 The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 13558, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the NPT, the Marshall Islands and UK Government's failure to meet its obligations. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would be grateful if those members who wish to speak in the debate could press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on Bill Kidd to open the debate. Seven minutes please, Mr Kidd. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I be indulged with your willingness to welcome in the gallery the Honourable Alexander Cament, Austrian Disarmament Ambassador and Arms Control Person of the Year 2014? He is sitting up there in the gallery, and I think he is someone who we are all very grateful for the efforts that he has made in reducing the threat to the world of nuclear weapons over the years, and certainly last year when he won the award. I also wish to thank all those MSPs who signed my motion on the NPT, the Marshall Islands and the UK Government's failure to meet its international treaty obligations. The Non-Proliferation Treaty on Nuclear Weapons NPT review conference met again at the United Nations in spring of this year. I say again because it meets every five years and has done so since 1970, so obviously it has not yet achieved its aims that were set out in 1968. The reason it was set up was, as the UK did, to get countries to sign up to and ratify the articles of the NPT. That was 1968. It includes article 6, which creates an obligation of good faith, of cessation of the nuclear-armed race and the achievement of nuclear disarmament. That is 47 years we have been waiting for that good faith to come to pass. Where does the Republic of the Marshall Islands fit into the long-term future of the international obligations of those signatories of the NPT and yet who maintain nuclear weapons arsenals? The Marshall Islands is a small Pacific nation which, following the Second World War, was placed under trust status by the United Nations for protection and development by the USA. Unfortunately, when something has the name trust attached to it, I do not necessarily look for anything of great hope because frequently trust is something that is taken as granted by most of us but not delivered upon by nations around the world when it comes to their own best interests. It is placed under trust status by the United Nations for protection and development by the USA. Tragically, however, the islands and their occupants were used as a nuclear weapon testing ground by the United States in the years between 1946 and 1958. During that 12-year period, a total of 67 nuclear tests were carried out in the Marshall Islands, notably at the Keeney and the Newe attack. The total explosive yield of those tests averages out at an incomprehensible equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs every day for 12 years. The people of the Marshall Islands have suffered catastrophic and irreparable damage as a result of the testing of those weapons, including genetic damage to the people who live there. However, as reparation for the devastation that has been wreaked upon their land and their population, the Government of the Marshall Islands does not seek financial compensation. How could you possibly sort out the problems that have been caused with money? That is too much of an idea of Western societies. Rather, they have filed nine separate applications at the International Court of Justice, one for each of the nine nuclear arms states, as well as another lawsuit against the USA in the US federal court for their actions during the period of the trust status. The lawsuits are intended to highlight breaches of existing international law, articles 6 of the NPT and customary international law, both of which call for compliance with good faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and then to that for to lead to nuclear disarmament. Of the nine nuclear armed nations three except the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICGI, those being the UK, India and Pakistan, and oral arguments are due to proceed in the international court in March 2016. In the spirit of those courageous actions by the Marshall Islanders and under the auspices of international law, mindful of the duties placed on the UK Government by their signature and ratification of the 1968 NPT obligations, in particular with the provisions of article 6, I believe that it would be incumbent on all parties to follow the example of the great majority of the world's governments and pursue a non-nuclear weapons strategy for co-operation. That would include the UK Government halting the planned preparatory work for the upgrade and replacement of the Trident nuclear system at Fas Lane Coolport on the Clyde prior to its dismantlement and removal, and crucially for Trident not to be relocated to anywhere else on these islands in order, therefore, that the UK would comply fully with its obligations under the NPT. I wish to thank the Honourable Tony De Bruhm, Foreign Minister of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, for his friendship and support in providing an understanding of the background to this internationally important case. I also wish to express my sincere thanks for the support of the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and their welcoming of this debate here in the Scottish Parliament. I think that this is really what it's all about. I wish to thank the Marshall Islands people for their vow to fight so that no-one else on earth will ever again experience the atrocities that are perpetrated on their territory and on their people. We are tight for time this evening, and there are a number of members who wish to speak in the debate. At this stage, I am minded to accept a motion from Bill Kidd under rule 8.14.3, on which the debate will be extended by up to 30 minutes. I was being congratulated because I was so good, and I can't be. Would you care to move a motion that we extend the debate, Mr Kidd? Yes, I would. Thank you very much. Is that agreed? Very good. Thank you. Even so, I would ask members to keep to time, please. I also have several members who have to leave early to go to other parliamentary events, and therefore I will try and accommodate them as best I can. I call first of all David Torrance to be followed by Claire Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I give you and Bill Kidd my apologies because I will not be