Scottish Parliament, 23 February 2012

382 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

Rail Services (Consultation)

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business today is a debate on motion S4M-2086, in the name of Richard Baker, on concerns about rail proposals. I call Richard Baker to speak to and move the motion. Mr Baker, you have 10 minutes.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

In our last Labour Party debate, we discussed the impact of Scottish Government policies on bus passengers. Today, we return to two more transport issues that are of crucial importance. In our second debate today, we will focus on support for ferry services, but in this debate, we will discuss the need to provide the rail services that Scotland requires and, specifically, the need to ensure that railway stations that perform a crucial role in their communities are not closed.

We make no apology for returning to transport issues in our debates; after all, an efficient public transport system that serves the travelling public’s needs is crucial not only to service provision but to boosting our economy to ensure that we move on from the current position of flatlining economic growth and rising unemployment towards the creation of a stronger and growing economy for Scotland.

Our motion results from proposals in the “Rail 2014—Public Consultation” document for the new ScotRail franchise. We and many others have expressed serious concerns about a huge number of issues in that document because we want better, not worse, rail services in Scotland, and because the need for progress is clear. More needs to be done to make rail services more punctual, faster and more affordable, and to extend their availability to give commuters more options for boarding the train rather than getting in their cars.

We are not saying that there has been no progress in all those areas; that is not the case, and we have welcomed initiatives to extend services, to improve journey times in some areas and to open new stations on the rail network. However, in a number of areas, there has not been enough progress and certain options in the consultation document threaten not to improve rail service provision in Scotland but to make it far worse.

One aspect of the consultation document that has caused great concern is the proposal to close a number of railway stations.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Can Richard Baker point to where in the consultation document it is proposed that stations be closed?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Yes I can. As the minister is well aware, the proposal is in section 7.

The proposal to close a number of railway stations is just one of our concerns about the consultation document. Although our motion highlights that issue, it is far from being the only aspect of the document that has met with huge opposition. Yesterday, I was fortunate to attend a briefing on the future of rail and ferry services in Scotland, which was held as part of Scottish Trades Union Congress week in Parliament, at which I heard the concerns of a number of the transport unions about the document’s proposals. They expressed their opposition to proposals on the future of the sleeper franchise, on the separation of routes in franchise arrangements according to profitability and social provision and, of course, on the closure of stations. Despite what I imagine the minister is pointing to in his intervention, the trade unions are in no way comforted by his statement that they are just proposals. The fact is that the proposals have met with such widespread opposition because they are contained in a document about future rail services and have been put on the table in a consultation process.

However, although we believe that, on a range of issues, the consultation document is fundamentally flawed, we had hoped that our motion might find consensus and help to clarify the Scottish Government’s position on at least one subject that is covered in the document. The motion simply acknowledges that there are a range of concerns and that further discussion on the issues is required and, specifically, calls for rejection of the proposals that are set out in section 7 of the document to close 11 stations in and around Glasgow, which have been the subject of local campaigns for their retention and a campaign by Glasgow’s Evening Times. We hope that now that the consultation has concluded, the minister can confirm today that not only are there no current plans to close any of those stations, but that there is no question of their being closed.

The easiest way to obtain the clarity that we need on the issue is for Scottish National Party members to support our quite reasonable motion, although it is evident from some of the noises off that they will not do so.

My colleague Patricia Ferguson has been particularly active on the issue. In her members’ business debate on the subject, the minister refused to reject the proposition outright. He said then that there are no plans to close the stations and has reiterated that in his amendment. Of course, in the previous session of Parliament his predecessor announced that there were “no plans” to cancel the Glasgow airport rail link project, but only a week later the SNP did exactly that.

The minister’s attempts to downplay the significance of the proposals—which are clearly there in the consultation document—is undermined by the fact that SNP regional members in Glasgow have been issuing leaflets under the banner of the save our stations campaign. Although the minister may be adamant that there is no threat to the 11 stations, it is evident that he has failed to reassure his own back benchers in Glasgow on that point.

Although there are more than 60 stations in Scotland that are within 1 mile of another station, when further information was requested on which stations are under consideration in the light of section 7 of the consultation document, a list was provided that identified the 11 stations in question. Indeed, the consultation document refers specifically to their costing £208,000 in lease costs. The ambition behind highlighting that part of the consultation document is clearly a cost-saving exercise.

The concerns have been justified and it is extremely important that any threat of closure be lifted from those stations and that the people who rely on them every day, for example to get to work, can be reassured that the stations will continue to be a vital part of the rail network in Glasgow and Scotland. What we want to hear from the minister in the course of the debate is not simply that there are no plans to close any of those stations, but that they will not close and that the proposal that they should close has already been rejected. If he is able to confirm that, I would question why the SNP does not support our motion.

