| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Jackie Baillie |
||
| May 2006 | ||
|
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): Only four days separate them. One is considered to be more mature and reflective; the other is considered less well developed and always in a hurry. I am not describing siblings or even members in this chamber—I am contrasting motions that have been lodged by the Greens. One was lodged by Mark Ballard on 20 January; the other was lodged by Chris Ballance on 24 January. Both of them cover the subject of Trident. The fundamental difference is that Mark Ballard's motion calls for "the fullest possible public debate", whereas the motion in the name of Chris Ballance wants us to decide now. So, what is the Greens' position? Or do they have several? I do not necessarily mean that as a criticism. There are lots of conflicting views within individual parties, and rightly so. Indeed, many members have not made up their minds. Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green): Will Jackie Baillie give way? Jackie Baillie: In a second. What is true is that the decision on whether to replace Trident will be momentous, and I agree with Chris Ballance that it is one of the critical economic and strategic decisions that the UK faces. Mark Ballard: I am glad that Jackie Baillie has been perusing the motions so carefully. She will be aware that a motion has been tabled at the House of Commons, calling for the fullest debate. However, there was no opportunity for MSPs to indicate that they, too, wanted to have the fullest debate. As Chris Ballance has pointed out, under the current proposals, that debate will not take place in the House of Commons, which is the first step that we need. The truth is that Trident is illegal to use, is illegal to threaten to use and breaks our treaty obligations. Without a debate being held at Westminster, how can the issue be discussed? Jackie Baillie: I say to Mark Ballard—who has taken up a substantial amount of my time—that I always study his motions with interest. The Presiding Officer: I will give you extra time because of that intervention, Ms Baillie. Jackie Baillie: Mark Ballard's motion was the right one. I want a full debate. I believe that there is the maturity in our democratic process to enable that debate to take place constructively. I welcome the early input from the Catholic church and the Church of Scotland, which both have a long-standing opposition to nuclear weapons. I welcome the input of trade unions, which have campaigned in the Labour Party against nuclear weapons. Indeed, the Scottish Labour Party conference has adopted a consistent anti-nuclear position. I do not dismiss any of that, but I also want to know the views of communities throughout Scotland, including those in the vicinity of Faslane. There are questions that we need to have answered and options that we should explore fully. Does Trident need to be replaced? Is the current system obsolete? What will the international context be in 20 to 30 years' time, and what will be the consequences of our actions? People have heard me speak before about the economic impact of Faslane, and I make no apology for doing so again. The 7,000 direct jobs and 4,000 further jobs in the supply chain represent one quarter of the total workforce in the Dumbarton constituency. That is a staggering number of jobs in what is considered to be a deprived area. In the past, I have been accused of using that as some kind of an excuse for keeping nuclear weapons. Far from it—those are the facts; they might be uncomfortable, but they are very real. The hard politics is about having the maturity to get beyond the rhetoric and accept our responsibility to the people who work in the defence industry; that comprises 31,000 jobs at Faslane, Rosyth and across Scotland. I hope that the Greens reject the Scottish National Party's "facile amendment"; Bill Butler's wording was spot on. I hope that the Greens realise that the Notting Hill nats would pull us out of NATO, tell us that they have the answers to the questions about the likely economic impact of that action, and—wait for it—base the Scottish navy at Faslane. Meanwhile, Alex Salmond is busy saying that the SNP would base the Scottish navy at Rosyth. Which is it to be? Perhaps the Scottish navy will be so big that it can be based at two different ports. Just in case we were in any doubt about the size of the Scottish navy, it will be seven frigates with 100 staff. What will the SNP do about the other 31,000 jobs that depend on defence? I respect all views that are expressed in this chamber, but I will continue to argue that if we want to rid the UK of nuclear weapons, we will have to mitigate the consequences of so doing. Real action, not rhetoric, and having the fullest possible debate will give us time to consider all aspects of the issue. We all want peace and a nuclear-free world. I know of no sane person who wants nuclear weapons to be used. The difference lies in how we try to achieve that. I believe that the Labour Party has a good record. Nuclear Lance missiles are gone. Maritime nuclear capability on surface ships is gone. Air-launched nuclear weapons are gone. Trident is our only nuclear weapons system and it now has a third fewer warheads. We place high priority on arms control and non-proliferation and we would all agree that the two principal ways of achieving those are through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We are unequivocally committed to those. From the words of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, I am clear that no decision has been taken about the replacement of Trident. I do not want them to make that decision until they have heard what people think. We have an opportunity to influence that decision. Mark Ballard's motion acknowledged the central importance of having "the fullest possible public debate"; I agree with that. Whether it is the Greens' green paper or the Liberals' white paper is not the issue for me; the issue is whether we reach out and engage with the people who matter most—ordinary people in our communities. I move amendment S2M-3866.4, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert: "notes that in 2005 the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to all its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1967; notes the commitment of all three major UK parties to retain an independent nuclear deterrent; notes the comments of the UK Government that no decisions on replacing Trident have yet been taken; believes there should be the fullest possible public debate on any decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, considering all possible options including non-replacement; notes the significant reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons arsenal; is committed to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and wishes to see the United Kingdom continue to work both bilaterally and through the United Nations to urge states not yet party to non-proliferation instruments to become so, to remain committed to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to make further progress toward significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the major nuclear powers." |