able to stay to the end of the debate. I would like to congratulate Bill Kidd for bringing this motion to the chamber and for allowing us to debate this highly relevant issue. As a member of this Parliament, I strongly welcome the Scottish Government stance on global nuclear disarmament. However, there are two points that I would like to focus on today. First, I want to speak about the disastrous effects of nuclear weapon testings. Second, I want to follow a motion's call for a complete removal of Trident's nuclear weapon system from Scotland. In launching this lawsuit at the International Court of Justice against the nine nuclear weapons states on 24 April 2014, Republic of the Marshall Islands has taken an unprecedented but audacious step. It marks the crucial point towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. If successful in its claim, the Government of the Marshall Islands will not demand financial compensation but the abolishment of the country in questions of nuclear arsenals. Considering the Marshall Islands history, I believe that this is to be a commendable decision. A specific island state has been the site of 67 nuclear tests. On Bukiniato alone, 23 nuclear bombs were tested between 1946 and 1955. That includes the first launch of a niche bomb in 1952 and corresponds to 7,000 times the force of a bomb dropped on Hiroshima. To remember the new test conducted on Bukiniato, the island was declared the UNICAS World Heritage Site in 2010. In its decision, UNICEF highlighted the importance to remember that the displacement of inhabitants and the human irradiation and contamination caused by radion nuclides produced by the tests. I believe that it is Parliament to recall the fate of the Marshall Islands as it has displaced to us the destructive power of nuclear weapons, death, ill-heath effects, environmental damage and issues of resettlement remain matters of great concern. As an example, Bukiniato's indigenous population, which was shipped out in 1946, still have not been able to resettle on their island. I also want to take the chance to recall once again the effects of the nuclear weapon testing at Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean on a British serviceman, where 20,000 soldiers were exposed to radiation, who later on suffered from severe ill health and early deaths. The fact that 2,500 British servicemen were surveyed by the British Nuclear Test Vertices Association in 1999, 30 per cent have since died. The majority passed away in their early 50s suffering from cancer. Additionally, the Vertices Association has observed higher rates of miscarriages among veterans' wives and their children and a 10 times higher risk of experienced defects at birth. Veterans in my constituents of Gercody, who were part of that nuclear testing programme, have also been experienced the mentioned effects, together with their families, as well as the affected servicemen across the country. They are fighting the Ministry of Defence in its Netherlands to take responsibility for the lasting health damage that they endured. Presiding Officer, we need to actively question the Ministry of Defence actions. It is about time that the ministry starts to fully support veterans' families who are predicted to face severe health problems for many generations to come. Last, let me return to today's motion, calling for a complete removal of the UK's nuclear weapons base at Fass Lane. Around half of Scots have expressed to their opposition to Trident. Further and more, the renewal of Trident will consume 28 per cent of the Ministry of Defence budget, putting it under significant constraints. We simply cannot ignore the UK's obligation as a signatory to a non-prolification treaty to adhere to article 6. As acknowledged by the Scottish Government, the international opinion is distancing itself more and more from the prolification of nuclear weapons. There is also an increased interest to display the truth about nuclear testing operations. Thus, we need to ask the Minister of Defence, who is reluctant to admit his past policies while insisting on renewing of Trident. Presiding Officer, let me conclude by saying that it is our responsibility in this chamber to put pressure on the UK Government with regard to disarmament obligations and to press for uncovering the truth regarding nuclear testing operations, whether affecting our own servicemen or the citizens of Marshall Island. I now call on Claire Baker to be followed by Jamie McGriggur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would firstly like to recognise the efforts of Bill Keddon bringing this debate to the chamber and also his tale of the horrific legacy of nuclear testing. Unfortunately, I am going to give apologies to the chamber and to the cabinet secretary for having to leave the debate early, as I have a commitment in Fife. The debate around Trident replacement is complex, and I am glad that tonight we can explore some of those issues. I understand those who make a very clear commitment to scrapping renewal. I know that it comes from a deep-seated desire to see the end of nuclear weapons and a belief that not renewing Trident is a step towards achieving that. I think that all of us in the chamber share the desire to see the end of nuclear weapons. The question often is, how is the best way to achieve that? During those debates, while there will be disagreements among members, we must remember that we are all striving to reach the same goal. It would seem counterintuitive to say that renewal of Trident helps deliver fewer weapons, but there are arguments that challenge that. The argument is that the UK's international role and influence that it can exert has contributed towards the de-escalation of weapons. The argument goes that the UK's ability to have influence is partly delivered by maintaining Trident. It is the majority view of members in the chamber that the UK and Scotland should remain in NATO, and although members will challenge that, it is argued that the UK's nuclear capacity is central to that membership. There is the question of compliance with the NPT obligations. There is an argument that Trident is a replacement, it is a like for like, and so it does not breach the treaty, but it could be said that it is not in the spirit of the treaty. No one would deny that Britain and Scotland need defence forces, but it is Trident part of this future. There is a very strong argument that the world has changed dramatically