola Sturgeon has rightly identified the rising figures of young people in our schools who are abusing drugs. That is of concern—it worries all members—and it is important that we take concerted action on it together over the coming months.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I hope that the Deputy First Minister agrees that, to enable us to start making informed decisions, a report that has been with ministers for almost a year must be published with no further delay. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the problem is not only in drugs education but in access to drugs rehabilitation? In 2004, the First Minister promised

"a comprehensive improvement of drug rehabilitation services"

but, today, people are waiting longer for help. For example, is the Deputy First Minister aware that, in 2004, 23 per cent of people had to wait more than 14 days for access to community rehabilitation but, today, 54 per cent of people wait more than 14 days? Does the Deputy First Minister accept that that is another failure to deliver on the part of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive? Will he explain the reasons for it? Communities throughout Scotland are paying the price right now.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I have already emphasised that there should be increasing consensus between the parties on the matter. The parties have worked together on this really important issue in the past. The SNP called for that consensus and I underscored the drive for it. Clearly, improvement—in some cases, significant improvement—is required in some areas but the situation is patchy and the trend is positive in others.

It is typical of Nicola Sturgeon to emphasise the negative rather than the positive. For example, she could have referred to the school building projects that have been completed since I last took First Minister's question time—20 in primary schools and seven in secondary schools. She could also have referred to the rising trend in teacher numbers—additional teachers can help in this issue—the rising trend in attainment or new figures that show that crime levels are dropping. There is a series of positive trends in health, education, jobs and the economy.

Drug abuse is important, but it is not an issue on which Nicola Sturgeon should seek to divide the parties. Rather, she should draw us together, particularly at this time of year.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I extend our best wishes to the First Minister and hope that a speedy recovery awaits him.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2630)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

As always, the next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

During last week's First Minister's question time, the First Minister derided the concept of a local income tax. He was right to do so, on the basis that a local income tax would be a disaster for hard-working families in Scotland, costing them hundreds of pounds extra a year. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the First Minister was speaking on behalf of the entire Scottish Executive in making those statements and that the First Minister enjoys the full support of his deputy in that regard?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

We should first remember that council tax went up by 40 per cent in the final five years of the last Conservative Government and that, under the current Executive, the increases have been half those that took place under the Conservatives. We should remember the First Minister's remarks on that as well.

On local income tax—if I may emphasise this with the forbearance of my Labour colleagues—the last thing the Liberal Democrats want is the centralised capping with questionable legal powers that the SNP is talking about. It would take hundreds of millions of pounds away from local councils—and education, children's services, social work and, indeed, action to tackle the problem of drugs. We take a different view from the SNP. Our policy is clear and on the record.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

What a revealing answer. If I did not know any better, I would say that there might be an element of unseasonal discord between the Deputy First Minister and his boss, but let me ask him another question.

Last week, the Deputy First Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, briefed the Sunday press that the Executive is considering a welcome and overdue change on drug policy. We are told that the Executive is considering moving away from its exclusive dependence on methadone towards abstinence-based options. Will the Deputy First Minister today state his unease about overreliance on methadone and confirm his total support for the Minister for Justice's proposals?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I completely agree that there should not be overreliance on methadone or a single approach to drugs policy in Scotland, but there never has been. I have already quoted the figures. We are investing significantly more—almost double—in drug rehabilitation and treatment facilities. The number of drug treatment and rehabilitation beds in Scotland has gone up significantly.

More needs to be done. It is interesting to see the shift in the debate in recent weeks. I support that shift and strongly agree with the action that the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, has taken. There is no discord or disagreement between the First Minister and me on these issues; I fully support the improvements and the extra investment needed to tackle them.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am pleased to witness an uncharacteristic departure from taciturnity on the part of the Deputy First Minister, and I welcome his words in so far as they say anything.

However, I am seized with unease. Does the Deputy First Minister accept that he is jointly and severally responsible for seven and a half years of rampant drugs-related crime, escalating methadone prescriptions, soaring cocaine use, a completely discredited know the score initiative, and a political vacuum on drugs strategy? Is he proud of his role in all that?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

There have been some increases, but there have been some improvements as well. It is important to say that, in tackling the problem, the Executive is not in any sense complacent. The funding of rehabilitation and detoxification services has increased dramatically.

