Scottish Parliament, 14 June 2007

386 contributions from 90 members. The official report.

Official Report 14 June 2007

Trident

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-169, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on Trident.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under our standing orders, would it be in order for the member who lodged the motion to withdraw it and to replace it with a motion without notice that omitted the words "at this time", thereby making it akin to the amendment that I lodged, which was not selected? If so, we could have on the table a position that was clearly anti-Trident. That is not the case at present because my amendment was not selected and, as it stands, the motion is not anti-Trident. If that is possible, I trust that Patrick Harvie will act accordingly so that we have an anti-Trident position on the table.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

It would be in order to do as Elaine Smith suggests, but it is only fair to point out that motions without notice can be accepted only at my discretion. She will be aware that I had to make very careful considerations last night. I should point out that I would not be minded to accept such a motion this morning.

George (Labour, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

One moment, Lord Foulkes.

I also point out that there will obviously be opportunities for Elaine Smith to raise the issues that she wishes to raise in the normal course of debate.

George (Labour, Lothians)

My point of order is somewhat different from that of my esteemed colleague. I had hoped that, as a new Presiding Officer, you might have given some thought to the wisdom of accepting for debate any motion that was clearly not on a devolved area. This Parliament has a range of important matters to consider and the more time we spend discussing reserved matters, the less time we have for discussing important devolved matters. Have you given fresh consideration to that issue? Will you give your views on why issues such as Trident are to be discussed by the Scottish Parliament?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

George Foulkes will be aware that the Parliament has on many occasions debated matters that are reserved to Westminster. I am not sure that his point is a point of order—it is an issue that he should take up with his business manager, who is on the Parliamentary Bureau, which agrees the Parliament's business.

We now move to the debate. Mr Harvie, you have seven minutes and time is tight.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I appreciate that, Presiding Officer.

There are some members for whom this morning's debate is their first opportunity to debate Trident in the Parliament, but there are others who will no doubt be thinking, "Here we are again." However, although we debated the subject a number of times during the Parliament's second session, it has been six months since our most recent debate on it.

The arguments have been well rehearsed. We have discussed the cost of the system, which affects Scottish devolved services. The cost of Trident has an impact on the amount of money left to spend on other priorities, on many of which people in Scotland would prefer money to be spent.

We have debated the strategic decision and whether replacing Britain's nuclear weapons system at this time would influence other countries to seek to acquire nuclear weapons. We have debated the hypocrisy of a country that has waged war on other countries over allegations of weapons of mass destruction and has pursued sanctions against such countries for wanting those weapons. We have debated the role of deterrence and whether the original strategic idea behind the possession of weapons of mass destruction is in any way relevant to the modern world or whether that argument died with the cold war.

We have debated the importance to local areas of the jobs associated with Trident. We have considered how many jobs really rely on Trident and how the areas in question might seek economic diversification.

We have debated the United Kingdom's international responsibilities under the non-proliferation treaty and the requirement on us to work towards disarmament. We have heard the former Labour First Minister recount his personal journey from unilateralism to multilateralism, which I believe he spoke about sincerely. However, multilateral disarmament is still disarmament. Those of us who argue against the deployment of a new generation of submarines and, ultimately, of nuclear weapons make the case that replacement fails even the multilateralist cause because it amounts to unilateral rearmament.

Just about every argument for and against the replacement of Trident has been heard in the Parliament, but three things have happened since the Parliament's most recent debate, six months ago, on the issue.

First, in January, an opinion poll carried out by ICM for the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament found that almost two thirds of Scots opposed the plan to replace Trident. That figure rose to 73 per cent if the price tag was set at £50 billion, which some people consider a conservative estimate.

Secondly, on 14 March, a clear majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster voted against the Government's proposals: 33 Scottish MPs were against them, including a majority of Labour members, 22 were in favour of them, and there were four abstentions.

Thirdly, in May the numbers in this Parliament changed. I believe that a clear majority of members here also oppose the UK Government's proposals. It is clear that there is a range of views within that majority. Some members, including me, many Labour Party members—I am sure that Elaine Smith comes into that category—most Scottish National Party members, some Liberal Democrat members and perhaps even some Conservative members, are strongly opposed to the idea of replacing Trident at all. Other members qualify that, by reference either to multilateralism or to delaying a decision.

A majority of MSPs oppose the current proposals and although I share Elaine Smith's regret that her amendment was not selected, its selection would not have altered the decision at the end of today. The Parliament can either vote by a clear majority to show its opposition to the proposals to replace the weapons—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Surely we are talking about an important point, politically. Many of us do not consider the motion's use of the words "at this time" to be appropriate. There is a distinct difference between not supporting the replacement of Trident now and not supporting it at any time. The arguments against Trident rest whether we are talking about it being replaced this year, next year or in four years' time. If someone does not support the system, they do not support it—full stop. Surely we should have the right to have that debate in the Parliament.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

We have debated that position on several occasions. I sought to put before the Parliament a position that could gain the support of a majority of those members who are against the Government's proposals. A majority of members are against the Government's proposals and I hope that all those members, regardless of their motive for reaching that position, will be able to express it at decision time. If we do that, the message from Scotland will be very clear—the majority of Scots and a clear majority of their elected representatives in both Parliaments reject the Government's plan. I hope that members will unite behind that position, regardless of our differences on the other issues.

Sadly, the amendments are disappointing. Largely, each of them seeks to replace the policy position with an expression of deference, even though all political parties have in the past debated and voted on policy positions on a number of reserved issues. I thought that we had got over that in the second session. Not only on Trident, but on a wide range of other issues, including international development—which the Executive parties raised—the Parliament found its voice. As citizens of the world, we have a responsibility to act and to express views on issues that are not within the Parliament's legal remit. I say to George Foulkes that even local authorities in Scotland—including councils that are dominated by members of his party—have a long tradition of internationalism and of expressing views on international issues, and they should be proud of doing so.

I close by quoting Professor William Walker, who spoke at the recent conference organised by Scottish CND. He said:

"there is a unique situation in Scotland. There are nuclear weapons in a land where the mood of the Parliament and of the country is opposed to them. The Parliament has a right to express society's views. Even if it doesn't take steps to obstruct nuclear weapons—"

which we can within devolved powers—

"it can ask questions within the UK. It can raise a voice of dissent from an important new institution within a nuclear weapon state. This could have effect internationally."

I urge all parties and all members who oppose the UK Government's plans to replace the Trident weapons system and, in the interim period, its submarine system to reject the amendments and vote for the motion unamended.

I move,

That the Parliament congratulates the majority of Scottish MPs for voting on 14 March 2007 to reject the replacement of Trident and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead at this time with the proposal in the White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Eight years on from the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the views of Donald Dewar, quite rightly, remain important to much of what happens here. I am never totally comfortable when speculating on what his stance would have been on any given situation, but I am as confident as I can be that although he did not want to shackle in any way the matters that could be aired here, it was never his intention for members continually to attempt to give parliamentary authority to matters over which the Parliament has no competence.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Let me make some progress.

The Labour Party will not be an accessory to such endeavours. The people of Scotland clearly decided the responsibilities of the Parliament when they voted for the devolved settlement. The settlement was established and we respect that judgment. The constitutional settlement contained in the Scotland Act 1998 clearly established the boundaries between devolved and reserved issues. That is why in the past six years no disputes between this Parliament and Westminster have had to go to the Privy Council. However, members on the Labour benches have detected that, in the early weeks of this session of the Parliament, the new Executive and some other parties have no such scruples in relation to respect for the settled will of the Scottish people. We do not intend to waste Parliament's time on matters for which it is not responsible.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

The Parliament has already heard many expressions of deference to Westminster. Will the member also defer to the majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster, who—unlike, apparently, members on the Labour benches opposite—have a view on the issue?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

We will not defer to anyone, but we will respect the devolved settlement. It is ironic that at a time when Alex Salmond is challenging Westminster for encroaching on Scottish legal matters, we are encroaching on Westminster's responsibilities for defence matters. We want to use this Parliament to focus on the matters over which it has power and for which it has responsibility, and to ensure that there is no free-for-all that shows no respect for the devolved settlement or the cause of good government.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The member mentioned that he respected the judgment of the Scottish people, yet he does not respect their wishes. The vast majority of the Scottish people do not want Trident on their shores, down the road on the Clyde. Will he explain his position?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The wishes of the Scottish people are for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom and for MPs to represent their views on defence matters in Westminster—MPs are elected to go there to deal with that issue. We should recall that the reason why this Parliament came into being was that we did not want vital matters of importance to the people of Scotland to be squeezed into short debates held after midnight at Westminster. To squeeze a reserved matter into a short debate here is little better than what happened previously in London.

The Labour Party believes that the role of the Scottish Parliament is to concentrate on and debate the matters for which it has competence.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The member seems unclear about whether we are debating the issue for too long or short a time. Why does he support—as I do—the Labour Party when it brings international development issues to the chamber but reject the notion that we should debate other issues of importance to the people of Scotland, such as this reserved issue?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The debate is both too short and unnecessary.

The Labour Party is concerned that our minority Government and some Opposition parties want to make the discussion of reserved matters almost the norm in this session. That is what we are opposed to this morning. We take a stance against that tendency, which is why we have never sought to lodge motions on matters that were not our responsibility. Other parties would serve this place better if they followed that principle, rather than merely posturing for effect.

I move amendment S3M-169.3, to leave out from "congratulates" to end and insert:

"affirms that defence policy is, and should remain, the responsibility of the UK Parliament."

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

No. I am sorry but the member has finished his speech.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Ladies and gentlemen—I mean Presiding Officer. [ Laughter. ] I am in the wrong forum all of a sudden. I am back at the student union.

It is disappointing that as their first subject for debate in this session the Greens have picked a reserved issue—not just any reserved issue but one that, as Mr Harvie said, the Parliament has debated many times before. I am not sure whether any more light will be shed on the issue than was shed on previous occasions. The reality is that no matter what the Parliament resolves at 5 o'clock, it will mean nothing whatever. This is a massive exercise in self-indulgence on the part of the Greens and their supporters in the Parliament. It means nothing.

I came along this morning hoping that the Labour Party in Scotland might have rediscovered its backbone. I was sadly mistaken. There was little evidence of that backbone during the recent election campaign, when I sat in hustings meetings with various Labour candidates—some of whom are here today—in different parts of the country. By remarkable coincidence, not a single Labour candidate with whom I shared a platform during the election campaign supported the Labour Party's policy on Trident. Every single one of them seemed to oppose it.

I hoped that this morning we might hear Labour Party members defend party policy on Trident—a policy that has often been stated in the House of Commons. Sadly, even the redoubtable Mr McMahon was disappointing. In his speech—which lasted five minutes, with lots of interventions—he said not a word about the substantive issue of Trident. If Labour Party members will not do so themselves, it is, again, left to the Conservatives to defend the position of the Labour Government at Westminster.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will happily give way to someone who may be prepared to defend the position of the Labour Government.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Will the member first of all confirm that he did not appear on any platform with me, so that I am excused?

I am prepared to defend our position, but I will defend it in a forum that has responsibility for the issue, and not here, where we have no such responsibility. I do not believe that we should turn the Parliament into a protest movement, which is what some members of other parties want. I hope that Murdo Fraser realises that he is contradicting himself. First of all, he says that we should not discuss the issue; then he says that Labour Party members have no backbone because we have not lodged a substantive amendment. He cannot have it both ways.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I appreciate that Lord Foulkes is a relative newcomer to the chamber, but he will be aware that we have debated reserved issues on many occasions in the past—as indeed, to be fair, do other fora throughout the land, such as local councils. I do not have a particular problem with debating Trident, but we should get on with debating the real issue, about which we have heard very little in the previous two speeches.

I wish that we lived in a world without nuclear weapons—a world in which they had not been invented or in which they could be uninvented. However, we do not, and neither of those things is possible. So long as others have nuclear weapons, we should retain them. I remember the debates in the 1980s about unilateral nuclear disarmament. The debates today are not so different—only the faces of the unilateralists have changed. Back then, Tony Blair, John Reid and Jack McConnell had all signed up to CND and were all opposed our nuclear deterrent—all of them wrong to a man. They now accept the error of their ways, because the Conservatives won that debate. They have been converted to our cause. I believe that we should retain our nuclear deterrent because we live in an increasingly uncertain world. We do not know where the threats are coming from, and we do not know where the rogue states might be that threaten our security in 30 or 40 years' time. It would be madness to give up our deterrent at this time.

The unilateralists were wrong in the 1980s and they are wrong today. It would be foolhardy for us to give up our nuclear weapons unilaterally. We should reject the Green motion and, even if the Labour Party are too feart to make the arguments their party stands for, they can still serve their party's will.

I move amendment S3M-169.1, to leave out from "congratulates" to end and insert:

"notes that defence matters are wholly reserved to Scotland's other Parliament at Westminster and that on 14 March 2007 a majority of MPs voted for the replacement of Trident."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It is legitimate for the Greens to bring the subject of Trident for debate in the chamber. It is important to be able to debate the issues, so let us remind ourselves of some of the facts. All the UK's tactical nuclear weapon systems have been taken out of service. The UK's nuclear force is now limited to its strategic deterrent, which is Trident. We spent huge resources on procuring Trident and we spend a substantial part of the UK's annual defence budget on the system.

There is a legitimate argument about whether any UK Government would ever use our nuclear deterrent. I think that it is important not only to set out my party's position but to make clear my own views on what is an important moral question for everyone. I cannot envisage any scenario in which use of the Trident missile system would be justified. I am at one with the many leaders of civic Scotland and our churches who have given a moral lead on the issue. During my 15 years' service in the Army—even during the cold war—I found little support among my colleagues for the diversion of funds to strategic nuclear weapons at the expense of our conventional forces.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Is Mike Rumbles saying that the Liberal party is against Trident in principle both now and at any time, or just for now?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Trident is an important moral issue for every MSP and every person in Scotland. It is important for each individual to take a view on the issue. At the moment, I am expressing my view. In a moment, I will emphasise my party's view on the matter.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Why does the member not answer the question?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member should wait.

I have yet to hear anyone—even Murdo Fraser—outline the circumstances in which a UK Prime Minister would launch a so-called independent system to destroy millions of innocent people. I do not think that I will ever hear that.

Enough of my personal views on the matter—I want to emphasise my party's view. As much as we would like to see the weapons go, the Liberal Democrats believe that unilateral nuclear disarmament is not the best way forward. We believe that the key to a safer world is to make real progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament. We must be willing to take part in the disarmament process and we want the UK Government to press for a nuclear weapons convention to formalise all the nuclear states' commitment to disarmament.

It is entirely wrong for the UK to commit to renew our so-called independent nuclear deterrent when there is no need or justification for doing so.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I cannot give way, unfortunately, as I have only a minute left.

The argument that we must renew Trident because of the unserviceability of Royal Navy submarines is patently nonsense. That is why we are happy to join others today to congratulate the majority of Scottish MPs who made the right decision and voted against the UK Government's line that we should renew our strategic nuclear weapons. Most of our MPs, from all parties—except the Conservatives—joined together to reject that nonsensical argument.