since the Cold War. The proposition is that the threat no longer comes from big nation states having a stand-off, but will come from terrorism, which was much more targeted and hidden. What does a country's nuclear capacity mean to a group who is attacking with no government, no country, no army behind it? That is the threat of our future, and our defence and intelligence community need to focus on that. However, we also have the challenge of trying to see into the future. The argument is made that work on a replacement cannot be delayed because submarines alone could take up to 17 years to develop. We can only prepare for our future defence needs based on our current understanding and predictions—there are no certainties. However, others see that as an opportunity to reduce our nuclear capacity as one that shouldn't be missed. In government, Labour did reduce nuclear weapons and played a role internationally. The UK Government has signed up to gradual disarmament, negotiated in line with other nuclear nations. We would all like to see that achieved quicker, but if we are going to be fair during the debate, we should recognise the steps that have been taken. The position that we are in now is quite different from that 10 or 20 years ago. Since 1998, the UK has seen all of our air-delivered nuclear weapons withdrawn and dismantled. From our Cold War peak, we have seen a reduction of our nuclear forces by well over 51 per cent, and that is to be welcomed. There are a range of views on Trident across the Labour Party, and both Kezia Dugdale of Scotland and Jeremy Corbyn have said that the party will have the debate before a conclusive position is taken. I grew up during the 1970s and 1980s. Campania against nuclear weapons was not my first political experience. I had grown up going to Communist Party jumble sales and I even appeared on the front page of the Morning Star with Arthur Scargal. I did grow up in Fife, but when I was 12, I travelled to London and that was my first visit to London to take part in the CND rally, which ended in Hyde Park with over 300,000 people. It was my first real political act and decision. I was the youngest on an overnight bus that was filled with Labour Party members, including Alex Faulkner, who was around MEP at the time, Communist Party members, political activists and my family. There was a huge show of public rejection that day of the nuclear arms race, and that public movement is important to making a change in UK and globally. I welcome the debate that Trident is generating on the choices that are facing the UK in the future. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. I now call Jamie McGregor to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd firstly like to congratulate Bill Kidd on securing time for this debate. Ever since the dawn of the atomic age, nuclear weapons have been a dividing issue, and the spread of different weapons of mass destruction has by and large defined power politics for the last seven decades. The non-proliferation treaty is a cornerstone in attempting to create a global regime to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and, by extension, a nuclear war. The Marshall Islands were the testing ground for US nuclear weapons and testing stopped in 1962, but the radioactive fallout was significant, and there has been an increase in cancer cases amongst the population, mainly cancer of the thyroid. The US has subsequently paid significant sums of money and compensation to the people of the Marshall Islands. As the radiation levels from the test dissipates, the dangers posed by these radioactive isotopes decreases. However, research shows that one of the main health concerns is stemmed from the forceful displacement of the population and uprooting of their culture, and this has had significant and negative effect on the population, as has similarly been seen amongst the citizens of Pripyat that was forcefully evacuated after the Chernobyl incident. Last year, the Marshall Islands sued the UK and all other nuclear weapons powers for breaching its obligation stipulated by article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty to, in good faith, negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race and engage in negotiations to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. The UK government announced a few years ago that it is continuing to cut down on warheads by another 45, thus slowly disarming according to the treaty. This is an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice and the outcome of this case is uncertain, and any speculation regarding a ruling would be unwise, but it yet again brings forward the debate of the existence of nuclear weapons. The SNP has for a long time been arguing in favour of the UK unilaterally disarming itself by removing our strategic nuclear deterrent. Now, such a policy would not just be futile, it would also be dangerous. The common argument for unilateral disarmament so often heard during the referendum campaign is that if the UK shows the way, other states would follow as they would feel less threatened and thus more inclined to disarm as well. Well, there is no evidence at all of this, or to suggest that Russia or China would embark on a quest of disarmament just because we decided to do that. There are dangers lurking in the shadows due to disarmament policies. For the duration of the Cold War, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevented a cataclysmic war between the free world and the eastern bloc, our nuclear arsenal ensures that Scotland is kept safe by an increasingly turbulent and dangerous world. Some might argue that the enemies of today are terrorist groups such as Islamic State, and that nuclear weapons either way does not provide any protection from that. It is probably true, but the world is constantly shifting and new threats emerge continuously and we should not and must not remove our deterrent. It is important that we take notice of the effects of nuclear testing not only on the marsh alignments but around the world. Since joining the comprehensive test ban treaty in the 90s, the UK has not tested any nuclear weapons and we have gradually decreased the size of the stockpile, but the fact remains, however, that we live in a very unstable world where nuclear weapons is providing safety for the people of the UK and it would be a folly to give them up. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I have to note that the motion calls for the complete removal of the Trident nuclear weapons stored at Faslain, and this would also be detrimental to employment in Argyll and Bute as Faslain sustains 7,000 jobs in the area and it is already threatened by the population. Thank you very much. I now call Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Kevin Stewart. I will let Bill Kidd on bringing this motion and pay tribute to the courage and endurance of the people of the Marshall Islands after all they have endured. Mr Chisholm, could you lift your microphone up? I apologise to Bill Kidd and the Minister because I am chairing the cross-party group on cancer, which is due to start exactly now. The motion looks at Trident renewal from the point of view of the non-proliferation treaty. The non-proliferation treaty was a bargain. The nations without nuclear weapons promise not to develop them in exchange. Nuclear weapons states promise to pursue negotiations towards nuclear disarmament. The words of article 6 negotiate in good faith cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. It is on that basis that the people of the Marshall Islands have brought this case to the international court of justice saying that the nuclear weapons states have failed to meet their duties and therefore are in breach of international law. Lord Murray, who was a former Lord Advocate as well as a former MP for Leith, has stated that it is not obvious that the UK can offer a stateable defence. Lord Bramel, a former chief of the defence staff, said in a debate in the House of Lords on 24 January 2007 that it is difficult to see how the UK can exert any leadership and influence on the implementation of the non-proliferation treaty if we insist on a successor to Trident. We all know about the moral objections to Trident, although not everybody shares them in this chamber or out of it, but it would deliver death and destruction on an unprecedented and unimaginable scale. That is the core moral objection. We also know that money is diverted from more worthwhile causes to pay for Trident. However, what the motion highlights is something else, and that is the legal objections to Trident. We have a clear statement of the breach of the non-proliferation treaty, but there was also a ruling of the international court of justice in 1996 that any use of nuclear weapons is of doubtful legality. Again, the same Lord Murray, my predecessor—not as Lord Advocate but as MP for Leith—has been very strong in arguing that that also is a central legal objection and in a sense a more fundamental legal objection to having nuclear weapons at all. We should, in building the case against Trident, those of us who support that view should emphasise all the dimensions of the arguments—the moral arguments, the legal arguments and, increasingly, the strategic and security objectives. I have quoted a former chief of the defence staff and there are in fact many people in the military—perhaps not all of them speaking out—who actually object to Trident because they realise that there are far more useful means of defending this country through conventional means. Of course, it is not just military people, but people with a deep knowledge of the military and the main person to refer to for the sake of the last speaker is the former Conservative defence secretary, Michael Portilla, who has put a very strong and cogent strategic argument against the renewal of Trident. I hope that we will have a great debate on Trident, not just in the Labour Party over the next few months but in the country, because we have never really had any meaningful debate about this and most people still hold the views that they held 30 or 35 years ago. I am pleased to say that I do anyway, but I think that most people do. I think that a lot of those issues should be brought out into the open. I hope that we will see as part of that a strong coalition against Trident that is able to put forward the moral arguments, the legal arguments that this motion highlights but also fundamentally because this will be crucial for persuading the majority of people the security and strategic arguments against Trident as well. Thank you. I now call on Kevin Stewart to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I too commend Bill Kidd for bringing this motion forward today. I commend the Marshall Islands for bringing this case to the International Court of Justice. We have the accused, the United States, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and the UK. The Plucky Marshall Islands, 70,000 people, are taking on the major military, political and economic powers. Some have described what they are doing as a near chaotic venture. In my opinion, it is a brave attempt to safeguard all of our futures and should never be compared to tilting windmills. The Marshall Islands themselves know all about nuclear testing. As has already been said, they have suffered 67 United States nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s. One of those tests, the bomb that was exploded, was a thousand times greater than the little boy bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima. They know the consequences of nuclear testing. The Marshall Islanders deserve our respect and our support for bringing this case to the International Court in The Hague. Beyond that, I think that this case itself should give everybody every one of the Governments that I have mentioned time to think about what they are currently doing in those regards. In particular, the United Kingdom Government should think about what it is about to embark on. Spending £100 billion on new nuclear weapons in a time of austerity is abhorrent. Spending money on nuclear weapons at any time is abhorrent, but particularly when money is being cut left, right and centre and the poorest in our society are suffering greatly. The might of the accused, the United States, China, India, Israel, Russia, France, Pakistan, North Korea and the United Kingdom, is being tackled by a small nation of 70,000 people. What I can say about their courage here is that it is absolutely immense. I hope that that courage and determination of the Marshall Islands will prove that nuclear weapons are a complete and utter folly and that we begin to see disarmament on this small planet of ours. Hats off to you, Marshall Islanders. Thank you. I now call Neil Findlay to be followed by George Adam. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you very much to Bill Kidd for bringing in this motion forward. It is my understanding that the non-proliferation treaty represents the only binding multilateral treaty with its goal of disarmament and that was signed by the nuclear weapons states in Malcolm Chisholm. It read from it quite a document. Indeed, I think that we would all agree on that when looking at it. However, the reality is that the treaty did not stop the arms race. We know that the major powers accumulated more and more nuclear hardware. However, what it did do, it set and trained the process of co-operation between nuclear and non-nuclear states to prevent proliferation. That was a huge step forward, and we should be thankful for that. Given the dangers that we see at the moment across the globe, the instability that we see, and we have seen since the treaty was signed, that we see the border disputes, territorial disputes, religious wars, civil wars and regional conflict. When we see all of that going on, we must all be thankful that proliferation on a mass scale across and bringing in new states did not materialise. I think that if it had, we would be in a very perilous position and even more perilous position than we see at the moment. The world is a dangerous enough place without a nuclear arms race and nuclear expansionism across a whole range of new states and within states. Like many people here, I have always been opposed to nuclear weapons. I am opposed to trident renewal, and I am glad that more and more people are coming to that point of view. I do not want to see trident sale from the Clyde to the Thames, the Mersey of the Thine to Barrow or anywhere else in the UK. I want a UK free and nuclear weapons, a world free and nuclear weapons and I want a world of peace and a world of justice. I think that many share that goal. I know that many people here today and many who are not here share that goal. No, Mr MacGregor does not share that goal, but I will take an intervention. Mr MacGregor, you have to put your card in, please. Your card does not appear to be in. I share the member's desire for a nuclear free world, but it is just that unilateral disarmament, when there are nuclear weapons elsewhere, is a foolish policy. I am glad that you have put that out on the record, Mr MacGregor. We can disagree on the tactics that should be part of the debate about how we rid the world of nuclear weapons, but the fact that we start from the same position is a good one. I am very pleased with that. In relation to the Marshall Islands, that is a state that knows more than most that can tell the world a lot about the impact of radiation having been the site, as many people have mentioned, of some of the most powerful hydrogen bomb tests that have ever undertaken. With all the dreadful consequences that have been brought to the people and the environment there, they have a lot to teach the world. I understand and support their desire to see the end of nuclear proliferation. I think that desire is shared by many people. I thank Bill Kidd for bringing that forward. Finally, I also thank Bill Kidd for the motion that he put down in Parliament today in tribute to Dr Allan McKinnon, a friend to many people in the peace movement, many people in the Communist Party and across the broad left of politics. Allan was a fantastic human being, a great loss to progressive politics, and it is up to us to keep up his work for a fair and just and more humane society and one that is free of nuclear weapons. I now call George Adam to be followed by John Finnie. I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to the chamber. The Marshall Islands are to be commended for the strength of will and vision on this issue. Bill Kidd, when he mentioned the fact that the Marshall Islands were put into trust by the United Nations, he brings up that important word, Presiding Officer, trust. That is one of the most important words that you will probably hear in this debate, because where is the trust? Do we trust ourselves to live in a world without nuclear weapons and do we trust our fellow nations of the world to look to that future without nuclear weapons? Malcolm Chisholm summed up some of the debate here as well when he said that many of us have had this ideal for 30 years plus. For me, the debate started in the 1980s like Claire Baker when we were younger. We believed that we were going to be because of the Gold War, the generation that ended in nuclear armageddon. That seems like this in the past now, but that was a fear as a teenager in the 80s. It was one of the reasons why I was attracted to joining the SNP, because at that time you had the argument over Polaris and Trident, and now we have the same debate over whether we should go from the next generation of Trident as well. As Kevin Stewart has already said, to spend that amount on money, £100 billion on those weapons when other things and people are struggling in our nation is just absolutely disgusting. However, there has been on-going issues and I like to talk about people, Presiding Officer, to believe that politics are about people. On this occasion, I will talk about a man who is not from Paisley, but who is next door in Johnston. It is Ken McGinley, who was someone who was a soldier, went over to Christmas Island when Britain tried to do their test in the Pacific Nuclear Test as well. He was across there as a 19-year-old young man who was from Johnston and had not been around the world at all. Ken Stewart has become a close friend of mine and someone whose opinion I respect. He told me exactly how he felt on that day when they were tested. He wore a white overall. That was all the protection that was given. They were wearing khaki shorts. He said that when he went out there, I had never heard of a hydrogen bomb or the atomic bomb and I was only vaguely aware of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but he was there in Grapple why one of Britain's biggest nuclear tests ever happened. A three-megaton monster was actually dropped. As he sat on the beach at the time, he started to become increasingly worried about all the crazy thoughts—his words are not mine—that were going through his mind at that moment. He knew that as the day got closer, there were soldiers who were braver than him and he believed that we were starting to have doubts. On that day, he said that suddenly I could have no more misgivings as a voice came through the tannoy that said that this could be a live run. It said