I do not think that we should take lessons on the issue from the Conservatives. Let us remember that the base from which we started was created by the Conservatives. After they had been in office a long, long time, the lack of rehabilitation and treatment services in Scotland was appalling. We are tackling that and taking action on it.

The Conservatives say that they are the champions of drug abusers and drug users in Scotland, but that is laughable. We are taking a broad range of action on the issues, which involves education, enforcement and new treatment and rehabilitation facilities. I agree that such action is overdue, but significant progress is being made. It is clear that all the parties and all members want to give the issue the highest priority, which it deserves. I hope that, rather than making cheap party-political points, we can work on the issue together.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I will take two supplementaries.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

In the light of the letter from the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business to the Local Government and Transport Committee in which he withdraws support for fairer and more regular management of prostitution on the streets, what plans does the Executive have to ensure that public opinion, which is almost uniformly in favour of the management of street prostitution, is reflected in any new legislation?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is important to emphasise that the main focus of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill is to tackle kerb crawling. The Executive believes that doing so is vital. As for how the bill progresses, it is important that we work with members of the Local Government and Transport Committee, examine the issues that are raised at stage 2, consider carefully any amendments to the bill and move forward as effectively and appropriately as possible. The issue is significant for Scotland and is of UK-wide importance. We want to take the correct steps to create the right legal framework in the coming weeks.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Deputy First Minister will be aware that fishing communities consider the new days-at-sea restrictions that were imposed at the fishing negotiations this morning to be a major blow. Is he aware that, in response to the outcome of the negotiations, Michael Park, the head of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, said on the radio this morning:

"This is the most blatant display of a north south divide that I have seen for many, many years ... Not our Minister, but the English Minister Ben Bradshaw chose not to defend us"?

Will the Deputy First Minister explain to the chamber and our fishing communities why Ross Finnie, Scotland's fisheries minister, who is responsible for 70 per cent of the UK fishing industry and 25 per cent of European Union waters, did not have the power to defend our fishing communities at the negotiations?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The issue is important. I emphasise that Ross Finnie secured the best outcome that was possible for Scotland at those difficult talks.

The outcome on quotas is positive and reflects the strength of our Scottish arguments. The quotas for Rockall haddock, monkfish and west-coast nephrops will increase significantly. That outcome builds on the increases that we secured earlier in the autumn for haddock and mackerel, which are key Scottish stocks.

However, I fully understand the strength of feeling about the further cuts in days at sea. We should remember that the European Commission's initial proposals were for cuts of 25 per cent. We also resisted attempts to force the Scottish white-fish fleet, which has done more than any other fleet to save cod stocks, to take more than its fair share of cuts. Many of our fishermen will be able to recover lost days by signing up to better conservation methods or tighter enforcement.

I repeat that Ross Finnie has achieved in difficult circumstances the best outcome that was possible from those difficult negotiations.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Will the Deputy First Minister agree that securing an increase of 10 per cent in the west-coast prawn quota is to be warmly welcomed? That is over and above the 38 per cent that was secured at last year's summit. Does he agree that when ministers go to argue for an increased quota, the case must be based on sound and robust science and not on the vacuous short-termism that some political parties in the Parliament advocate? That short-termism would lead to the destruction of many fishing communities.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I agree. Significant improvements in quotas have resulted from the talks. However, I do not wish to understate the impact of the days-at-sea changes. I emphasise that the Commission's initial approach could have been very damaging for the whole North sea fishery.