It is clear to us that no effective case has been made for a successor to Trident. In any case, it must be right that the proper place in which to decide whether to replace Trident is the UK Parliament. That is why we lodged our amendment. The Liberal Democrat party is a federal party. We believe that domestic decisions for Scotland are best made here in the Scottish Parliament. However, although it is entirely appropriate for the Parliament to take a view to feed into the decision-making process, actual decisions on the defence of the realm are clearly and correctly the preserve of the UK Parliament.

The Liberal Democrats want real nuclear disarmament to make the world a safer place. The way to do that is to engage with others on multilateral nuclear disarmament. I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment and then vote for the motion as amended.

I move amendment S3M-169.4, to insert after "Trident":

"recognises that decisions on matters of defence are matters within the responsibility of the UK Government and Parliament".

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I welcome this morning's debate on Trident and the Green Party's motion. Trident is a vital issue that divides public opinion and political parties. However, as others have said, it is evident that a clear majority of the Scottish public is against a new generation of weapons of mass destruction. The people of Scotland have shown their opposition to Trident time and time again. As Patrick Harvie said, today is the fourth time in just over a year that the Parliament has discussed Trident. That perhaps shows the importance of the issue and how strongly people feel.

This Government is happy to continue to debate the arguments for and against Trident. In the past, the intellectual argument was that that the Soviet bloc represented a threat and that nuclear capability provided a form of deterrent, kept the peace and prevented further wars.

George (Labour, Lothians)

In all sincerity, does not Bruce Crawford—as a minister in the Scottish Parliament, which has substantial responsibilities and makes decisions that affect the people of Scotland—find it demeaning to turn the Parliament into a protest movement?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I find it utterly demeaning for someone such as George Foulkes to come here and try to put the Parliament in a box and constrain what it wants to do.

Of course, the end of the cold war put paid to the previous theory, which by any reasonable measure no longer holds water. The UK Government's white paper admits:

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

It is far from clear who our enemies are and why a nuclear capability is thought necessary. To be blunt, the UK Government's position that there is no known enemy means that multilateralism is dead. No one can argue a position of multilateralism if there is no known enemy.

The Government is happy to talk about the costs, including the merit of spending, on the basis of some threat from a mythical enemy, £25 billion in capital and perhaps as much as £100 billion in lifetime costs—an obscene sum—to replace a system of weapons of mass destruction that runs counter to long-standing international non-proliferation agreements. That money could be better spent on public services such as schools, hospitals and housing.

How many more debates will we have during the coming months and years on the rights and wrongs of the son of Trident? Where will those debates take us? Of course, in an independent Scotland we would not have such debates because no weapons of mass destruction would be based in Scotland. In our election manifesto, we stated that Scotland should be free to remove nuclear weapons from our shores. Short of the full responsibilities of independence, the Government will reflect on the views of the majority of Scots and carefully consider which aspects of the plans to replace Trident impact on devolved areas. We will do what we can, using those responsibilities, to persuade the UK Government to change its stance.

We also intend to hold a summit with key stakeholders to agree a joint position against Trident and get the best ideas and proposals from an alliance of people from throughout Scottish life who oppose the son of Trident. We will stand up for our beliefs and do all that we can to represent Scottish opinion on these vital matters. I compare that principled position with the position of the Liberal Democrats.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

At the assembly that is to be called, will the minister invite English and Welsh opinion as well?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I called it a summit. We will consider who we appropriately invite along to that, but provided that it is an alliance of people who believe what we believe—that Scotland should be free from weapons of mass destruction—I think that that is pretty fair.

Until today, the Liberal Democrats' position was typical of what we might expect from a party whose policy bends in the wind and which thinks, "Let's not decide on Trident today." The Liberal Democrats have now made up their minds—at least, I thought that they had, but their amendment seeks to remove from the Green party's motion the words:

"and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead at this time with the proposal in the White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The minister is in his last minute.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

By seeking to remove those words, the Liberals have to all intents and purposes abandoned their party's position. I congratulate them. They managed to lodge a McNulty amendment by trying to be clever, but they ended up making fools of themselves. Unfortunately, they might succeed in giving succour to those who want to press ahead with the son of Trident, whatever the price.

This Government stands for a nuclear-free Scotland—a successful, peaceful and prosperous nation that meets its obligations to the other nations of the world. Trident and the UK's nuclear arsenal have no place in our vision for a modern Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I refer members to my contributions to the various debates on this subject that have taken place in the chamber—I do not intend to rehearse the arguments in detail again. Murdo Fraser did not share a platform with me, but he will be able to read the Official Report .

I will concentrate on the impact on and disruption to the lives of the people who live on the Roseneath peninsula and have to cope with the blockades organised by Faslane 365. I say at the outset that peaceful protest plays a vital part in a democratic society, and we have a long and respected tradition of it in this country. Many of the rights and freedoms that we enjoy today were gained because people were prepared to protest. I therefore defend absolutely the right to peaceful protest.

I acknowledge the Faslane 365 activists' determination to make their views known, but their illegal blockades cause more severe disruption than just preventing workers from clocking in at the base. In fact, the activists have caused little, if any, disruption to the base's operation. Instead, students have missed examinations, carers have been unable to get to their older and more vulnerable charges, and others have been unable to get to work or to go about their daily lives. That is to say nothing about the potential for fatalities if emergency vehicles are caught up in the blockades.

When not actively stopping the flow of traffic, protesters are known to illegally paint road markings and obscure sight lines for drivers. That is not just further disruption, it is criminal damage that could cause accidents.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I would rather make progress.

Members will be aware that the SNP supports Faslane 365, the organisation that is responsible for the blockades. In a letter from Alex Salmond's office, I was told that the SNP support does not extend to the blockading of adjacent roads. However, there is really only one road in and out of the peninsula, and supporters of Faslane 365 are blockading it quite deliberately. Will SNP members encourage their First Minister to withdraw his support for that illegal action but not necessarily his support for the principle of what Faslane 365 is trying to do? Mr Hepburn wishes to intervene. I look forward to receiving a yes or no answer from him.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member is not actually going to get a yes or no answer—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Then I am not going to accept the intervention.

I turn to the Greens, who take a principled stance on the issue. I quote from an e-mail from Robin Harper to one of my constituents.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No.

These are Robin Harper's words, not mine:

"Given that my perception was that these blockades were I thought designed to make things difficult at the base, not aimed at the local community, and that according to recent reports, the protesters are fighting amongst themselves, I am seriously considering withdrawing my support—I need to consult with colleagues, and write to the camp before I take such a step, so give me a little time over this".

That is a well-judged comment.

If members need to be further convinced, they should consider the ill-conceived proposal to hold a disco and barbecue with live music outside the gates of Faslane cemetery. I am grateful that that will not now happen. The organisers did not realise the sensitivities and I commend them for changing their view. That is an illustration of the problem for local people, and I encourage Robin Harper and others in the chamber to reflect on it.

In closing, I refer to Peninsula 24/7, which is a group formed by local people to give them a voice in what is going on in their area. I ask all MSPs and parties that support Faslane 365 to think about the consequences for local people, many of whom do not support the presence of Trident on the Clyde.

What about the peace camp? I understand that there have already been two evictions, and on that basis it looks like "Big Brother" has nothing on the peace camp at Faslane. It is hardly behaving in unity to oppose Trident, which is what Faslane 365 seeks to do.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. As a new member, I would like some clarification for those who might intend intervening in subsequent debates. If a member gives way to an intervention, can they stand up again if they do not like what the intervening member is saying? I understood that Jackie Baillie had given way.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Yes, if the terms of the intervention have been breached. Ms Baillie made quite clear the basis on which she was taking the intervention, and Mr Hepburn made it equally clear that he was not prepared to accept it, so she was quite entitled to get back on her feet.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind members that Trident is a weapon of mass destruction, is evil and has no place in a fair and civilised society. It is hypocritical of the Westminster Government to verbally and physically attack any country for having any remote connection to nuclear weapons while it is retaining and renewing weapons of mass destruction on its own soil. It is also immoral and dishonest of Westminster to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty that calls for complete disarmament while ignoring its obligations by voting for the retention and renewal of that category of weapons.

It is also dishonest to claim—and I want to lay this one to rest once and for all; I hope that Jackie Baillie will listen—that removing Trident will cost 11,000 jobs. The removal of Trident will cost just over 1,000 jobs, and it is an absolute fact that those workers can be redeployed through a programme of diversification for a peaceful world, and not just a peaceful Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No. The member would not take an intervention so I will not take one.

Many members say that Trident is a reserved matter—we have heard that from George Foulkes and members of other unionist parties. I and a majority of the Scottish people say that it is not a reserved matter. Trident is on Scottish soil down there on the Clyde, and we in the Scottish Parliament have to decide to get rid of nuclear weapons and Trident for the sake of the Scottish people.

How do we go about that? Bruce Crawford touched on the powers that we have over transport, planning and the legal system. This Parliament can do lots of things to thwart the progress of Trident with the legislative tools at our disposal.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, I am sorry.

We could insist that we become an observer at the non-proliferation treaty committee on the ground that we wish Scotland to be nuclear-free.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Patrick Harvie and others have reminded us that some local authorities are already nuclear free. We could make our representation to the non-proliferation treaty committee before 2010, when the real decision will be made. I have not just plucked this idea out of thin air; precedents have been set. I mentioned Palestine in a motion previously, but Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan all signed up to the NPT after the break-up of the Soviet Union, and Palestine has observer status.

Undoubtedly, George Foulkes will say that Westminster must have something to do with it, and perhaps he will run down to his Westminster masters and tell them exactly what is happening in this Parliament. I hope that he does. Maybe they will object, but it is worth exploring the issue to ensure that we highlight Scotland's people's wish to be free of nuclear weapons. We are here to serve the people of Scotland.

Our neighbour, Ireland, which is also a signatory to the NPT, said:

"States should not develop new nuclear weapons ... or undertake the replacement or modernisation of their nuclear-weapon systems"

while they are committed to the non-proliferation treaty. That is the reality. This Parliament must show Westminster and the rest of the world that Scotland will not put up with nuclear weapons on her shores, and the decision that we make today could have a great impact on Westminster and the rest of the world by showing that.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I enter this debate having been gainfully employed at Rosyth dockyard and Faslane naval base. My contribution comes from the perspective of someone who owes their place in this Parliament to having learnt difficult and sometimes harsh lessons while refitting Royal Navy ships and submarines.

It is important to remember that thousands of workers throughout Scotland are proud—as I was—of their contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom and to the growth of the Scottish economy. Despite members' different perspectives, I am sure that all will join me in paying tribute to those workers, particularly those at Rosyth who are currently in dispute with their employer. Those workers and I understand that Trident is an emotive issue that divides public opinion.

I recognise that there are people in my party who have been on both sides of the debate. I point out that there are people in the SNP who have also been on both sides of the debate—indeed, the First Minister was a vociferous campaigner for bringing Trident jobs to Rosyth in the early 1990s. One of the most interesting aspects of that campaign—in relation to which Murdo Fraser gave us an interesting history lesson—is that, if the contract had been awarded to Rosyth in 1993, we would be talking about a lot more jobs in Scotland than we are now. However, we all know what happened in 1993: a certain Malcolm Rifkind betrayed Scotland and made a decision in the interests not of national security but of the political survival of his party in the south-west. That flawed decision cost the taxpayer £666 million. Forgive me, therefore, if I find it difficult to take seriously the Tories' crusade for efficient government.

The one thing that I reject in this debate is the notion that there is public outcry about the replacement of Trident. I just do not see it. Perhaps it is indicative of views in the area of west Fife in which I live and in the wider Fife area but, during the election campaign, not one person mentioned Trident to me.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Obviously, workers' interests are important. However, does John Park agree that the Scottish Trades Union Congress—nem con—is against Trident renewal now and at any time?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Bill Butler is absolutely correct that that is the STUC's position. However, I am representing the views of the people of Mid Scotland and Fife. The STUC and CND carried out excellent research into the consequences for jobs of cancelling Trident. Unfortunately, it considered only the removal of Trident from Scotland rather than the removal of Trident from the UK, and obviously there are jobs at Aldermaston and Devonport that rely on Trident. However, it was a sober piece of research and a great contribution to the debate.

On the extent to which the public are talking about Trident, I point out that, since entering Parliament, I have had considerably more correspondence complaining about the removal of the tolls from the Forth bridge than I have had about the renewal of Trident. Perhaps I should use my judgment in that regard.

Being a new and enthusiastic MSP, I was keen to get some feedback from constituents on the subject of the debate before speaking in it. Given the timescales, that proved to be difficult. However, this week I received e-mails highlighting the content of the debate before I even knew what the motion was—there must be some good organising going on in the Green party.

The people I have managed to speak to divide fairly equally on both sides of the debate. I am sure that we could become preoccupied with the semantic question of what is devolved and what is reserved, but the clear issue that has been raised in the feedback that I have received is that people do not know why the Scottish Parliament is talking about this issue. Although there may be strong views on either side of the argument, it is important that we do not ignore the silent majority in the middle.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I call Bill Kidd, to be followed by Jim Tolson. Mr Tolson, I must ask you to keep your remarks to about two and a half minutes, if you could.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is a pleasure and an honour to deliver my first speech in Parliament on what I believe will be an historic day—a day on which we hammer the first nail in the coffin of the British Government's weapons of mass destruction programme.

I congratulate the Greens on securing this debate, to which we in the SNP are delighted to contribute, as the motion keeps faith with the many thousands of Scots who voted for all the parties in this chamber. The true consensus among members of this Parliament reflects the broad consensus throughout Scotland against the maintenance of nuclear weapons in our nation. It forms a solid bond through civic Scotland, the STUC, Scottish CND, the churches, voluntary organisations and the 76 per cent of the Scottish people who would rather that the £25 billion cost—at least—of upgrading Trident was spent instead on public services such as schools, keeping hospitals local, and police and fire services.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the member give way?

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I cannot; this is my first speech.

During the long years of the cold war, we were constantly told that it was only the threat of the Soviet Union that necessitated the endless waste of billions of pounds of public money, but now we see the truth—instead of the promised peace dividend following the fall of the Berlin wall, we witness the gimlet-eyed global imperialist sabre rattlers in Washington and Westminster, who will never allow their hands to be prised from their nuclear phallic symbols until forced to do so by a committed public voice. Is that unfair?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I do not care, because article VI of the non-proliferation treaty states:

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

The replacement of Trident would commit the UK to owning nuclear weapons until at least 2050, which, since the NPT came into force in 1970, would mean 80 years of complete failure to disarm—in other words, barefaced duplicity.

Meanwhile, last week's report from the Federation of Small Businesses showed a Scotland where swathes of rural and urban poverty are still commonplace, early death stalks housing schemes, small businesses go to the wall and 600,000 carers struggle to keep body and soul together as they are denied the resources that are wasted on bombs that must never be used. As I have spent all my life living just 30 miles from the spectre of first Polaris and now Trident, I am qualified to speak out against the spurious arguments of those who want to continue the despoliation of our land, our waters and our sense of ourselves as human beings by spending our hard-earned wealth on big-boy's toys over which we have no control.