dramatically, five, four, three, two, one, zero. He said that when it happened, cover your eyes. He was told to cover his eyes as a three-megaton bomb was unleashed within the facility. At that point, Ken has said that he put his hands over and he could see every single part of the inners of his body as the heat went by. He also mentioned the fact that when the heat came, it was not as if someone had put on an electric fire behind you. It was as if the electric fire about a thousand of them had gone right through you. Ken, like many other people, had not had their troubles to seek. Ken came back and said that he had many health problems. When he came back to the UK, he had an undiagnosed ulcer that burst and it was only when he collapsed that he found later on that he was in fertile. He said that he had skin complaints and cysts and other conditions that followed. However, that has happened to many people who have had to deal with that. Who were they just doing their national service? Who were they actually for Ken? The big thing was actually a stop-off in Hawaii going over to Christmas island. That was the main part for 19-year-old Ken. I think that the nations of the world have to take a responsibility when they are dealing with nuclear weapons. They have to admit that they were wrong to do that in the past. They were wrong to do those tests in the Pacific islands and they have to learn that we need to trust one another. We need to trust and we need to work together to ensure that we never have anything like that again and that we can have a world that no longer has these nuclear weapons. I now call John Finnie to be followed by Chick Brody. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I join with others in congratulating Bill Kidd for this motion, but also congratulating him on all those work he does in the nuclear field. He is very respected around the world and quite rightly so. That is just the latest manifestation of that. The motion talks about an obligation in good faith and certainly when it comes to successive UK Governments, I would suggest that that is a course of conduct. They found very challenging when it comes to military and particularly nuclear matters to respond to. It also talks about the cessation of the nuclear race and we know that following the UK Chancellor's recent visit, that is not going to happen. Money indeed is no object. Well, not if those objects are weapons of widespread indiscriminate civilian slaughter like Trident. Trident must be decommissioned and I think that it is good to hear voices and support of that around the chamber. Of course, nuclear testing is responsible for vial impacts well short of slaughter and we know that that has been visited on the Marshall Islands in particular. They were colonised in the 2nd millennium BC by Micronesian colonists who gradually settled there, but like many parts of the world, they were exploited in successive orders by the Spanish, the English, the German, the Japanese and then the US, the great improvers because every island needs nuclear testing and we know and we've heard that the US tested 67 nuclear weapons and obscene course of behaviour and the largest test of all, Castle Bravo. I respect the Marshall Islanders for taking legal action and that's worthy of the term Bravo. We know that by 1956 the US Atomic Injury Commission had regard to the Marshall Islands as, quote, by far the most contaminated place in the world and we know that there's claims on going, we know the health effects linger, we know of project 4.1, a medical study by US residents, by US of the residents of Bikini atl exposed to the radioactive fallout and as we've seen elsewhere on the planet, the pernicious effect of the arms trade and the investigations that go along with that are often visited on undeserved, well, not that there would ever be deserving recipients of that. These relationships about power, they're also about respect and the so-called developed countries have displayed little respect to places like the Republic of the Marshall Islands and they are worthy of our utmost respect and not least for the action in 2014 when they filed the applications at the international court of justice. It's a principal judicial organ of the UN and its role is to settle in accordance with international law legal disputes submitted to it by states. I won't rehearse the countries that have, the nine countries of shame, but they are contributing little to the cause of humanity by their course of action. For giving way, I think we should name the accused nine as much as we possibly can so that the people know the perpetrators of these weapons of mass destruction. So the accused, I think, need to be listed as often as we possibly can. I take Mr Stewart's point. In the time-limited debate, nonetheless, I will confirm that it's the United States, the United Kingdom, not my name, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea and you are right that these cases are founded on the unanimous conclusion of the International Criminal Court of Justice in 1996 and I'll quote, there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. It's also important to say that the action was about ensuring that opinion isn't allowed to lie dormant or be ignored and it covers things like refusing to commence multilateral negotiations, implementing policies contrary to the objective of nuclear disarmament, as we heard from the likely replacement of Trident, and a breach of the obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. I can't stress enough the influence of the arms trade that it plays in this. So I think that there are many challenges our planet faces, not least climate change and that will require collaboration of the nations. The Republic of the Marshall Islands, rather than the nine nuclear states in my mind, demonstrably care about humanity. I applaud their actions, wish them well and making the world a better place and wish the action every success. I also thank Bill Kidd for bringing forward the debate this evening on the UK's obligations to the non-proliferation treaty and the plight of the Marshall Islands. Conferences to review the NPT take place every five years. At the last conference in 2010, the five major nuclear powers reaffirmed, and I quote, they are unequivocal, unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament. They also committed to undertake further efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate all types