A major focus of the deal is sustainability. In Scotland, we want to achieve a sustainable fishery by working with our fishermen, our fishing fleet and local fishing communities. That is the best way forward. I hope that as a result of the deal we will continue to have strong support from the fishing industry. Richard Lochhead quoted one individual, but I have seen other quotations from the fishing sector that indicate that, on balance, this was a fair deal in what could have been worse circumstances, given the nature of the negotiations.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2636)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The First Minister has no immediate plans to meet the secretary of state; nor do I.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

No one would argue that there is no need for a road bridge across the Forth, but will the Deputy First Minister join me in condemning those who are scaremongering that the current bridge is in imminent danger of collapse? Does he recognise that the construction of an additional bridge across the Forth would simply generate more traffic and congestion, and divert very large amounts of money away from improvements to public transport between the Lothians and Fife? Does he agree that the best solution would be to do everything to secure the future viability of the current bridge, rather than bow to the wishes of the roads lobby, which for the past 25 years has been campaigning for an additional bridge?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That was three questions in one, Deputy First Minister.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I do not agree with Shiona Baird. It is important that there should be a replacement crossing of the Forth and that the Executive should make progress on the issue as quickly as possible, taking into consideration the solid technical advice that we are now obtaining. It is also important to emphasise the crucial role that the Executive is playing in reducing the number of lorry miles on Scotland's roads, for example by shifting freight off our roads and on to our railways: 25 million lorry miles have been removed from Scottish roads. With that it in mind, it is important that the new crossing should be multimodal, involving public transport as well as motor vehicles. Those are all important considerations for the Executive. We intend to make progress on the issue, not only for the benefit of people in Fife, but for the benefit of the Scottish economy and the whole of Scotland.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that interesting reply. Tavish Scott has argued repeatedly that we must have the full facts about the state of the bridge before we make a decision. The Executive commissioned five studies, the last of which will report in May next year, but we hear that, with only one study completed, the Executive has decided to go ahead with the construction of a second bridge. Why does it not wait for the full facts? If the Deputy First Minister genuinely believes that there is a case for a replacement bridge, rather than an additional bridge that would double capacity across the Forth, to be constructed, will he commit himself to coming up with a timetable for dismantling the existing bridge?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It seems to me that Shiona Baird wants a timetable for dismantling the Fife economy. We must take action on the issue and treat it with urgency. We have received three reports on the matter in the past week. That is why the Cabinet has decided that we must proceed with a replacement crossing. Clearly, a great deal of additional work requires to be done before we can deliver that. We need to decide its location and nature—whether it will be a bridge or a tunnel; both options are still open—and to work out its costs and funding. We are committed to doing all those things. The decision has been made, and we now want to make progress.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the First Minister how play techniques will complement traditional teaching methods for primary school children. (S2F-2633)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Play is vital to more effective learning and teaching for primary school children. There is clear evidence that it helps to smooth the transition from nursery to primary school and to ease children into more formal school learning. Parents, teachers and education experts support the Executive's plans to increase the importance of play in our schools.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer, as well as Hugh Henry, the Minister for Education and Young People, for his announcement earlier this week. Is the Deputy First Minister aware that learning through play is already practised with great success in many of our schools, particularly in my constituency, in East Renfrewshire, and, as the Deputy First Minister mentioned, offers particular advantages for children who are making the transition from nursery to primary school?

Is the Deputy First Minister aware that, through play, children learn to concentrate, to be resilient and to be self-confident—and, who knows, they might even have fun—but that in many communities, deprived communities in particular, some children are denied the opportunity for safe and challenging play areas? Will the Deputy First Minister look to build on this week's announcements and the lessons being learned in our schools to develop a national play strategy so that the advantages of play can be made available to all our children, not just the youngest?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I firmly agree with everything Kenneth Macintosh said. It is important that we consider his suggestion about a national play strategy. I know that Hugh Henry, the Minister for Education and Young People, will want to explore that suggestion further.

The Executive intends to issue, under the curriculum for excellence, statements of good practice in play, followed by revised guidance to education authorities, but it is not all about guidance and good practice—it is also about the adequacy of play facilities, green spaces and opportunities for play in and around our schools. I would like our approach to play to be more like that in Scandinavia, where play is an integral part of the education system. I agree entirely with Kenneth Macintosh that play can complement traditional learning techniques and bring real benefits to every child in Scotland.

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

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive now believes that an additional crossing of the Forth for motor vehicles should be constructed. (S2F-2638)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

We have received initial reports and it is clear that a replacement crossing across the Forth river is necessary to maintain that critical economic link. The new crossing, whether a bridge or a tunnel, should give importance to public transport as well as to motor vehicles.