Allow me to exercise a word that we have all got used to over the past few weeks—consensus. There is a genuine feeling of camaraderie on Trident in this land. By standing together against Trident, we will be embarking on an historic journey towards common humanity and a more prosperous and peaceful future for all.

I commend the motion to Parliament and the people of Scotland.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I will try to keep my speech as short as you requested, Presiding Officer, but you will appreciate that it is quite difficult to cut big chunks out of a speech. Accordingly, I will not take any interventions.

I speak in this debate as a member with a somewhat unusual background, in that I spent well over a decade working on Trident and Polaris nuclear submarines and believed strongly that our having a nuclear deterrent protected us. That was my view in the 1980s and 1990s, when I worked on refitting our fleet of nuclear submarines at Rosyth dockyard. That view was the key to my livelihood, and I believed that it was also the key to the policy of mutually assured destruction—MAD.

Some views that are held, often with great passion, should remain fixed and others should be flexible as time and circumstances change. My firm belief in the 1980s that the country should have a nuclear deterrent has changed with circumstances and time. I have seen, all too often, reports of our overstretched armed forces battling in many areas of the world, defending the rights of Britain and its allies, with a lack of people and equipment and without the flexibility to respond quickly to new threats. That seems all the more nauseating when we consider the cost of materials and equipment that are involved in facilitating the four nuclear submarines that make up our fleet. I recall being told, when I was a young apprentice in the mid-1980s, that a simple bolt cost more than £5 for a submarine but only 5p for a ship.

It is right that Britain should have an effective, flexible and well-trained armed force. However, even with Mr Putin's recent sabre rattling, I no longer feel that a fleet of submarines with multiwarhead, intercontinental ballistic missiles is needed to defend the rights of Britons at home and abroad.

The cost of replacing our Trident nuclear submarine fleet is estimated at £20 billion—although I am certain that it would be much more once the fleet was brought into service—but the cost of decommissioning the submarines, storing the submarine hulks in the long term and dealing with the dangerous and highly radioactive materials that we bequeath to future generations for thousands of years is incalculable. That is why Liberal Democrats north and south of the border have a long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis.

I welcome the opportunity to support my federal colleagues and debate these important issues in a Scottish context, while recognising that defence is, rightly, reserved to the Westminster Parliament.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am delighted that my first speech in a debate is on an issue that has been close to my heart since the age of about 15.

During the recent elections, some Labour candidates argued that Scots should drop our principled objection to nuclear weapons. That is from the party that committed our armed forces to war on the pretence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that had to be found and destroyed. We were told, however, that we should tolerate weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde, because jobs depended on them.

The truth is out now. Jobs are going at Faslane, but the weapons of mass destruction are still there. The jobs have nothing to do with Trident. They are not dependent on it and, whether it stays or goes, they are at risk from UK Government decisions. In fact, the STUC and Scottish CND produced a joint report in March year that showed that renewing Trident would cost jobs. Just to be clear: if Trident is renewed, it will still cost jobs in Scotland.

We are told by the Labour Government in London that the running costs of son of Trident will be about the same as those of the current system. That is £2,000 every minute, £120,000 an hour, £3 million per day and more than £1 billion a year on top of the capital costs of £20 billion to buy the beasts in the first place—for a weapon that we are told will never be fired. It is like saying that everyone should carry a knife to avoid being attacked with a knife, or that we should all carry guns to make society safer.

Trident is economically inept, morally repugnant and spiritually bereft. The presence of those weapons in Scotland's waters is an insult to all of us who believe that peace is preserved by diplomacy before war and compassion before coercion. It is also an insult to all of us who believe in spending public money wisely.

I am not a pacifist, but I recognise the impotence, vanity and sheer waste in a weapon such as Trident. It cannot be a defensive weapon, but we are promised that it will never be used in aggression. What exactly is its purpose?

I would rather be a citizen of a nation that looks to persuade and co-operate than bully and cajole, and I would rather be such a citizen safe in the knowledge that my country was free of weapons of mass destruction.

Mutually assured destruction is not the only mad aspect of nuclear weapons. The very idea that London is considering renewing Trident falls into that category.

Defence may be reserved in the strict legal terms of the Scotland Act 1998, but morality, decency and common sense are not. We have a moral duty to oppose that which we see as a waste of national resources.

I support the motion in Patrick Harvie's name, I welcome the stand taken against nuclear weapons and I am pleased that it is the majority viewpoint of the Scottish people. We have the opportunity to make it clear that we believe that nuclear weapons have no place in Scotland, and we should take that opportunity and make Scotland's voice heard.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I thank the member for her brevity.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Over the past few months, I have read a great deal about the issue, and it is clear to me that the alliance against the renewal of Trident and in favour of nuclear disarmament is bigger and wider than at any point since the second world war. For many, including myself, the issue is still rooted in the fundamental moral objection to nuclear weapons. I applaud in particular the leadership of the churches and other religious leaders in putting that view so strongly in recent times.

However, many people will not be persuaded by those arguments, which is why we have also to consider the strategic and security arguments. That is where I am struck by the number of people who have changed their minds since the 1980s, including many in the Conservative party—members can read Michael Portillo in last week's Sunday Times, and Michael Ancram is even stronger on the subject. Lord Hattersley, who supported nuclear weapons in the 1980s, has said that

"to posture about the importance of nuclear independence is to fight the battles of the past."

Henry Kissinger and three other high-level architects of the cold war, in a remarkable article in The Wall Street Journal on 4 January, said that the reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence

"is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective"

in the modern world. They called on nuclear weapons states to engage seriously in nuclear disarmament.

Former chief of the defence staff Lord Brammall, speaking before George Foulkes in a recent House of Lords debate, said:

"it is difficult to see how the United Kingdom can exert any leadership and influence on the implementation of the non-proliferation treaty ... if we insist on a successor to Trident".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2007; Vol 688, c 1137.]

The non-proliferation treaty is crucial to the debate. The treaty is a bargain: nations without nuclear weapons promised not to develop them and, in exchange, nuclear weapons states promised to pursue negotiations towards nuclear disarmament in good faith. As Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, asked recently, how can Britain expect other countries to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons if it upgrades Trident? It is supremely urgent that we stop nuclear proliferation, which is why the UK Government must change its disastrous policy decision.

I supported Elaine Smith's amendment, as I preferred its wording, but it was not selected for debate, so, given the urgency, I will vote for the Green party motion.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

It is unfortunate that the back-bench amendment in my name, which was supported by several comrades and is printed in section F of today's Business Bulletin , was not chosen for debate, because it is the only clear anti-Trident position.

As it stands, the motion is not anti-Trident; it is party-political posturing by the Greens and is designed to appease the Liberals by using the words "at this time". If we are not to renew Trident "at this time", when are we to do so? A year from now? Two years? Five years? Clearly, it will be at some time. My position is clear: Trident should never be replaced, neither at this time nor at any time.

Storing our own weapons of mass destruction is wrong, replacing them is wrong and using them would be not only wrong but reckless, despicable and immoral. I hope that my views are perfectly clear: replacing Trident is wrong and using it would be an abomination. That is also the view of a number of my colleagues on the Labour benches, and it is unacceptable that they cannot express it.

If we are going to have a debate, we should have a proper one. The reality is that the Greens thought that replacing Trident was such an important issue that they split their time this morning, giving us only half the available time on an issue of world peace. Then they lodged a motion that is wishy-washy at best and pro-Trident at worst, when they could have set out a clear anti-Trident position by leaving out the three little words "at this time".

If we were in the Parliament that actually has responsibility for Trident, a fudge might be better than nothing—if it was the only game in town and we could try again later. However, this Parliament can merely express an opinion. To make that opinion one that says, "We don't want to replace Trident at this time," is ridiculous. It is a wasted opportunity.

The motion is not anti-Trident, it is not a principled position and it is duplicitous. On those grounds, I will find it extremely hard to support it at decision time.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am happy to make a winding-up speech on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

I want first to make it clear that our position as a party is clear and has not changed one bit, whatever Bruce Crawford might say. Jim Wallace made that clear in his excellent speech in the debate on Trident last year. As we set out in our amendment then, we rejected the reasoning in the Government's white paper that we had to make a decision on renewing Trident in spring 2007. As Jim Wallace said:

"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 ... Britain's security."—[Official Report, 21 December 2006; c 30690.]

It is important that we consider the debate in the context of whether multilateralism or unilateralism will ultimately bring the best overall result not just for Britain but for the whole world. The majority of our party support the multilateral route. There is a sizeable minority in the Liberal Democrats who support unilateralism, and there always has been, but as a party our majority position is that multilateralism is the best way forward.

It would make more sense for us to take our nuclear weapons to the table in 2010, when the next round of multilateral treaty discussions takes place, than to just say that we are going to get rid of them. Exactly how would Britain getting rid of our nuclear weapons result in North Korea, Iran or any other nation that is considering nuclear weapons deciding not to go ahead?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In a moment, when I have finished this point.

Equally, if Britain decides now to renew our nuclear deterrent and possibly increase it, how will that help to persuade the countries that are considering going down the nuclear route that they should not do so? Neither approach is correct.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Liberal Democrat position is that we should not agree to renew Trident. We should instead reduce the number of warheads and take the remaining weapons to the table in 2010.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The member mentioned countries that are looking to develop nuclear weapons. How can we persuade them not to do that when Britain is renewing its nuclear weapons?

Is that not a hypocritical stance?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Sandra White should have listened to what I was saying rather than try to intervene. I said clearly that we do not believe that we should renew our weapons, because that would damage multilateralism. No decision needs to be taken now on the question of renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent.

I turn to the question whether the Parliament should have this debate. Of course, the Parliament is entitled to debate any issue that it wishes. It is free to do so, and on many occasions we have debated issues over which the Parliament and, more important, the Scottish Executive have no power to act. Of course we can do that, and we should rightly do so. However, it is also important to recognise the limitations. The people of Scotland must be clear that the Scottish Parliament cannot make decisions on such matters and that we are having this debate to express views rather than to take decisions. The Scottish Parliament cannot prevent the use of nuclear weapons. That is where the Greens' and the SNP's positions are particularly inconsistent. They want Scotland to withdraw from the decision-making process on whether to renew Trident, because they do not want Scotland to be part of the United Kingdom and its defence. However, if Scotland were not part of the UK, it would have no say on whether to renew the Trident weapons system. Perhaps we would have a say on where weapons would be based, but we would not have a say on whether they should be replaced.

I cannot see any difference between nuclear weapons being based in Faslane or Falmouth. The issue is whether we should have Trident and whether we should renew it. I want Scotland to be part of a United Kingdom in which we send elected people to the UK Parliament to represent our views and have a say; to assist with decisions on whether, as part of defence policy, Trident should be renewed; and to take decisions for us. That is important to us. However, the Scottish Parliament should express its view, which I am sure it will make clear in the vote at 5 o'clock.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

He is winding up.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We should not withdraw from the important decision-making process in which Scotland is involved as part of the United Kingdom.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

What an indulgence this debate is: it will have all the force of the early to mid-1980s nuclear-free council nonsense, with their nuclear-free bin bags. There was gesture politics then and there is gesture politics now.

Of course Trident and the defence of our realm are a huge concern to the people of Scotland. They are, no doubt, a concern to my mother's bridge circle, but when that circle gets together it does so to play bridge, not to discuss Trident—at least as far as I know. A full agenda of responsibilities is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and we should concentrate on devolved subjects, but if we must have such debates, we must.

One image that has stayed with me from my involvement in youth politics more than 20 years ago is of a spoof film poster—a mocked-up version of a "Gone with the Wind" poster, produced by the anti-Trident lobby. In it, Ronald Reagan substituted for Clark Gable; he swept up in his arms Margaret Thatcher, who substituted for Vivien Leigh. It had the immortal catch line:

"She promised to follow him to the end of the earth and he promised to deliver it".

It was one of many entertaining posters in a campaign that reached a crescendo in the 1980s and then collapsed, not because it naturally ran out of steam, but because events demonstrated that all those who had passionately fought in its support had been wrong. In essence, those who were wrong then are posing the same arguments again now. The Conservative Government stood alone at first, but then, as it was shown to be right to endure the political pain that was endured by standing firm, we were joined by less consistently brave souls. The majority of the public in the UK consistently supported a nuclear defence strategy.

The end of the cold war, which was a massive personal political achievement for President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher, was the decisive moment in the history of post-war Europe—I thank the Greens for giving the Scottish Parliament an opportunity to pay a fulsome and heartfelt tribute to President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher. With President Gorbachev, who recognised the resolve that an increasingly discredited Soviet Union could not match, those politicians made our lives materially more secure and, by extension, liberated a continent not only from a menacing shadow, but literally with respect to the democratic and revolutionary changes thereafter.

When the last real Labour Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, secretly upgraded Polaris, which paved the way for Trident, he could not have foreseen what lay 20 years ahead. The inability of any politician to foresee events not just for their own generation but for the next generation must inform any decision that is taken now. I accept that the situation now is totally different: there is no natural or immediately credible target against which to aim our missiles with certainty. Some conclude from that that there is no threat or that such threat as there is is so general and non-governmental or regime generated that a nuclear response is superfluous—ludicrous, even. I think that that was what Bruce Crawford argued, but the failure of that argument is that such a position serves only for today.

Just as Callaghan, Thatcher and Reagan could not foresee the demise of the cold war threat, Westminster—the responsibility in question lies there—is now considering, and preparing for, a future in which we can only imagine, and cannot know, the prevailing dangers to our country. Jim Tolson may have changed his mind, but if he changes his mind again in 10 years' time, it will be too late if we have not made the appropriate investment.

I support what Jackie Baillie and John Park said. People who work in the community in question should not be made to feel that they are doing anything other than proudly participating in the defence of their country.

We have chuntered on with another example of the student union politics that the Parliament should eschew. The Green party, which lodged the motion, should, like any other party, reflect on why it suffered defeats last month. However, as I said, if we must have such a debate, we must.

The world is every bit as uncertain now as the future is unpredictable, and our judgment should be no different from that of the previous generation. Trident remains essential to our future security. We are not required to love it, but our well-being demands that we have it.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

In my opening speech, I concentrated on our concerns about having this debate; in my closing speech, I will comment on issues that have been raised during the debate.

The Green party's motion clearly shows that it has few scruples. It is a so-called anti-nuclear peace party, but its lodging a motion that proposes only a delay in a vote on implementing a new nuclear arsenal merely to make a transparent and feeble attempt to cobble together an anti-Labour majority in the chamber is an example of political deception that is almost unparalleled in the Parliament. We probably should have expected such a fraud, given the way in which the Greens have recently dodged transport and environmental issues to serve their new nationalist masters. For a pacifist party, the Green party has become adept at the military two-step as Green members dance around each issue making excuses for their latest sell-out.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Does the member agree that it sits rather ill for the Green party to lodge such a motion for its first debate in the new session, given that its members failed to turn up to discuss the future of agri-environment schemes for the next seven years?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I could not agree more.