of nuclear weapons. Of course, progress since 2010 has been sporadic, to say the least. There has been a growing focus and concern of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons by many non-nuclear states, by the United Nations and other NGOs throughout the world, and indeed the on-going refugee crisis throughout not only Europe, but in many parts of the world underlines the importance of bringing peace and stability to many parts of that world. Our energies and strategies and international economic drivers should be guided towards creating political, socio and economic landscapes to allow countries to thrive and for their peoples to live in peace. Foreign policy mistakes over the years have created refugee situations in many parts of the world. The 2013 UN conference organised on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons was used by non-nuclear countries to push for development of a nuclear weapons convention that would outlaw the possession of such weapons as a first step towards total elimination. That brings us to the spotlight, the UK's position on its trident successor programme, which would replace the UK's nuclear deterrent from 2018 if it is approved. The UK's nuclear deterrent is thought to be around 225 nuclear warheads. The US has around 5,000, and Russia is believed to have the same amount. The 2015 NPT conference allowed the opportunity for the UK to make a commitment to the undertaking that it made in 2010, which was, as I repeat, its unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of the nuclear arsenals that are leading to nuclear disarmament. Here in Scotland, as we just heard at Faslain, we are hosting the UK's nuclear deterrent at only 25 miles from our biggest city, which is a population of 600,000. In only a matter of weeks ago, a 20-vehicle military convoy travelled across Scotland using specially-built vehicles that transport nuclear weapons. John Aesley, the co-ordinator of Scottish CND, said that 70 years ago Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb. What brought me to the belief in total nuclear disarmament was the book by John Hersey, who wrote of Hiroshima. There was no sound of planes. The morning was still. The place was cool and pleasant. Then a tremendous flash of light cut across the sky. Mr Tannimoto, who was the pastor of the Hiroshima Methodist Church, said that it seemed like a sheet of sun. He said that he lived a dozen lives at that moment and saw more death than he thought he would ever see. 100,000 people killed. That is why it is right that we support the people of the Marshall Isles in suing the nine countries at the Hague. It is, as they state, a flagrant denial of human justice. When one considers that only one bomb—a 15-megaton bomb, the braver shot—equivalent to 1,000 Hiroshima blasts, exponentially means that if we apply the figures in Hiroshima, it applies to 100 million deaths, 20 times the population of Scotland. We support the Marshall Isles. We wish them success. In doing so, the people of Scotland do not want nuclear weapons. It is time that the UK took their obligation to the NPT seriously. Trident Unule will cost the UK £100 billion, and Scotland may have to pay its share. Let Scotland confront that and let it be a beacon to the rest of the world as a country that wholly rejects nuclear weapons and takes its obligation to the NPT seriously. I now invite Keith Brown to respond to the debate, cabinet secretary, seven minutes or so. I also thank Bill Kidd for securing the debate. As John Finnie has done, I acknowledge the wider work that Bill Kidd has taken on over a number of years in pursuit of the abolition of nuclear weapons, as has been mentioned. He has a growing international reputation for having done that, and the chamber is lucky to have him, in my view. Bill Kidd's debate has also allowed the opportunity for members across the chamber to make clear their position on whether they believe that the UK Government is committed to nuclear disarmament, and if it is doing all it can to make this a reality. The Scottish Government has been consistent and steadfast in its opposition to the position and the threat of nuclear weapons. We have called on the UK Government to lead by example on disarmament, and in light of its location and impact in Scotland to work with us on the safe and complete withdrawal of Trident. And yet, as George Osborne's announcement of 31 August demonstrates, the UK Government continues to prepare the way for a new generation of Trident-carrying submarines operating from HMNB Clyde into the second half of this century and potentially beyond. It's difficult for me and I think for many others to reconcile that stance with a genuine commitment towards nuclear disarmament. Presiding Officer, while the Republic of the Marshall Islands case against the UK Government is a matter for the International Court of Justice, the Scottish Government for our part can certainly sympathise with the Marshall Islands on the issue of nuclear weapons. Our history, of course, of nuclear weapons is, of course, different from those of the Marshall Islanders, as we have heard. We do share a common belief that there should be no place for nuclear weapons in our world today, and that there is an obligation on each and every nation to do all that it can to realise that vision. Therefore, we recognise their frustration and the frustration of many nations, many organisations and individuals, including some within the chamber and in the gallery today, at the apparent lack of progress in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Whilst it's been mentioned by some members about the reduction in the numbers of warheads, what's not been mentioned is the increase in the capacity of those warheads at the same time. Presiding Officer, I'd like to respond to the arguments that have been put forward in support, although they have been fairly rare tonight, of nuclear weapons. We've heard a great deal of talk about the role of nuclear weapons in national and international security, and I, for my part—and I think that many people here do not accept the suggestion that they are a necessary evil—nuclear weapons do not make us more secure, as the UK and other states have, unfortunately, seen. The possession of nuclear weapons has not deterred terrorist acts. In fact, if you think about it for a second, the very presence of terrorist acts should make us more concerned about possessing nuclear weapons in the