As Patricia Ferguson highlighted in the motion for her debate, all nine stations in Glasgow that featured on the list of 11 have seen an increase in passenger numbers in the past two years; in one instance, passenger numbers have grown by 189 per cent since 2005. There is a clear demand for the services that the stations provide. They provide crucial services not only in Glasgow, but in Paisley and Motherwell. That is why they should be a key feature of the work to grow the local economies in those areas as we seek to grow the wider Scottish economy.

There will only be increasing scepticism about the credibility of plan MacB if, in this area, as with others, the actions of ministers do not match the rhetoric. We want a rail network not with a reduced number of stations but with increased access to rail services.

As I highlighted at the beginning of my speech, the proposals on the closure of rail stations are but one of a host of issues on which we are at odds with the consultation document. We are deeply concerned that the effect of the proposals on passengers will be higher fares, overcrowding on trains, longer journey times on certain services and an end to cross-border rail services, with many passengers being forced to break their journeys. We are concerned by the proposal on the sleeper franchise, and the separation of franchises between those that are deemed to be profitable and those that are deemed to be provided for social reasons.

There are also proposals in a number of other areas that we believe are unacceptable. Although we will return to many of those issues in the coming months in Parliament, we wish to emphasise today that the consultation process is fatally flawed. It has raised questions that it seeks to answer with proposals that will do nothing but damage the provision of vital rail services.

We need to go beyond the consultation process and have a debate about the opportunities that exist to improve rail services in the years ahead. I commend to the minister—indeed, to all members—the briefing from TRANSform Scotland, which very much reflects our thinking when it says that further consultation is required of the Scottish Government on the future of rail services, including further consultation on specific areas in which there have been inadequate opportunities for passengers and stakeholders to engage in the crucial debate on the future provision of rail services.

The consultation document represents a threat to, not an opportunity for, our rail services. The Scottish Government should come forward with a far superior vision for the future of those crucial services for our society and economy. That should be the focus for building the rail services and the rail network that Scotland needs.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the concerns expressed in Glasgow that the Rail 2014 - Public Consultation calls into question the future of 11 railway stations in and around the city; calls on the Scottish Government to reject any proposals for the closure of these stations; also recognises that this is only one aspect of the Rail 2014 - Public Consultation, which has already given rise to questions regarding the quality of the provision of rail services across Scotland in the future, and believes that further debate and dialogue will be required beyond the conclusion of the consultation process, both in the Parliament and with all those for whom the future of rail services is of vital importance.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am pleased to have a chance to reiterate once again the Government’s position. It is important to bear it in mind that the process was a consultation and that there are no plans to close stations in Glasgow or anywhere else in Scotland. We finished the consultation only on Monday this week, so it is only right that we respect the people who responded and take time to consider what they had to say before we come to conclusions.

The consultation rightly raised a number of issues, including how to contract for services and how to pay for them, and how to get the best use out of the rail network. There is no question but that 2014 is a crucial year for a number of reasons, including the fact that there will be a new funding package for Network Rail and a new contract for rail passenger services. We must consider all the options in preparation for 2014. Had we not done so and had that not been evident in the consultation document, I am pretty sure that the Opposition parties would have demanded that we do exactly that.

Richard Baker’s motion implies that there has not been full and adequate consultation, although he also seemed to suggest that we rule out certain things rather than consult on them. I assure members that there has been considerable debate across Scotland in the past three months. There were detailed presentations and discussions with regional transport partnerships; presentations were given for stakeholders in each of those regions, to which all members of this Parliament, council leaders, members of the United Kingdom Parliament, business groups, local interest groups and the rail industry were invited. We also held public events at railway stations across the country. Self-evidently, the consultation was not a paper exercise. All the views that were expressed at those events will be taken into account.

It is surprising that Richard Baker, who clearly has an interest in the matter, did not take the opportunity to find out more about the issues that were raised at some of those events. We have made it clear throughout that the consultation process has been about options. Richard Baker continually used the word “proposals”, even though it does not appear in the consultation document. He will find that the paragraph from which he quoted does not contain the word “closure” at all. It says:

“We do not intend to reduce the size of the Scottish rail network, or reduce the number of stations”.

However, Richard Baker manages to take from that a proposal to close stations. Perhaps he can elaborate.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

I refer the minister to paragraph 7.11, which states:

“We would welcome views on what locations may be more appropriate for stations and which current stations are no longer required.”

Is it surprising that people think that some of the stations are under threat?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is a distortion of the English language to say that that is a proposal for closure. The word “closure” is not in that paragraph. The first part of the paragraph states:

“We do not intend to reduce the size of the Scottish rail network, or reduce the number of stations”.