Perhaps worse is the fact that the debate is based on the most facile, superficial and obtuse argument possible, which Bruce Crawford and his colleagues have again put eloquently. The Greens and the nats are so opposed to Trident that they want to pursue a course that would lead Scotland to utter impotence in making decisions on it. The independence parties regularly say that they want Scotland to be like Ireland. If they follow their line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, that is exactly where they will be in relation to Trident. I agree with Iain Smith about that.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

No. I want to make progress.

Durness in the Highlands is further away from Faslane than is Donegal. The member of Parliament for Durness has a vote on Trident at Westminster, but no elected representative in Donegal can have an input into that debate. If Scotland gained independence from Westminster and was like Ireland, Whitehall would still own and control Trident missile systems and would make Scotland, like Ireland, the powerless neighbour of a nuclear state.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is Michael McMahon calling for the reincorporation of the Republic of Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

The member's intervention is not clever—and nor was his intervention in Jackie Ballie's speech. He will need to step to the mark if he is to make interventions that contribute to the debate.

Trident would still be replaced, but it would be relocated to a port in England or Wales. Scotland, its First Minister, any future president or even its current cardinal would have no more say over issues relating to Trident than the Taoiseach, the Irish President or any other Irish politician.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The Irish do not have Trident.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

That is right, and they cannot influence the Trident debate.

If the independence movement's ambition is to have no influence over Trident, that ambition is short-sighted. If Scotland wants to have a say on Britain's nuclear missile capability, it must remain part of Britain and allow its MPs to take part in that debate. Scotland will lose its voice on the matter if it gets independence—that is the logical consequence of Scottish independence. However, this debate is not about logic—it is about the all too typical grandstanding that we have come to expect from the nationalist coalition. That is what members have aimed at: Parliament should not be so easily fooled or seduced by the superficiality of the motion, and it should not support it.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the debate and thank Patrick Harvie and the Greens for lodging the motion, as the issue is incredibly important. We should debate the matter until the two thirds of Scots whom Patrick Harvie mentioned are given justice and their right to reject weapons of mass destruction on their shores. That right should be recognised and acted on.

There have been a lot of speeches. I thought some were absolutely super in that they showed depth and knowledge. There were too many to mention them all, so I will address them by party grouping.

I say to Mr Foulkes, Mr McMahon and others that it is the right of parties to decide what will be debated during their debating time. Labour members will recognise that when they get the chance to bring debates to the chamber for the first time as an Opposition party. Right from the start, the Scottish Parliament, across all parties, has had a proud record of debating, discussing and voting on issues that are not technically within its remit.

George (Labour, Lothians)

You can call me George, by the way, with pleasure.

Labour has already put two motions before the Parliament while in opposition. I spoke to one of them last Thursday, when I made my maiden speech. Both were on devolved matters. We recognise the importance of the devolved areas and the importance of spending time discussing them.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

See the way I feel about you just now, George? It is going to be Mr Foulkes for a while longer.

One thing that I very much respected about Jack McConnell as First Minister was the fact that he brought to the chamber issues that were not within the remit of the Parliament but about which members right across the chamber felt strongly— dawn raids and how we treat asylum seekers, for example.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will Linda Fabiani give way?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am responding to George at the moment.

Similarly, there was anger right across the chamber about the treatment of the Black Watch. Jack McConnell was not slow to recognise that, or to speak about it. When George Foulkes has been here for a while longer, he will see that we are not a parish council but a Parliament with the right to reflect what people are thinking. We have the right to put forward their views, including the view that we should not have weapons of mass destruction on our shores.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

One minute.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

See—I told you I had a lot to say.

Sadly, some Labour members have tried hard to justify being unable to follow their individual consciences on the matter—although following their conscience is what Labour members at Westminster did when Scottish MPs voted against the renewal of Trident. I really enjoyed listening to Bill Butler, Malcolm Chisholm and Elaine Smith. Marlyn Glen did not speak today, but I know that she is re-establishing the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament. I hope that there will be so many members on the group that we will force the Parliament to debate the matter over and over again. That is one of the most important things we can do. I absolutely defend the Parliament's right to do that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During his speech, Bruce Crawford said that the Liberal Democrat amendment deletes the words:

"and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead at this time with the proposal in the White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent."

The amendment in the name of Mike Rumbles would not, in fact, do that; it would add some words after "Trident" but it would not leave any words out of the motion. I would be grateful if you could confirm that that is the case.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sure that members are able to read what is in the Business Bulletin .

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I shall begin by addressing the point that Jackie Baillie made. I support the Faslane 365 campaign—I have not withdrawn my support for it—but I am concerned when any protest movement has unnecessary and avoidable collateral effects on communities. I am very glad that the campaigners withdrew from holding that inappropriate disco, and I hope that Jackie Baillie will continue to address the problems there. I have not heard anything to the contrary. If she wishes me to come along and help to mediate, I will be only too glad to do so. I have also been there to support members of the Scottish Green Party, including Patrick Harvie, in offering themselves for arrest at the base. Let that be absolutely clear.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Why is the motion not clearly anti-Trident? Why does it include the phrase "at this time"?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I would argue that the motion is clearly anti-Trident. The important thing is that the proposal to replace Trident undermines the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, international agreements and international law. We have the opportunity to support those 33 courageous Labour MPs who stood up in the House of Commons and voted against their party in defence of international law. That is the tenor of the motion and what it is about. It gives the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to support those 33 MPs, to support international law and to support the notion that Trident should not be replaced.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Certainly not from Rhona Brankin, given her inappropriate intervention on the matter of the rural affairs debate. I can tell members why we were not here. We wanted to speak and registered our interest to do so, but we were told that we would not get to speak, so we watched the entire debate in our offices.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is pathetic.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

It is not pathetic; it is what most members do most of the time when they are not engaged in debates in the chamber. That is enough of such Pontius Pilate Jesuitical nonsense.

The opening speakers did not say very much and avoided the tenor of the motion—the import of what we are talking about. Michael McMahon said that he would rather not be an accessory to the endeavour of the debate. I would rather not be a silent and willing accessory to the decision that was made in the House of Commons. This is the chance for the Scottish Parliament to register, on an international scale, its disagreement with that undermining of international law. The debate is not about the devolved settlement; it is about an international concern.

Murdo Fraser tried to take us into the general argument about whether we should have nuclear weapons at all. Yes, that could be debated in the Parliament, but it is not what we are debating today. The Conservatives know our position on that and we know theirs. He said that the debate is a self-indulgence; I say that saying we should not debate the issue in the chamber is a counsel of despair.

Replacing Trident is not a responsible action in the post-cold-war world. The argument that we need Trident as the ultimate defence is absolutely absurd—it is the ultimate bad example to set to the rest of the world. Scotland should become world renowned for its peaceful intentions and commitment to non-violence—the majority of the people of Scotland are committed in that respect—not as a country that aids and abets the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We want the Scottish Parliament to be a Parliament that is opposed to the immoral, illegal and unnecessary replacement of Trident. We want it to be a Parliament of peace, non-violence and integrity, that has the wisdom to recognise the utter folly of pursuing a new nuclear weapons system.

I congratulate Christina McKelvie and Bill Kidd on their speeches, and I thank Malcolm Chisholm, in particular, for his magnificent speech, which deserves a round of applause.

I will finish with what underlies our feelings on the matter. I quote Bertrand Russell, speaking in 1961 for the 12 most senior scientists in the world:

"There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels?"

The Conservatives are always referring back to the cold war. Good Lord, that happened a long time ago.

"We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

I ask members please to support the Green party motion, preferably unamended, at 5 o'clock.

Carbon Offsetting

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-173, in the name of Robin Harper, on carbon offsetting. Members should leave the chamber if they are not participating in the debate.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Carbon offsetting is a relatively new concept, whereby the amount of carbon that is emitted when we drive or fly, or as a result of manufacturing processes, is offset by someone else, somewhere else, who does something else to reduce carbon emissions. The concept has grown in popularity among individuals, private companies and even political parties, but it is increasingly coming under fire. It has been likened to the granting of papal indulgences in the middle ages, when the church offered a means for people who had committed a sin to buy their way out of hell—of course, hell was a very hot place.

Although Greens acknowledge that action by polluters to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change can play a useful role in supplementing sound Government environmental policy, the Government cannot seriously regard carbon offsetting as a substitute for policies that directly reduce carbon emissions.

In 2003, the Scottish Executive announced plans to plant trees alongside the new roads and motorways it planned to build, to offset the emissions from the vehicles that would use the new roads. The proposal was ridiculed after independent experts calculated that the Executive would need to plant 150 million trees over 100,000 hectares—a forest six times the size of Greater Glasgow—to soak up the carbon dioxide from vehicle exhausts. It was suggested that the Executive should plant fig trees, the leaves of which might at least be used to cover ministers' embarrassment. The Executive's tree-planting scheme was further undermined when experts pointed out that even if a gigantic forest could be planted, the carbon would not be locked into the forest in perpetuity. Trees do not stand for ever; they fall down, decay and release carbon back into the atmosphere. The planting of trees is, at best, a temporary measure. Of course, there are other excellent environmental reasons for planting trees. I am an avid tree planter, but I do not offset my carbon production against the trees that I plant.

So much for home-grown carbon offsetting, but what about the alternative, which is investment in projects in developing countries to offset our emissions? There are serious concerns that some projects might increase, rather than reduce, environmental, economic and social impacts. A report from the World Rainforest Movement outlined human rights abuses at the Mount Elgon national park in eastern Uganda. Villagers who live along the park's boundary have been beaten, shot at and barred from their land, and have had their livestock confiscated, by the armed park rangers who guard the so-called carbon trees inside the national park.

The Times reported recently that an Indian company

"has spent just £1.4m in equipment to reduce its emissions, but it will reap a profit of more than 200 times that amount from British investors and others."

So that it can increase its carbon offset gains, the company is expanding its production of chlorodifluoromethane, or HCFC-22—the replacement for the chlorofluorocarbons that used to be in fridges and are so damaging to the ozone layer—the manufacture of which incidentally produces the gas trifluoromethane, or HFC-23.

China is imposing a 65 per cent windfall tax on the money that is coming to companies through carbon offsetting.

The Environmental Audit Committee at Westminster said when it launched its inquiry into the voluntary carbon offset market:

"the carbon offset market ... is not always seen to be robustly regulated",

and went on to say:

"particular concerns surround the issues of proving additionality, of verification and monitoring, of the permanence of the offset, of possible leakage from offset projects and the potential for double-counting."

Greens are particularly concerned that any international development supported by offsetting must be additional to the existing commitments in that field, because only then will there be any prospect of a genuine contribution to sustainable development in poor countries.

An extensive report on carbon offsetting, which was published recently by Carbon Trade Watch, makes the fundamental criticism that carbon savings that are expected to be made in the future are counted as though they are made in the present. The authors of the report point out that such "future value accounting" was also used by Enron to inflate profits, with disastrous consequences.

There are serious concerns about ineffective offsetting schemes and about the difficulty of verifying the true value of many other offsetting schemes. There are also concerns about the on-the-ground impact of such schemes on people in developing countries. If carbon offsetting is to have any role in tackling climate change, there must be rigorous independent assessments of the full direct and indirect carbon impact of each project. Any scheme into which a Government enters must at least meet the criteria of the internationally recognised gold standard, the main purpose of which is to ensure that projects reduce carbon dioxide emissions and foster sustainable development. There must also be continuous updating of data throughout the lifetime of the offset infrastructure, to ascertain whether changes are required to annual offset funding.

However, if we are to reduce the carbon dioxide that we emit, there is no substitute for directly reducing our own emissions, here in Scotland—that is the bottom line.

I ask members to support the motion and I move,

That the Parliament notes the growing popularity of carbon offsetting among individuals and private companies; believes that actions by polluters to reduce carbon emissions elsewhere, or to mitigate the effects of climate change, can play a useful role in supplementing sound environmental policy by government; considers however that carbon offsetting cannot substitute for policies that reduce carbon emissions directly and that any role for offsetting should only be transitional; notes the widely held concerns about many commercial offsetting schemes and the difficulty in verifying the true value of most offsetting schemes; notes the Scottish Government's intention to introduce carbon offsetting in respect of transport infrastructure projects, and calls on the Scottish Government, before introducing such proposals, to consider issues such as the need for rigorous independent assessments of the full direct and indirect carbon impact of each project and its associated offset, continuous updating of data for the lifetime of the infrastructure to establish any changes required to the annual offset funding, compliance with the internationally-recognised Gold Standard and the need to ensure that overall transport policy leads to direct emission reductions.

EOF: CG turn AJ>

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Climate change is widely recognised as one of the most serious threats that face the world today. Unchecked, carbon emissions will have serious consequences for Scotland's people, economy and environment, and it should certainly not be dealt with solely by granting indulgences.

According to Sir Nicholas Stern, it would cost up to 1 per cent of the world's annual gross domestic product to stabilise emissions by the middle of the century, but—critically—failure to tackle emissions could cost 20 per cent of GDP. The longer we wait to take the necessary action, the more the cost to society will rise.

Action to avoid and reduce emissions is widely recognised as the most appropriate way of dealing with climate change, which is why we intend to consult on ambitious targets to reduce emissions in Scotland through our proposed climate change bill. Next week, we will announce to the Parliament our objectives for the bill, and we will discuss the bill's content with representatives of the Parliament and others during the coming month. I have started direct engagement with other parties on the matter—I have met representatives of half the parties in the Parliament and will meet representatives of the remaining two parties today. Climate change is truly a cross-cutting and cross-party issue and we need a long-term consensus if we are to succeed.

We know that everyday actions consume energy and produce carbon emissions, but people in Scotland need to travel and use energy—Scotland's economy depends on their doing so. Without access to good transport links and reliable energy supplies, Scottish businesses will be unable to compete in the global marketplace. That could result in our businesses relocating, taking their jobs and emissions with them and giving us a false sense of having reduced our output. Such a result simply would not benefit Scottish people or the global environment.

Avoiding and reducing emissions require action on many fronts. There is much that everyone can do simply by making smarter choices—there are smarter ways of doing business, of travelling and of reducing energy use. Although the smarter choices can reduce emissions, they do not eliminate them. That is why technology will be such an important part of our fight against climate change. Technology can provide us with new ways of generating as well as saving energy and new ways in which we can continue to grow Scotland's economy without growing carbon emissions.

That is why we want Scotland to become a global leader in developing solutions to the challenge of climate change and a pre-eminent location for clean energy research and development in Europe. We want Scotland to become the green energy capital of Europe. We can do that by playing to our strengths; other people will have the same ambition. We have unique potential for wave and tidal energy. We can build on the world-class Orkney test centre, which the previous Administration supported, and on indigenous expertise in the area. We can make Scotland the global byword for marine renewables, which are the new generation of renewables.