first place. I think that we had a kind of Orwellian use of language from Jamie McGregor when he said or implied that it was more dangerous not to have nuclear weapons than it was to have nuclear weapons. That kind of argument is where we were led to with the nuclear arms race, and we should reject that argument. It's also been said by Malcolm Chisholm and others. Some of the very high-level military figures who have also spoken out and political figures, Michael Portillo, said that Trident was completely passed itself by date. It's a waste of money and is no deterrent to the Taliban. Malcolm Chalmers, well-known and defends Circle, said that, even if the MOD manages to secure the continuing 1 per cent annual growth and total equipment spending to which the Government was committed itself, sharp increases in spending on trident renew and the early 2020s seem set to mean further years of austerity for conventional equipment plans. It's worth bearing in mind that the cost of trident is equivalent to a third of the capital budgets of all three services. I can tell you from my experience that there are many people in the services that believe that it's far worse deal to invest £100 billion in trident than it is to invest in the soldiers that have received P45s as they're serving on the front line or the massive defence cuts that have taken place in terms of conventional defence. Toby Fennick, from the Centre Forum, said that replacing trident is nonsensical. There is no current or medium-term threat to the UK, which justifies the huge costs involved. However, even to get to that position of trying to justify it on security grounds, you have to accept a moral case for it. You have to accept that there must be circumstances if you support the purchase of trident that it would be legitimate to use those weapons in. I think that most people in the chamber reject that assertion. There is no circumstance, none that I can think of where it would be justifiable to use nuclear weapons. If you don't believe that there is one on that side of the argument, on the other side of the argument, you can't support having nuclear weapons if you don't, at the same time, support some circumstance in which it would be possible and acceptable to use them. One of the main reasons for that is that unlike most of conventional defence, trident is utterly indiscriminate. It destroys civilian populations who may have played no part in some beginnings of a war and suffer hugely. In the majority, the casualties will be civilian casualties when any nuclear weapon is used. As for the argument that nuclear weapons provide a security blanket against someone's specified future threat, what role do they have in responding to the real long-term issues that we face such as climate change, again mentioned by John Finnie and other, sustainable economic development and mass migration? It is the Scottish Government's view that the UK's nuclear weapons are maintained and would be renewed at the expense, as I have said, of conventional defence equipment and personnel capabilities that are far more utility to respond to current and future threats. It is therefore our position that HMMB Clyde has a valuable role to play as a conventional naval base. There are a range of reasons, political and economic, why the nuclear weapons states would not go to war with each other today or in the future. I, for one, do not believe that we can credibly argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for our security. There were many good speeches made today, Kevin Stewart, on the nature of the fight undertaken by the Marshall Islanders. I think that they have had general support from most people who have spoken in the debate. I very much appreciated Malcolm Chisholm's welcome for the debate, because that has not always been the response that we have had when we have raised the issue of trying in this chamber. It is vitally important for Scotland, as a number of people have mentioned, that we have this debate. As recent history has shown, so long as any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. It is well to point out the dilemma in trying to say to other countries, no, you cannot have them, you are not responsible, but we are. We can have them, because we are more responsible than you. There is no moral force behind that argument. The consequences of a nuclear exchange, whether by accident or by design, and a potential for accidents or misunderstandings is always there. It would result in inspeakable humanitarian suffering. When we heard the strength of some of the bombs that are being tested in the Marshall Islands from Chick Brody, we can imagine the level of human suffering and the huge environmental damage, again, which has been suffered in the Marshall Islands. As we debated in the Parliament on 20 March 2013, the Scottish Government supports the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon's five-point plan on nuclear disarmament as a framework for the UK and other nuclear weapon states to take serious and significant steps towards nuclear disarmament. We therefore call again on the UK Government to cancel plans to renew its triad and submarine fleet and to lead the way in both negotiations and actions towards nuclear disarmament. I would leave by using a quote from the International Committee of the Red Cross, which puts into focus the threat of nuclear weapons and the responsibility that we share in the pursuit of their withdrawal. Nuclear weapons, they say, are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering that they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time and in the threat that they pose to the environment, to future generations and, indeed, to the survival of humanity. Some mention was made, Presiding Officer, of how long we have held these views. I remember in 1986, I was proposing a motion on modern United Nations in the United Nations building in New York to the First Committee on Disarmament, exactly along those lines that were passed, and I would very much hope to see further success for those kind of motions, this kind of point of view in New York at the United Nations. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government supports the aims of this motion. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. That concludes Bill Kidd's debate on the NPT, the Marshall Islands and the UK Government's failure to meet its obligations. I don't now close this meeting of Parliament.