There is another option that can support efforts to reduce emissions: compensating for unavoidable emissions with an equivalent carbon saving. Carbon offsetting is not a cure for climate change, but it can play a part in reducing the impact of our immediate actions. If offsets can be purchased, it means that carbon emissions have a cost that can be avoided if emissions are reduced. A climate strategy that includes offsetting can help to raise awareness of the carbon impact of actions, influence behaviours to reduce carbon emissions where possible and thus help to drive down further emissions.

We want to lead by example. Continuing from the previous Executive, we want to reduce emissions from our own travel. When I meet David Miliband in London on Monday with representatives of the other devolved Administrations, I shall travel by train. I am afraid that I have to fly back, but at least I have made that 50 per cent reduction. On another occasion, my diary will be better arranged.

Climate change will not be solved by a single country, organisation or action and it will not be solved in a day, a week or a month; it is a long-term issue that requires a coalition of commitment that transcends a single Parliament or Administration and crosses political, economic, geographic and country boundaries—it is a genuine cross-cutting issue.

Carbon offsetting is one of the measures that should be properly considered. I welcome the debate as an opportunity to do so.

I move amendment S3M-173.4, to leave out from "transport policy" to end and insert:

"policy, including transport policy, leads to direct emissions reductions."

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We welcome the debate and hope that it will lead to further detailed discussions about the issues that are involved.

Yesterday we debated how to achieve a greener Scotland. Putting targets in place to drive action and ensuring that Scotland plays its part in meeting our United Kingdom and global commitments are crucial, but we need to ensure that we put transport at the core of our policies. Reducing our need to travel must be part of that challenge. That is why Labour in government was so committed to vastly increasing our public transport expenditure, moving freight off our roads, improving communications technology and using videoconferencing and phone calls—I strongly recommend that. Although we can never eliminate the need to travel, we have to look at travel reduction as well as new infrastructure.

We must develop joined-up thinking to deliver what are sometimes minor incremental changes. Can one park a bike anywhere in a new development? Can one store a bike safely in a new housing development? Although those seemingly minor ideas would not count as part of a transport policy, failing to implement them could make it impossible for people to make low-carbon travel choices. That is why the debate cannot just be about transport infrastructure; it must be about wider transport policy linkages.

We must focus on how people access new infrastructure and how they use it—whether that is through improved public transport information, park and ride facilities or transport hubs. It is also about improving subsidies and the quality of bus subsidies, ensuring, for example, that older people retain the ability to travel on buses without being excluded because of cost. There are genuine carbon benefits in that policy.

Of course, the debate is also about major transport infrastructure projects. That is why we continue to support projects such as the Edinburgh trams; the Airdrie to Bathgate, Stirling to Alloa and Borders rail lines; the upgrading of Waverley station; and Glasgow crossrail. Also crucial are the airport rail links, which would cut road traffic on some of our congested road networks.

Reducing our emissions has to come first. While making sure that we are not looking only at building transport infrastructure, we must look at travel and use of the infrastructure. I welcome the fact that the new minister will continue with the example that was set by previous ministers. It is crucial that not only ministers but the whole Executive and all Executive agencies should be required to travel more sustainably. The Executive should make it more desirable as well as the default option wherever possible. It will then be able to manage down some of the carbon emissions and set a lead.

We are not talking about banning people from using cars—far from it. There will always be circumstances in which the car is the only available choice, but the Executive has to lead the way. We need to ensure that it manages down its own emissions so that others can be persuaded to follow.

We have heard much talk from the new SNP minority Government in the past few weeks about the need to review transport projects to ensure value for money. It will not have escaped many people that the two projects over which Alex Salmond has chosen to hold an axe are those that offer the greatest opportunities to get people out of their cars and on to public transport and to reduce emissions. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which was published during the election campaign, reinforced the need for us to redouble our efforts to get going on carbon emissions reduction.

We will not support the SNP amendment, because it deletes the reference to transport. We need to ensure that air transport is included in the emissions schemes. That would be a big step forward. What will replace Kyoto will be important, but we must start acting now. As a constructive Opposition, we want to concentrate minds and scrutinise budget proposals not just for the financial but for the carbon implications—that must be standard.

Robin Harper is absolutely right that we need properly accredited carbon offsetting schemes, but they should be at the bottom of the policy hierarchy, after we have done everything else. We agree with the principles behind the Tory amendment. We should raise with people just how much carbon offsetting costs. It will get us thinking about doing the right thing first rather than last. We need to reduce our travel and make it more sustainable and make sure that carbon offsetting is the last choice, rather than something that the Government crows about.

I move amendment S3M-173.1, to leave out from "and that any role" to end and insert:

"or indirectly; notes the crucial role that transport policy must play in meeting carbon reduction targets and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to ensure that potential carbon reduction is a central consideration in the evaluation and prioritisation of transport infrastructure projects; reaffirms support for a balanced and sustainable transport policy with the bulk of investment being targeted towards reducing unnecessary journeys and congestion, widening transport choices by providing high-quality and affordable public transport options and support for walking and cycling; further notes the Executive's intention to introduce carbon offsetting, and calls on ministers to consult widely on the applicability and robustness of such schemes, demonstrating that carbon offsetting is additional to rather than a substitute for the direct or indirect planned reduction of carbon emissions."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank Robin Harper and the Greens for introducing this issue for debate. Although we have not discussed carbon offsetting at great length in the Parliament, it has nevertheless become important in many people's thinking. However, there are those who are concerned that carbon offsetting might not deliver all that we would wish it to.

The truth is that carbon offsetting is to some extent the privilege of the relatively well off. The experience in my party and of individuals within it makes it clear that we can offset carbon emissions if we wish to make a difference. The Conservatives make an effort to offset the carbon that is generated by our activity as a political party. Famously, David Cameron is an active carbon offsetter whenever the opportunity arises. The Conservative party and David Cameron have decided that the money that is spent on carbon offsetting should pay double by being spent on third-world projects—for example, the replacement of thermal with solar power plants. Not only do such projects deliver benefits locally, they deliver the secondary benefit of economic development in the area.

However, the importance that is attached to carbon trading perhaps reflects the complex nature of carbon offsetting. As other members have pointed out, significant concern has been expressed about how we can regulate carbon offsetting and ensure that it does us some good. Many programmes that have been supported under the Kyoto agreement have failed to achieve as much as some of the programmes that are not on the approved list. As a result, in deciding how to offset carbon, the Government in Scotland must evaluate the various programmes to ensure that it employs the best available, not simply those that have achieved international recognition.

The Conservatives are pleased to support the SNP amendment, because we feel that it extends the range of the terms of the motion. The Labour amendment, on the other hand, seeks to introduce a couple of additional elements. We do not object to that, especially as we agree with a broad range of the points that it sets out. However, I seek clarification of what is meant by

"high-quality and affordable public transport options".

In that context, the word "affordable" could be interpreted in two ways. Are the options affordable only for public transport users or are they also affordable for the taxpayer? If we do not use taxpayers' money responsibly in the development of "high-quality ... public transport options", we might find ourselves in a difficult position in the long term. The Conservative amendment, of course, refers to the cost of carbon offsetting, because we are always concerned about the cost to the taxpayer. That said, although I seek clarification of that element of the Labour amendment, I agree with its broad thrust.

The Liberal Democrats' amendment seems to suffer from the fact that they have been toppled out of government. For a start, they applaud their own record in government, when, in fact, most of the initiatives that they highlight were brought in through the efforts of Sarah Boyack as a Labour minister and, later, as a Labour back bencher.

We must tackle the issue of carbon reduction head on. Carbon offsetting is an indulgence that salves the consciences only of the relatively well-off. Although Government must approach the matter carefully, cutting carbon must still be the first priority.

I move amendment S3M-173.2, to insert, after "and its associated offset":

"and the related cost to the taxpayer of such schemes,".

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I find it interesting that the Green party has brought a debate on carbon offsetting to the Parliament. However, the Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that we must have a much wider debate than that. I remind the chamber that the previous Scottish coalition Government introduced the first-ever Scottish climate change target, which sought to exceed the Scottish share of the UK target by an additional 1 million tonnes by 2010. I believe that such a move should be applauded.

At best, when it is carried out by a reputable organisation, carbon offsetting is a short-term approach; at worst, it is a dangerous diversion from the real problem and an excuse for inaction. Organisations, businesses, and individuals striving to tackle climate change should be encouraged to consider other actions first.

It might be useful to compare the issue with what happened many years ago when waste management issues started to come to the fore. Many of the early discussions and actions focused on how and what we should recycle, and it took some time to reach a proper recognition of the fact that some key steps were being missed out. Now we have all become used to the waste hierarchy of reduce, reuse and then recycle.

We must take the same rigorous approach in tackling climate change. Indeed, before we even think about carbon offsetting, we need to take two significant steps: first, we must reduce direct emissions; and, secondly, we must work with others to reduce indirect emissions and establish markets for low-carbon energy products. Only then will it be appropriate to consider carbon offsetting and, as other members have pointed out, the integrity of the offset must be guaranteed. Offsetting must be the last resort, not the first thought. In that respect, I commend the work of the Carbon Trust, which has helped to bring about change by working with local government and the public and private sectors.

I note the Scottish Government's intention to introduce a climate change bill. We believe that such a bill and other Government action should set challenging targets for reducing carbon emissions of at least 12.5 per cent by 2010 and 60 per cent by 2050. Also, the SNP manifesto commitment to annual targets will need to be complemented by an annual report to Parliament.

However, it is imperative that, as the climate change bill is drawn up, we do not find ourselves deflected from taking action now. After all, a great deal can be done without requiring new primary legislation. We believe that early action must be taken before the bill is introduced to reduce energy use, improve energy efficiency and support microgeneration. If we are to achieve a sustainable future, energy use reduction must come first. The issue is as much about reducing energy demand as it is about generating new clean energy.

Early action brings opportunities. For example, by tackling energy efficiency and building zero-energy houses we can help to reduce fuel poverty. Given the clear link between fuel poverty and poor health, such investment can bring both direct and indirect benefits.

The development and commercialisation of new technologies must be accelerated, which is why the Scottish Liberal Democrats have proposed the establishment of a carbon challenge demonstration fund to support innovative low-carbon developments. Scotland can be a leader in this field. The country is certainly well placed to take advantage of the economic opportunities in renewable energies, biofuels, forestry and construction. Moreover, the public sector must take the lead in ensuring that all Scottish government buildings and transport become carbon neutral by 2012.

Although energy production and use are the greatest producers of greenhouse gases, transport, too, has a significant impact on the environment, and we will never truly tackle climate change if we do not address the problem of carbon emissions from and energy use of transport.

Under the previous Government, investment in public transport was at record levels. Such transport accounted for 70 per cent of funding, and that high level of investment should be retained. However, I am sad to say that the new Government's comments in the chamber over the past couple of weeks suggest that it will not be. It is simply not credible for the SNP to talk about a climate change bill while at the same time claiming that it will ditch the Edinburgh trams scheme. Scrapping major public transport projects will render existing and future plans to reduce carbon emissions unattainable.

Robin Harper's motion does not go to the heart of the issue. As a result, I move amendment S3M-173.3, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"applauds the introduction by the previous Scottish Government of the first-ever Scottish climate change target to exceed the Scottish share of the UK target by an additional one million tonnes by 2010; notes the intention of the current Scottish Government to introduce a climate change Bill; believes that this Bill and other government action should set challenging and achievable targets for reducing carbon emissions of at least 12.5% by 2010 and 60% by 2050; further notes the SNP manifesto commitment to annual targets to reduce carbon emissions; welcomes the commitment to a climate change Bill but believes that early action should be taken in advance of the Bill to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy use and support microgeneration; further believes that the public sector should take the lead by ensuring that all Scottish Government buildings and transport become carbon neutral by 2012; considers that carbon offsetting should normally be viewed as a last resort as a carbon reduction measure, and is concerned that the SNP Government's transport plans and opposition to public transport plans will render existing and future plans to reduce carbon emissions unattainable."

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real—indeed, it is perhaps the greatest challenge that faces humanity. I say that the consensus is overwhelming, not unanimous, to allow for the peculiar workings of the collective, em, intelligence of the Bush Administration. However, this is as much a development and global justice issue as it is an environment issue.

Rich countries such as the UK are responsible for climate change. Although such change is driven by our excessive carbon emissions, the poor countries will bear the brunt of the impact. Hundreds of millions face drought, floods, starvation and disease. The World Health Organisation estimates that climate change is already causing over 160,000 deaths per year, and the World Development Movement has estimated that a 4°C rise in global temperature could mean that 300 million more people who live on the coast will suffer from flooding. Of course, most of those victims will be in developing countries.

Those statistics on the potential horrors of our future are but the tip of the iceberg. Of course, future politicians will probably not be able to use that allusion unless, as with Dr Who's TARDIS, they first explain to younger listeners just what an iceberg was.

Yet, despite all the misery and suffering that lie before us, all the recent pledges and all the targets and speeches, UK greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Although the UK Government has claimed world leadership on climate change, it is likely to miss its 2010 target for emission cuts by 20 per cent. In fact, since Labour came to power, UK carbon emissions have increased by about 5 per cent. To make matters worse, we still await a UK Government commitment to annual reduction targets.

The Scottish Government has committed itself to introducing a climate change bill, which will have a mandatory target of a 3 per cent reduction in emissions per annum and a long-term target of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. Such a move stands in clear contrast to the failures of the UK Government.

That commitment to reducing Scotland's impact on global warming underpins the SNP commitment to renewable energy. Indeed, we must not forget that in 2004 energy accounted for 38 per cent of Scotland's emissions. However, we need energy from renewables, not nuclear energy. It is not our intention to leave future Scots, even unto the 50th generation, to deal with our waste. We must deal with our own problems today.

Some members will no doubt be thinking at this point that I have not yet mentioned the subject of the debate, carbon offsetting but have instead been speaking about emissions. The answer to that is simple. Offsetting offers us an opportunity to help to reduce global warming, but it is not a replacement for reducing emissions and it cannot be used as an excuse for inactivity. More important, offsetting cannot be allowed to cover up inactivity. There must be a suspicion that when organisations publish their offsetting figures but not their reduction figures, they are failing to meet the challenges that are presented by global warming.

Scotland has potential for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions and for carbon capture. I hope that the opportunities that are presented at Peterhead will not be lost through UK Government inactivity. There are several potential schemes, and I would like to suggest one. There is great enthusiasm in Scotland for the regeneration of the ancient remnants of Caledonian pine forest. That would be a gold-standard project. Caledonian pine forest is home to a wide range of species, including Scotland's only indigenous bird species, the Scottish crossbill. Not only would we be offsetting omissions, we would be making a significant contribution to Scotland's natural heritage. Furthermore, the regenerated forests would be intended to stand for generations—it would be long-term carbon capture.

There is an additional advantage. To regenerate the Caledonian pine forests, we must reduce Scotland's massive red deer population. Ruminants are a source of methane, which is approximately 23 times more potent in its global warming effect than carbon dioxide. Reducing the red deer population would bring an addition benefit to such a scheme. The regeneration of Caledonian pine forest is, by every measure, a gold-standard scheme.

I welcome the Government's commitment to fighting global warming. The fact that it has had the courage to commit itself to annual reductions is a significant step—although that is apparently a step too far for the UK Government and new Labour.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this morning's Scottish Green Party debate on carbon offsetting. There is no doubt that global warming presents a tremendous threat not just to Scotland but to the international community. We have a great opportunity to combat climate change and the increase in greenhouse gases in order to build a country that will be safe not only for our children but for future generations.

In meeting that challenge, carbon offsetting has been identified as a mechanism giving individuals and businesses the opportunity to compensate for their carbon dioxide emissions. It is well intentioned, but it has a minimal impact. A recent investigation by the Financial Times indicated some flaws. The investigation revealed worthless credits, through which the carbon that was defined was not in fact recovered and it showed that some brokers were not providing value for money and, in some instances, were providing very little service. It further indicated that verification was flimsy, with a lack of controls. Carbon offsetting can be used, but it should be used as a last resort. When it is used, it is important that appropriate controls are in place in order that the offsets can be measured and we can see what the CO2 reductions are.

The best way to combat climate change is to reduce our carbon footprint by reducing carbon emissions. There is a duty on Government to drive that agenda forward, but there is also a duty on us all—individuals, businesses and the public sector. There are some excellent practical examples in Scotland of organisations that are carrying the agenda forward. In my area, South Lanarkshire Council, which covers 300,000 people, 686 square miles, 1,300 buildings and 600 staff, produces 48,000 tonnes of CO2. The council has measured and recognised that and it has signed up to a five-year plan to combat carbon emissions and reduce their effect.

Building specifications are a big area in which improvements can be made. The Scottish Natural Heritage building in Inverness has a specification that is 30 per cent greater than the current convention. As a report on "Good Morning Scotland" this morning indicated, individuals are moving from using tumble dryers to drying clothes outside, which has resulted in a fourteenfold increase in the sale of clothes-pegs.

The way forward lies in strong Government action. Unlike the previous speaker, I welcome the strong action that has been taken by the UK Government and the previous Scottish Executive. Transport, which represents 18 per cent of our carbon footprint, is a key area. It is important to have an efficient transport system. A balance is needed, as transport is an important driver for the economy.

Carbon offsetting has a minimal impact and should be used only as a last resort. The onus lies on Government, individuals, businesses and the public sector to drive down CO2 emissions and produce a Scotland and an international community that are safe for future generations to grow up in.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

This debate gives me an opportunity to speak about measurement. In the end, it is all about how we use numbers, and our numbers are only as good as our measurements. There is a certain amount of kudos attached to the phrase "thinking outside the box". I suggest that, to get good measurements, we have to stand outside the box.

If we want to know whether the planet is warming up, we need to go out into space and look. We need to measure the heat coming off the planet and the heat going into the planet. That can be done quite simply and, although there are statistical problems with measuring a large sphere, that will tell us whether or not the planet is warming up. It cannot be measured down here.

If we want to know, for example, whether a nuclear power station emits a lot of carbon—we will no doubt come back to that example—we do not need to consider the process whereby the uranium degrades, which has nothing to do with carbon, but to consider the amount of carbon that is involved in constructing the power station, in maintaining it, in decommissioning it and, critically, in refining the uranium fuel. Those amounts will change over time.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member concede that the same calculations should be used regarding the building of wind turbines?

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I absolutely agree. If I had time, I would move on to the subject of the foundations that we seem to insist on putting underneath wind turbines and other structures. However, time does not permit.

In considering transport systems, we must do exactly the same thing. It is no good telling me how much carbon my car uses; I have to know what speed it is travelling at and how far it is going. If it is possible to eliminate congestion, it will be possible to eliminate my car going slowly or going nowhere and emitting a great deal of carbon for no benefit.

In addressing the issues about transport systems, we need to ask ourselves how we minimise the impact of getting from A to B and back to A. We must ask ourselves whether people can park at their local station and whether their local train runs often enough and has enough carriages to transport them to where they want to go. It is not enough to blame everything on the car. It is not enough to examine individual schemes in isolation. We have to build a big box, look at it from the outside and measure absolutely everything.

I ventured into the subject of measurement because we tend not to discuss it, and that is because it is quite difficult. If we do not venture there, however, our numbers will be wrong, our calculations will be wrong and our conclusions will be wrong.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome the chance that the Green party has given us to discuss carbon offsetting. As always, Robin Harper has put forward his party's position on the subject well and entertainingly. I had not considered the carbon impact of hell before; I am not sure what we can do about it.

The motion is right to say that we need to be sure that we use the most effective methods to address climate change. However, although the Greens put the SNP in power, which I must say was a remarkable act of generosity, given that they lost so many seats to the SNP in the election—it was like Caesar promoting Brutus from beyond the grave—it is not surprising that they have become a bit nervous about the divergence between their strategies on climate change and those of the SNP. The motion refers to the Executive's intention to introduce carbon offsetting for transport projects, but the Greens argue—rightly, in my view—that offsetting is not enough. However, that comes after the Greens put the SNP in power, despite the fact that the SNP, like me, supports the Aberdeen western peripheral route while the Greens oppose it. However, we now understand that, perhaps as a concession to the Green party, the project is under review, which I must say has been met with dismay in Aberdeen.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is not.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Okay. We need more clarity on that, because that is not what has been said previously.

In relation to effective strategies for minimising the carbon emissions that result from transport policy, I converge with the Greens on the need for consideration of the overall weighting of transport investment. In particular, I agree that it is crucial to prioritise further investment in improving our railway infrastructure. The Executive seeks to prioritise road-building projects, such as dualling the A9, rather than schemes such as the Edinburgh airport rail link, which Alison McInnes mentioned, or the tram system. In my region, I want the Aberdeen crossrail scheme to proceed from the planning to the construction stage. I know that the Green party agrees with me on that and I hope that SNP members do, too, as it is a crucial measure to improve public transport and address congestion. However, the Executive's Scottish transport appraisal guidance, which is used to assess the value and viability of transport proposals, has traditionally been weighted to favour road over rail.

Therefore, I am attracted to the motion's proposal for

"rigorous independent assessments of the ... carbon impact of each project",

as that may create a more level playing field for those who make the case for rail projects. Our amendment talks about making

"potential carbon reduction ... a central consideration in the evaluation and prioritisation of transport ... projects".

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the member agree that, in considering the Edinburgh airport rail link project's total carbon impact, we should take account of the extra emissions from the tripling of air transport, along with the emissions from the construction of the scheme?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

There is a debate to be had about the fact that an increase in the number of direct flights from Scottish airports can reduce the overall number of flights that people in Scotland make.

Although there is heated debate in the Parliament about transport policy and its impact on carbon emissions, there appears to be broad agreement on strategies for carbon offsetting and its place in the overall policy on climate change. The Executive has inherited a legacy of investment in public transport and renewables because Labour set strong foundations for progress in this crucial area. For as long as the Executive is in place, we will oppose measures that run counter to that and support those that will help to achieve the progress that it is vital for Scotland to make in our contribution to tackling climate change.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to sum up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in today's Green party debate. The SNP has pledged to

"offset the carbon impact of major government projects, including much needed improvements to Scotland's road network."

I do not know how many trees will have to be planted to make up for the shelving of vital public projects such as the Edinburgh trams or the Borders railway, but Mr Stevenson may soon need to look out his spade to plant a few trees. The SNP member Nigel Don complained about being stuck in his car—perhaps he will follow my lead and bring a motorbike to Holyrood every morning.

I am glad that the Greens have raised the issue, because my party believes that carbon offsetting has a role in reducing carbon emissions. However, I make it clear that offsetting is not a suitable substitute for reducing emissions at source, although it can sometimes be the next best solution. There should be no complacency when considering carbon offsetting schemes. The bottom line is that carbon offsetting will not tackle the problems of the current Administration's anti-public transport agenda. We need systematic social change if the Executive is to deal with climate change effectively.

A recent Financial Times survey concluded that instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that yield no reductions in carbon emissions are widespread and that many brokers provide services of questionable or no value. It also found a shortage of verification, which makes it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits. If Scotland is to pursue a policy of carbon offsetting, offset schemes, as well as infrastructure schemes, should be assessed independently for carbon emissions. There must be transparency, so that consumers can see what they are buying and how it works.

We must see the results of carbon offsetting immediately. For example, if an individual takes an international flight, the 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide that need to be offset are emitted within a matter of days. However, if they pay into a tree-planting scheme, the project may undertake to offset the emissions only over the next 100 years. That is far from ideal and, although it may provide people with a sense of social responsibility, it will not provide immediate reductions in carbon emissions. Another problem is that large-scale tree plantations can decrease biodiversity, displace people and cause social disruption. Doubts have recently been cast on the contribution to reducing carbon dioxide levels of planting trees outside the tropics, especially when trees are planted in peat-based soils, because of the carbon release from the peat.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that the Scottish Executive has a huge opportunity to extend the use of money that is gathered through carbon offsetting to underpin the Scottish forestry industry in years to come?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Of course I agree.

Although the Liberal Democrats welcome a carbon offset scheme, it must be introduced only if it complements a large range of effective carbon- reducing measures and then only if the environmental impact is assessed. As has been said, the Liberal Democrats, as part of the previous Executive, set the first-ever Scottish climate change target, to exceed our share of the UK carbon savings by an additional 1 million tonnes in 2010. The new Administration needs to step up and provide firm targets that can be shown to be achieved and that have real and clearly detailed objectives, rather than socially favourable schemes that some might see as a token effort in dealing with carbon emissions and climate change, rather than a serious and workable commitment.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As we all know, climate change is a serious issue for the world and we must all play our part in trying to reduce carbon emissions, which are resulting in the temperature rise that threatens our planet as we know it. The best and most important way in which to achieve that is to change our behaviour so that we reduce our carbon footprint by whatever means we can, for example, by going back to eating local produce whenever we can, by using public transport rather than cars more often, by keeping air travel to a minimum and by cutting the amount of gas and electricity that we use. We all know what needs doing to cut carbon emissions, but we do not live a utopian existence and inevitably will continue to produce the pollutants that contribute to global warming, albeit, I hope, on a lesser scale. Of course, that applies to businesses and Government as well as to individuals.

Carbon offsetting is a reasonable way in which to help compensate for our lifestyles and contribute to the battle against climate change. However, although it undoubtedly has a part to play, it should not be at the expense of the required change in behaviour. From what has been said, no one here disagrees with that. We understand the concerns about the viability of many of the offsetting schemes that are in operation. Serious issues arise about the environmental credibility of many of the available carbon credit schemes, with allegations that consumers are being ripped off by paying for projects that already exist or that make no contribution to reducing carbon emissions. It is difficult to verify the real value of most offsetting schemes but, as the motion suggests, we need rigorous independent assessment of each project's direct and indirect carbon impact and its associated offset. Our amendment is important too, because it is only right that the taxpayer should know just what the Government spends on such schemes.

Because of the serious concerns about the worth of some offsetting projects, we support the proposed gold standard that is being developed south of the border by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, as Alex Johnstone said, we feel that the criteria should be broadened to include voluntary schemes that are not Kyoto-approved projects, which are the only ones that DEFRA will currently agree to include, despite the fact that some of the voluntary schemes save more carbon than the Kyoto-registered ones. Because deforestation contributes 20 per cent of worldwide carbon emissions, which is more than transport contributes, we want avoided deforestation credits to be adopted in the Kyoto process, to acknowledge the importance of preserving existing trees and forests, which absorb more carbon than new forests do.

The gold-standard code of practice that is being developed at Westminster may or may not cover all of the UK. We would like to know whether the SNP Government wishes to adopt that standard or would rather develop a separate scheme for Scotland.

We would also like to know which offset scheme the SNP intends to use in fulfilling its manifesto pledge to offset Government-induced emissions. Whichever scheme it selects should have the highest proven carbon reductions, even if they come from a voluntary project rather than a Kyoto-registered one.

Finally, we think it hugely important that, before it considers offsetting, the Government commits to emissions reductions—for example, by investing in better energy efficiency and in renewable energy in publicly owned buildings.

This has by and large been a consensual debate on an important issue. We have no argument with the Green party's motion, other than with the non-inclusion of the cost to the taxpayer. We hope to gain support across the chamber for our amendment to that effect.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

This has been an interesting debate with some effective contributions. I may be a little less positive about offsetting than others. The consideration of offsetting is a result of increasing awareness among the general public of climate change, and that is a good thing. However, offsetting has also become fashionable as a means of salving people's consciences when it comes to the use of unsustainable means of transport or sources of energy. If we are to address climate change, we will all have to change our behaviour and adapt. That will not be achieved by merely making a financial contribution towards some kind of environmental activity. Unless we reduce direct and indirect carbon use, offsetting is purely a veil for our consciences.

That is not to say that offsetting is always a bad thing. For individuals—provided that offsetting schemes are properly validated and there is genuine environmental benefit—offsetting is better than not offsetting. However, it is not a substitute for individuals changing their behaviour in the first place—for example, by reducing the number of flights taken, by reducing the number of unnecessary journeys made, or by using public rather than private transport. Sarah Boyack mentioned many such issues in her speech.

Two or three of the arguments in our amendment are different from the arguments in the Greens' motion. We mention the need to take into account indirect as well as direct emissions. We stress that carbon offsetting has to be additional to other measures rather than a substitute for them. We also focus on affordability. I would like to respond to Alex Johnstone's point. We are very interested that public transport should be affordable to users. A problem in recent years has been that the price of public transport has risen much more than the price of private transport. We have to address that problem. I accept Alex's point that we have to ensure that public transport projects and roads projects are affordable. The Government will have to be responsible for managing the costs of such projects.

There will have to be a wide debate on these issues and a separate debate on private offsetting—the schemes that apply to individuals. Governments have responsibility for managing, controlling and reducing carbon emissions, but if they started talking about offsetting schemes, I would worry that they were moving away from the direction that they should be going in. We will examine the climate change bill and any offsetting proposals within it to ensure that they are not a substitute for, or a distraction from, the control and reduction of direct and indirect emissions. We will have to bear that in mind.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Like others, I am pleased to have been part of this interesting and valuable debate, which has helped to highlight some of the complexities that should be considered in any decisions on using carbon offsetting as a response to climate change.

I will refer to some of the contributions made, starting with that of Mrs McInnes. She stressed that we should not wait for a climate change bill before introducing initiatives, and I agree absolutely. We will continue to take every opportunity to make progress. At official level, we have been discussing energy efficiency with the UK Government and considering how we can jointly make improvements. Such issues will form part of my discussions with David Miliband when I meet him in London on Monday.

Bill Wilson mentioned Peterhead. As a number of members may know, my colleague Jim Mather today provided section 36 consent, under the Electricity Act 1989, for energy generation of 550MW from decarbonised fuel at Peterhead. That is but one part of a project that would have faced substantial hurdles had we denied that consent.

I was delighted to hear from John Park that sales of clothes-pegs have increased fourteenfold.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

It was not John Park.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Not John Park? I beg members' pardon.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

It was James Kelly.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I beg James's pardon. I grovel before him. I hope that the clothes-pegs in question were wooden ones made from renewable sources rather than plastic ones made from fuel oil.

I can advise Mr Hume that my wife has planted 46 trees in the past 18 months. We are making as much progress as we can as individuals.

Nanette Milne spoke about energy-efficient buildings. I have been involved in discussions on building standards and I think that we will bring some good news on the contribution to energy efficiency that will result from the next updating of the standards, which will be in the not-too-distant future.

Des McNulty rightly focused on the need for changes to individuals' behaviour. Being made the minister with responsibility for tackling climate change has caused me to think about the issues in a new way. I hope that the climate change bill will have a similar effect on us all.

Since becoming minister, I have reduced my top speed in the car by 5mph. Interestingly, that has resulted in a reduction of only 2mph in my average speed, but a reduction of slightly over 10 per cent in the amount of fuel that I use. The challenge now is to travel less distance and to use more sustainable means of doing so. Quite simple things that we can do as individuals can start to make a difference. The Government wants to encourage people to do those simple things.

Offsetting has a value, but suppose that we did nothing directly but reduced our net carbon impact by exporting all our carbon use through offsetting alone. That would not be helpful, and it would not be possible either. Offsetting is a palliative in the short term; it raises awareness and helps us to engage with the issue, but in the long term it really is not the answer.

We want to work with other Administrations and, as I have indicated, with other parties. The tenor of the debate bodes well for engagement on the climate change bill. I repeat: our climate change targets are challenging and long term. They cover many Parliaments and will transcend many Administrations. Offsetting should be viewed as a small part of a hierarchy of actions, but the most effective way to avoid or reduce emissions will be by changing behaviours. Developing and adopting new low-carbon technologies will play a part in reducing emissions. When it is not possible to avoid or reduce emissions, cost-effective offsetting, providing auditable carbon reductions, can have a role. That is why the Executive sees value in properly auditable initiatives and why we will consider whether offsetting can play a role in our future plans.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

We initiated the debate as the beginning of a discussion about this complex issue and I am grateful to all members who have engaged constructively in that conversation, not least Nigel Don. I am sorry that he has just left the chamber, because he made a thought-provoking speech that I was glad to hear.

There is general global debate about what role market-based mechanisms can have in tackling climate change. For Governments, emissions trading is the main expression of that idea. Among many individuals and businesses, to whom such trading mechanisms do not directly apply, the idea of voluntary offsetting has gained some popularity. They want to do the right thing. That is, of course, to be welcomed, but the question is whether the Government should not only endorse that approach, but initiate its own offsetting policies.

I echo Des McNulty's comments on that. If we accept the concept of offsetting—as many politicians from a number parties do—there can only be a case for using it in relation to so-called housekeeping emissions to offset or attempt to offset a particular journey or the total emissions from running a conference or major event. The arguments about offsetting infrastructure projects are very different from those on offsetting housekeeping emissions.

Robin Harper compared commercial offsetting to papal indulgences or even fig-leaves. He talked about good reasons for many international development measures and domestic tree planting but made it clear that such measures cannot, in themselves, simply be totted up and offset against polluting practices and policies or used as an excuse for continuing such practices and policies elsewhere. Jim Hume also spelled out the difference between burning ancient carbon—the carbon cycle of which is on a timescale of geological time—and replacing it with tree planting, which is on a short carbon cycle.

Stewart Stevenson was one of many members who talked about the importance of climate change as an issue that faces the world. I welcome the commitment to the climate change bill. I look forward to the statement next week and to seeing the contents of the bill when it arrives, but I question the stated intention of attempting to offset transport infrastructure projects. I hope that my questions are constructive and I look forward to receiving the answers to them, because the intention to offset is an implicit acceptance that those infrastructure projects are not sustainable.

I also express a little disappointment that Stewart Stevenson stated that he would have to take a domestic flight. I do not accept that there is a case for flying on this small island in any except life or death circumstances and for essential island connections, which are the only option for some people. I regret that his visit to see Mr Miliband will leave him in a position comparable to Nicol Stephen's after his urgent and necessary trip to the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards last year.

I also echo a lot of what Sarah Boyack said. She laid out a clear case for a truly sustainable transport policy and advanced many arguments with which I agree, not least on the Edinburgh tram system and the Glasgow crossrail.

Richard Baker mentioned the Aberdeen crossrail. I reassure him that I am no more nervous about criticising the unsustainable transport policies of my SNP colleagues than I am about criticising those of the Labour Party, not least the Edinburgh airport rail link. We are critical of that project because we regard its business case as being predicated on a further dramatic expansion of aviation and because it will have to compete for passengers with the trams, which risks undermining the case for not only building but completing the tram network, which would serve the whole city, not only airport passengers.

We also disagree with all the other parties on major road building projects. I find myself unable to support either the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat amendments. Those parties have supported projects such as the M74 extension and have simply pointed to a few green-thread policies as an excuse for pursuing unsustainable transport policies. For them to use phrases such as "sustainable transport" is the political equivalent of offsetting. They have their green threads so that they can carry on with business as usual.

Alex Johnstone mentioned Mr Cameron's offsetting habit. I cannot agree with that, but I am glad that Alex Johnstone entered into the debate properly and acknowledged the concerns that many people have about offsetting. His amendment detracts nothing and adds a little, so we can support it.

Alison McInnes said that climate change needs a much wider debate. I agree and hope that she agrees that this debate takes nothing away from that. We need to debate offsetting in advance of the Government introducing its climate change bill and proposals on offsetting—if that is what happens—not least because of the limitations that she mentioned in relation to offsetting. We initiated the debate not because we are overly concerned about the text of a motion or an amendment, but because we have a general concern about the concept of offsetting.

I recommend that members look at the website cheatneutral.com, which urges people who feel the need to be unfaithful to their partners to fund somebody else to be faithful as a way of offsetting the amount of pain and unhappiness that they are generating in the world. It urges people to think about how to reduce their unfaithfulness to sustainable levels first. It is satire, of course, but it makes the point about what offsetting really is.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to help address the needs of carers. (S3O-207)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I thank Bashir Ahmad for raising the issue during carers week.

We recognise the crucial role that Scotland's thousands of unpaid carers play and the importance of ensuring that they can access the support that they need. The Scottish Government is committed to intensifying efforts to take forward the conclusions of the care 21 report. Specific initiatives to improve support to carers will be considered in the forthcoming spending review.

However, as a signal of our intent, I announced earlier today an additional £400,000 over the next two years to help to address two of the care 21 recommendations: we will establish a young carer forum to help give young carers a greater voice in Scottish public life and we will work with the national carer organisations to extend their piloting of carer training, helping carers—particularly new carers—to gain the knowledge and skills that they need to cope more effectively with their caring role.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I welcome the Executive's commitment to carers throughout Scotland. For too long, ethnic origin and language have been unacceptable barriers to ethnic minority carers receiving much-needed support. Will the minister carefully consider more support for ethnic minority carers?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Public bodies, including local authorities and health boards, are responsible for ensuring that their services meet the needs of the ethnic minority carers. Indeed, they have a legal duty to do so. Guidelines on carer assessments highlight the need for assessments to be culturally sensitive and to offer interpreting support where needed. National health service carer information strategies, which are just coming into effect, are specifically required to address the identification and information needs of carers from ethnic minority groups. In addition, I will ensure that the additional piloting of carer training that I announced earlier today includes work on training for carers from ethnic minority communities.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Executive what analysis of the 7,000 patients presenting at the Vale of Leven hospital integrated care project has been carried out by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. (S3O-211)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

That is a matter for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde but, as the member is aware, no decisions have been taken on proposals for service change at the Vale of Leven hospital. However, I have been clear that all future proposals for significant service change will be subject to rigorous independent scrutiny before public consultation. That will ensure that all information that health boards present is factual and evidence based and that the choice that is presented to the public is fair and genuine. I will make a further announcement soon about the form that such independent scrutiny will take.

If, following public consultation, national health service boards make proposals for significant service change, those proposals will come to me for a final decision. In considering them, I will operate a presumption against centralisation of services. That does not mean no change in any circumstances, but it means that any proposals will have to be robust, that all possible alternatives will have to be properly considered and that due weight must be given to public opinion.

I look forward to meeting the member in just over an hour's time to discuss the issue in more detail.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the minister for her response and welcome the meeting that she has afforded me, which we will have in due course.

I understand from those involved in integrated care that little if any of the data underwent qualitative analysis by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in advance of its proposal to remove integrated care from the Vale of Leven hospital. Will the minister reaffirm that decisions on health service changes must be evidence based? Does she agree that if we are to take "Delivering for Health" from theory to implementation, pilots such as the integrated care model are critical? Will she therefore instruct a full analysis of integrated care at the Vale of Leven hospital, which is a model that might have resonance for other general hospitals in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I hope that Jackie Baillie is reassured when I say that my decision to insist on independent scrutiny is designed to address the kind of concerns that she raises. Of course, the purpose of independent scrutiny is to ensure that any proposals coming from any health board are based on sound evidence. In the case of the Vale of Leven hospital, that will entail considering anything that the board says about the sustainability or otherwise of current arrangements. The whole purpose of independent scrutiny is to ensure that when the public are consulted on proposals, they know that they are based on sound evidence and present a fair and reasonable choice. I look forward to discussing those issues with the member in more detail very shortly.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will know that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board is considering the removal of services from the Vale of Leven hospital. Given that those services are vital to the people served by the hospital, I encourage her to use her influence to ensure that no further services are lost to the vale.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

No proposals have yet come forward from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. When they do, I will insist—as I just said to Jackie Baillie—that they are subjected to rigorous independent scrutiny. They will then be subjected to full and meaningful public consultation. When final proposals are shaped thereafter, they will come to me for a final decision, which I have said that I will base on certain factors. I will shortly have a meeting with Jackie Baillie and other local representatives, including the new SNP leader of the council in that area, at which I look forward to discussing these issues in more depth.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive which footballing organisations and representatives ministers have met since May 2007. (S3O-233)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Since May 2007, ministers have not met formally any footballing organisations or their representatives. However, since May 2007 ministers have attended three football events at the invitation of footballing organisations, which has provided them with the opportunity to meet footballing organisations and representatives on an informal basis. In addition, I met informally representatives of Spartans.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I attend football matches regularly, but I have never seen them as an opportunity for an informal meeting—that is perhaps a significant difference. In the minister's informal discussions—which did not involve comment on the qualities of any of the players—did any of the organisations or representatives raise with him their wish for Scotland to make a Scotland-only bid for the European football championships in 2016? Will the minister commit to resisting the temptation—which, unsurprisingly and spectacularly, the First Minister did not resist in his unthinking and half-baked observations on a Scottish Olympic team and a Scotland-only bid for the European football championships—to use sport as a proxy debate for independence? Scottish sport and sportspeople and our young people deserve better.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome the high ambition that Johann Lamont shows for our country. The First Minister showed that this Government has great ambitions not only for our country but for our sporting bodies and sporting stars.

In our manifesto we made the clear commitment to launch a feasibility study on the possibility of Scotland bidding for the 2016 European football championships. We intend to speak to the new chief executive officer of the Scottish Football Association, Gordon Smith, but we will give him a chance to get his feet under the table as he has only just been appointed. When we speak to Gordon and the rest of the SFA, we will consider their views on taking forward a bid.

The best thing for Scotland is for us to be at the top table in every sport and every area of our life. The lack of ambition from the Labour Party is really quite astonishing.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Martyn Hunter, the finance director of Elgin City Football Club, has raised the issue of increased expenditure incurred by clubs such as Elgin, which have risen from the Highland league to the national leagues. He highlighted the extra funding needed for health and safety measures for stadiums and the huge expense of travel for 125 youth players who are now attached to Elgin. Is the minister discussing such issues with smaller football clubs such as Elgin, which are expanding?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Over the next few weeks and, in particular, over the summer, I intend to meet as many of the smaller clubs, community-based organisations and junior clubs as I can. I appreciate the point that Jamie McGrigor makes about the increased expenditure that comes with success, but I do not think that we would want anything other than for the clubs to achieve such success. If there are particular problems with Elgin, I would welcome receiving a letter with the details, which I would consider in due course.

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

Does the minister agree that the role of Supporters Direct in Scotland and organisations such as the football trusts in clubs such as Kilmarnock Football Club and its local rival, Ayr United Football Club, is vital in taking forward work in the community? Will he give me a commitment that, when he has the opportunity to meet the various footballing organisations, he will meet Supporters Direct in Scotland and that he will look to ensure that it continues to enjoy the funding that was provided by the previous Executive?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

All funding arrangements will be considered as part of the overall spending review, so I will make no commitment at this stage. I am more than happy to agree with the member's opinion of the good work that Supporters Direct in Scotland and the football trusts do. There is a fundamental and principled role for such organisations in the world of football, which is to ensure that ordinary supporters have their voices heard. If Supporters Direct in Scotland wishes to write to me, I am sure that I can find a slot in my diary to meet its representatives as soon as possible.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Did the minister discuss the question of the complaint of racism made by Spartans Football Club against another local player or did he discuss its footballing academy? I am just interested.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We did not discuss the issue of the alleged racist incident but we discussed the proposed community facilities and academy near Ferry Road in Edinburgh, which Spartans and I hope will get the go-ahead, because I certainly believe that it would be an excellent facility for the people of that area.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it intends to implement the national waste strategy. (S3O-213)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We are committed to moving towards a zero waste Scotland, which would include higher levels of recycling, greater emphasis on waste prevention and learning from other countries that have successfully moved in that direction.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that the minister appreciates the scale of the problem, with a typical household in Fife alone producing more than 1 tonne of waste every year. I am sure that he appreciates the need for clarity for local authorities on how they progress with their waste plans. Does the position set out to local authorities in March 2007 on the funding of waste treatment infrastructure still prevail or is it under review? If it is under review, what is the timescale for completion?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am currently looking at the position. My thinking will of course be influenced by the forthcoming spending review, which will be very influential in this context. The local authorities in the member's region have an excellent record in household recycling. The national average is 25 per cent, but Fife Council has managed to recycle and compost 29.7 per cent of waste, Perth and Kinross Council has managed 33.3 per cent, Stirling Council has managed 32.5 per cent and Clackmannanshire Council has managed 40.2 per cent. I am sure that we all want to pay tribute to the member's local authorities, which are doing an extremely good job in the current circumstances.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that many councils do not collect the full range of recyclables from our homes and our rural communities. Does he agree that there could be further dramatic increases in recycling rates if all homes that are served by public roads had household collections for all recyclables?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I agree that reaching that position would greatly help our recycling rates. We are committed to undertaking trials in the collection of food waste from households. Many local authorities in Scotland do not collect plastics. We must examine all such issues to identify how we can intervene to help councils make progress in that area.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We move on to question 6, which is from Bob Doris. [ Interruption. ] I apologise. The next question is Bill Butler's question 5; I was getting a little ahead of myself.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its vision is for the national health service in Scotland. (S3O-216)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I deprecate any attempts to overlook Bill Butler.

Our vision is of an NHS that supports and sustains healthy lifestyles, particularly in our most disadvantaged communities, and which delivers care that is faster, more flexible and closer to home. We supported the Kerr report at the time of its launch and we continue to support the principles that were set out in it. By the end of the year, we will publish an action plan that will demonstrate how we intend to take forward those principles and will provide a clear timetable for action over the next few years.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I welcome the cabinet secretary to her post and hope that the Executive's vision includes the democratisation of health boards.

However, I turn to another issue. In opposition, Ms Sturgeon said:

"The Scottish Executive is considering diverting cash from some of the more affluent parts of Scotland to help Glasgow back to health ... I am 100% behind that. It'll cause uproar in some other Scots towns and cities, for sure, but that's tough."

In opposition, her Cabinet colleague Richard Lochhead said:

"Grampian's pockets of deprivation ... indicate just as great a need for NHS funds as Glasgow's deprivation levels."

Now that the Scottish National Party is in government, who is correct—Nicola Sturgeon or Richard Lochhead?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Bill Butler knows from our manifesto that we strongly favour elected health boards and I look forward to working constructively with him on that issue.

As the member might be aware, a review of resource allocation in the health service is continuing and I will consider carefully its outcome. It is a priority of this Scottish Government to tackle health inequalities. I pay tribute to the previous Administration for much of the work that it did in improving health across the population but, as health has improved across the population, health inequalities have grown. It is a priority of our Government to close that gap and I look forward to receiving support from all parties as we try to do so.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made towards finalising plans for its £5 million pilot scheme to provide free nutritious school meals. (S3O-258)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We are currently considering various options to trial the extension of free nutritious school meals. We will set out details of our plans in due course. As the First Minister said last week, we hope that our plans will be supported by all members of the Parliament.

We want Scotland to be healthier and, by targeting our youngest pupils, we hope to make a big difference. That will bring benefits not only in terms of health and nutrition, but in terms of the social skills that come with sitting down to eat with friends.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I know that the cabinet secretary agrees that the pilot scheme should eventually be rolled out across Scotland, starting in the most deprived areas. With that in mind, I ask her to examine closely the deprivation figures for Glasgow in general and for north Glasgow in particular. In north Glasgow, only 8 per cent of people consume the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables per day, whereas the figure for Glasgow as a whole is 34 per cent.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

When we consider which areas to include in the pilot, we will of course take into account a number of factors, not least deprivation. Although I cannot speak for local authorities such as Glasgow City Council—I must seek their agreement to hold the pilot—the highly concerning deprivation indicators that Bob Doris mentioned make a strong case for the inclusion in the scheme of the area to which he refers. I cannot yet specify where the trials will be held, but we will listen with interest to representatives of the areas that want to take part in them.

First Minister's Question Time

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Perhaps appropriately, given the question I have to ask, I regret the fact that I am not at an engagement this morning: I refer to the funeral of Lord Ewing. He was one of the leaders of the constitutional convention, and a decent and honest man, who played a part in creating this institution. I wish that I was at his funeral, but I am sure that all members will join me in sending condolences. [ Applause. ]

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-50)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I join Jack McConnell in paying tribute to the late Harry Ewing. In addition to what Jack McConnell said, I can tell him that Harry Ewing was a doughty and formidable opponent in debate, but always fair minded and always constructive. Across the political spectrum, we will miss him very much indeed.

I have a number of engagements planned, including picking up the phone to the head of the Glasgow 2014 bid team, following the Commonwealth games committee's validation of the bid as "truly impressive". As Jack McConnell knows more than anyone, there is still a long way to go in the process, but I think that all in the chamber should welcome the technical excellence of the Glasgow bid, and pay tribute to everybody connected with it.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I strongly endorse those comments.

There is a report today from the investigation into the Kerelaw secure unit in Ayrshire. Many of the young people who went through that secure unit will have joined those not in education, employment or training. Is the reduction in the number of young people not in education, employment or training still a national priority for the Scottish Government?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Indeed it is a national priority for the Scottish Government. As the debate in the chamber last week indicated, it is a key priority for this Administration. We may differ from Jack McConnell on how to bring about that reduction, but let there be no doubt—and I think this crosses the parties in the chamber—that it is a key priority in politics in Scotland.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I welcome that assurance. Young people who are in that position need skills.

Scottish employment reached another record level yesterday, and Scottish Enterprise has today identified skills as a national priority for our people and for our economy. My party was committed to 50,000 modern apprenticeships and a target for degree or level 4 qualifications for the Scottish population. Will the First Minister commit to a target for degree-level qualifications? Specifically, will he commit to a target for modern apprenticeships?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As we indicated in that debate last week, within our first 100 days in office we will introduce our skills strategy for Scotland.

The skills strategy is extremely important, as indeed is access to education. As the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning indicated yesterday, we should be aware that over the past three to four years, the participation index of our youngsters going to university has been falling for the first time in recorded educational history in Scotland. That is why we addressed the issue in the decision we took yesterday to abolish back-end fees in Scottish universities.

I offer Jack McConnell this information, which I believe will be announced today by the Secretary of State for Scotland—some areas of employment are reserved issues, on which we co-operate with the Government in London. Last week, I agreed to the appointment of the chairman of the commission for education and skills; I am not at liberty to say who it is, but it is somebody of high character and of great experience. That will be announced today as an indication of areas in which this Government is determined to co-operate with the Government in London.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will take that as a no. There are no targets for modern apprenticeships and there are no targets for degree-level qualifications. It is a matter of serious regret that the first action of the new Government has been not to help those who do not have degrees, but to help those who have them and have already found work.

People who are not in education, employment or training often face homelessness, too. In 2003, the Parliament committed to the target of ending homelessness by 2012. Will the First Minister commit to that target here today? If so, will he explain why his first act in housing policy will be to help those who can already afford to buy a home by giving them a £2,000 grant, which will inflate housing prices, rather than to build more affordable homes, which would help those who are not in education, employment or training?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I can commit to that target, and we will outline that in the housing debate next week.

There is a substantial difficulty with Jack McConnell's position. I agree that we have to do far more on skills training for all our youngsters. The fall in the number of children who go to university, as shown in the age participation index, is a real problem in Scottish society. I agree that we have to do far more on social housing and that is exactly what the Administration intends to do. If we had a former First Minister's question time, the question would be, "Why didn't he do any of that in the past six years?"

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The First Minister misses the—

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Answer.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

This is First Minister's question time. I am happy to ask the questions and demand answers.

As Mr Salmond said, this is about decisions. It is about young people who are not in education, employment or training being a national priority and it is about skills being a national priority. It is not about splitting skills from economic development and it is certainly not about helping those who are already in work and have degrees. It is about tackling homelessness and building affordable homes. It is not about inflating house prices by giving grants to those who can already afford to buy houses.

In those and other areas, the First Minister is concentrating on short-term bribes rather than long-term strategies for Scotland. Will the First Minister stop governing for the SNP and start governing for Scotland? When will he announce to the Parliament his strategy for tackling young people who are not in education, employment or training and giving them a better chance in life?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have heard of people not taking no for an answer, but it is extraordinary not to take yes for an answer to the question on housing targets. To describe the abolition of fees and barriers to universities in Scotland as a short-term bribe is foolish. Politicians who took advantage of free education, such as me and Jack McConnell, should be careful about pulling up the ladder from the next generations.

Where we disagree is on the best way in which to bring forward a skills strategy. As Jack McConnell has said in a number of debates, the Labour Party believes in national skills academies. That is the Labour Party's policy. We believe that we are fortunate in Scotland in that our college system already addresses, and is acceptable and responsive to, employers' needs.

Jack McConnell has told me on a number of occasions to pay attention to the Parliament and its verdicts. I remind him that when he put his policy to the Parliament last week he was defeated by 64 votes to 63; I am paying attention to the Parliament. Another person who has been telling me to do that is Tavish Scott. Unfortunately, he did not turn up last week to tell me to pay attention to the Parliament.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As Kerelaw school has been mentioned, I call the constituency member involved, Irene Oldfather.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Is the First Minister aware that provisional placing on the disqualified from working with children list, which happened to a number of former Kerelaw staff, does not disqualify a person per se from working in a child care position? Does the First Minister agree that, in the interests both of protecting children and of staff who have been placed on the list without a criminal conviction, it is essential that referral cases from provisional to permanent status are dealt with as quickly as possible? When the full report is published, will he ensure that speedy action is taken on the matter?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is an important question. For the benefit of those in the chamber, I point out that Jack McConnell, as First Minister, made a public apology in the Parliament to the adult survivors of abuse that was committed while they were in care. Following that apology, the previous Executive announced a raft of measures, which are continuing, including the establishment of an independent systemic review of the history of in-care abuse during the period 1950 to 1995. The review will be complete in September. Its purpose is to identify exactly the nature of the question, the systems that were in place to protect children and the shortcomings. The final report should help to identify how in-care abuse happened and why the systems failed to prevent it.

The report that Glasgow City Council published today shows that a number of individuals have been referred to the disqualified from working with children list. I am sure that Irene Oldfather understands that I cannot say anything specific about that, but I can confirm that the report shows that a number of people have been referred to the list.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I, too, read with shock, anger and deep concern the press coverage of the report into the alleged abuse at Kerelaw residential school in Ayrshire. People will be filled with horror that Kerelaw, instead of being an environment for the provision of care, seems to have become an environment breeding a culture of abuse.

The First Minister might have partially answered my question in his reply to Mrs Oldfather, but does he agree that the first priority is to take immediate steps to trace those individuals referred to in the report who apparently could still be working with young people and to ensure that they are suspended from working with young people or other vulnerable individuals pending the conclusion of any investigations or court proceedings?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Annabel Goldie is correct, and I thank her for her question. Glasgow City Council's report indicates that it has taken action by referring several individuals to the DWCL. As a point of explanation, 167 individuals are fully listed on the DWCL at the moment and a further 60 are provisionally listed. I am quite certain that the previous Executive's independent review, which is due to report in September, will consider many of the points that Annabel Goldie raises.

I think that Annabel Goldie meant to ask me about my meeting or otherwise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have spoken to him on the phone and I hope to meet him soon in one capacity or another.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Edmund Burke said:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Does the First Minister agree that it is deeply troubling that it would appear that, according to the report, there were people at Kerelaw who had

"knowledge and information about abuse and potential abuse and were unwilling or unable to address this abuse"?

Is the First Minister satisfied that procedures now exist in Scotland to ensure that people will be able to come forward safely and in confidence to report any such fears in the future? Will he investigate the reasons why those individuals felt that they could not speak out?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am certain that that will be one of the issues to be considered carefully by the independent review. The whole chamber will share Annabel Goldie's concern about this matter, which certainly goes beyond party concerns. However, having established the independent review to ascertain the lessons that we must learn so that we can prevent such an outrage from happening again, we should allow the review to take its course and, as a Parliament, carefully, effectively and quickly deal with its recommendations.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-52)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss a range of issues of importance to Scotland and the Scottish people.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I heard the First Minister's answer to the question about the referral system relating to Kerelaw. Is the Executive satisfied that it knows the names of all the staff about whom Glasgow City Council is concerned and which have been thrown up by its inquiry into the Kerelaw residential unit? Are any of those staff currently working with children in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

A confidential process on such matters is used between the referring organisation, the individual and the Government. I have already indicated that Glasgow City Council, following its report, took action by referring a number of individuals to the DWCL. I am sure that Nicol Stephen, given his legal background, will understand why I cannot go into further specifics; I have strong advice on that. However, I can assure him that when the independent review reports and makes general policy recommendations, the Government will speedily and effectively implement them.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I understand the difficult circumstances, and it seems that the findings in Glasgow City Council's report are grim. The First Minister's answer offers some reassurance, and I thank him for what he has been able to say.

The children in question have had bad starts in life, which have been made worse by the way in which the state has looked after them. Too often, our most vulnerable children are the ones who are let down the most. What steps will the First Minister take to examine the serious failings that are being identified? What commitments can he make to ensure that the lessons of the report are learned by everyone with responsibility for looked-after children across Scotland? What efforts will he make to ensure that this never happens again and that nobody who is implicated in these incidents can find a legal loophole that will allow them to continue to work with children in any part of the United Kingdom?

From what we know, it seems clear that the seriousness of the findings in the report requires action to be taken immediately rather than simply waiting until September or October.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I asked for a report on this matter this morning. There is a part of the process just now that allows referred individuals who have jobs at the time of the referral to continue to work, even during the provisional listing stage. I am asking to look at that aspect, because it seems to be anomalous and not equivalent to what happens in other organisations. For example, teachers are often suspended from duty in such circumstances.

As the former Deputy First Minister knows, I have to be extremely careful not to make policy on the hoof. However, I think that the independent review group that the previous First Minister established must be allowed to do its work. We should not try to second-guess its findings or interfere by making decisions now that might be crossed over by its report in September.

Given the details in the newspaper reports today, I understand why people think it is urgent that immediate action be taken. I will look, in particular, at the point that I have stressed. However, I ask everyone in the chamber to let the independent review group that has been established get on with its work and then speedily—as parliamentarians—to implement its recommendations.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We have a constituency question from Duncan McNeil.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The First Minister will be aware of the announcement today by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that, following concerns over the assessment and diagnosis of possible breast cancer symptoms at Inverclyde royal hospital, the cases of 1,600 women have had to be reviewed and that, of those, nearly 200 patients must now be re-examined.

Although, of course, the first priority will be to reassure every woman involved as quickly as possible—I am assured that every ounce of capacity in the entire NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area is being focused on that—will the First Minister instruct the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, as a matter of urgency, to initiate a full inquiry into what has gone wrong and how a reoccurrence will be prevented? Will he assure me and my constituents that any solution will be based on improving the quality of the services at Inverclyde royal hospital and not on removing them?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Duncan McNeil is correct to say that 200 patients have been asked to attend specifically arranged clinics for further checks. Nicola Sturgeon has today asked NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to accelerate the completion of the current review of clinical standards for breast cancer services.

All of us were hugely concerned to learn that patients attending clinics at Inverclyde royal hospital have not received the highest standards of care that are available to women in other parts of Scotland. I welcome the urgent action that has already been taken by the board and I am sure that everyone in the chamber will welcome the action that has been taken today by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We have a further constituency question from Roseanna Cunningham.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

What will be the Government's response to the decision in Perth sheriff court on Tuesday 13 June, approving an exemption from the right to roam that is enshrined in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003? I appreciate that the First Minister is unlikely to have read the entire judgment, but given that he, like me, represents an area that contains many large estates, does he share my concern that, if the judgment is sound and similar decisions follow, the 2003 act might need to be revisited?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have not read the full sheriff's opinion but I have read a summary of it, which all members in the chamber should have a look at. As Roseanna Cunningham knows, at the moment we have a sheriff's opinion. There is an indication from the council that it will take the matter to appeal, in which case we will get a determination. Another case in Stirling sheriff court relates to the same issues.

I suggest that we should at least wait until the case reaches the court of appeal and consider whether the judgment points to serious deficiencies in the structure of the 2003 act. If it does, and case evidence builds up, only then should the Parliament consider whether any legislative changes are required to repair deficiencies that may exist in an act that was passed under the previous Administration.