That is fairly self-explanatory.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I will make progress, then I might come back to Mr Harvie.

We have made it clear throughout the consultation period that we are talking about options and not proposals. We have also been clear that one aim of the consultation is to provide information. We all acknowledge that the rail industry is fragmented—the legacy of previous Governments of various hues. It can be difficult to find out information on how the industry operates and what it costs. The consultation was an opportunity to address that gap in knowledge and has, in that regard, been a tremendous success. We have received more than 1,200 written responses. We now need time to review them to help to inform the way forward. Everybody’s response is important in that, including the views that we will hear today.

We have no plans to close stations in Glasgow or anywhere else in Scotland.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No.

Richard Baker talked about a request for information on which stations are under threat, but that was not the nature of that request. People asked for information about the 11 stations that have been mentioned in respect of footfall and their location. It was not a request for information about which stations are under threat. As he has done on several occasions, Richard Baker misrepresented completely the background to what happened. We recognise that footfall and location are only two of several factors in determining a station’s importance. Several Opposition members might be interested in Airbles station, which is of particular use for Motherwell FC’s ground and for workers at the Department for Work and Pensions pensions centre; and in Paisley St James station, which is of particular use for St Mirren FC’s ground.

Our track record on stations is that we have opened five new stations since 2007: Alloa station in my constituency, which I proposed as leader of Clackmannanshire Council back in 1999; Laurencekirk station, the opening of which has proved to be extremely successful; and Blackridge, Caldercruix and Armadale stations. Seven more stations are due to open as part of the Borders rail project. We have an extremely good track record on opening new stations.

In addition, Dalmarnock station in Glasgow is benefiting from an £11 million refurbishment programme, which is supported by a range of funders. There will be £426 million of investment in rail infrastructure this year—the highest level of investment since devolution. We will also provide substantial support for passenger services; since 2007, we have invested in the provision of 30,000 extra seats a day. The Airdrie to Bathgate link opened last year, and we have a fleet of new trains running in Ayrshire and Inverclyde. It will be interesting to hear from Labour members what Labour’s vision for rail in Scotland is.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Is the minister saying that, as long as he is in office, none of the 11 stations in question will close?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I do not know on how many occasions we have said that we have no plans to close those stations. However, we must listen to what people have said in the consultation. This is the difference between us and the Labour Party: when we say that we have “no plans” to do something, the Labour Party thinks that there is an agenda, because that is the way in which it operated. We are saying that we will listen to the consultation responses that we have received.

I look forward to hearing members’ genuine views, which we will seek to take into consideration, and I look forward to reading all the responses to the consultation. We are making a genuine attempt to improve rail services in Scotland. Our track record—whether on Borders rail, the Airdrie to Bathgate line, the new stations that we have opened or our record levels of investment—speaks for itself. It is in that vein that we intend to continue with our proposals for rail services in Scotland.

The consultation process has been what consultation processes should be: it has been genuine, it has laid out options and it has let people come forward with their own views. It is only right that we take time to consider those views. I hope that members will ask for a copy of the consultation responses so that they can see them. Richard Baker and Elaine Murray might be surprised by some of the proposals on station closures and the quarters from which they have come. They should come to an informed view, once they have had a chance to look at the consultation responses. That is what we are doing.

Regardless of that, we will continue to invest in rail services. We have seen a substantial increase in patronage, in the number of stations and in the investment that is being put into the infrastructure and passenger services. The Government intends to continue to invest in our rail services, which in the past have been fragmented, to improve them further for everyone.

I move amendment S4M-02086.1, to leave out from “the concerns” to end and insert:

“that Rail 2014 – Public Consultation gave members of the public, communities, businesses and organisations an opportunity to set out their aspirations for Scotland’s railways; notes that the Scottish Government will give due consideration to all responses to the consultation; acknowledges the repeated assurances of the Scottish Government that there has never been any intention, nor are there any plans, to close railway stations in Glasgow or indeed elsewhere in Scotland, and welcomes the Scottish Government’s record of investment and improvement in Scotland’s railway by including, for example, the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate railway, major improvements to Dalmarnock station, improvements to the Paisley corridor, new class 380 electric trains for Ayrshire and Inverclyde, the ongoing improvements to Waverley steps, additional services on the Highland Main Line, increased accessibility at stations across Scotland, the forthcoming Borders Rail project, the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvement Programme and the commitment to invest a minimum of £50 million in new sleeper trains.”

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I congratulate Richard Baker on lodging the motion. I know that its subject has been dealt with in a members’ business debate, but it is important that we should get the chance to address it in a main debate in the Parliament. Patricia Ferguson’s work in bringing the matter to public attention has been welcome.

There was much in the consultation that was easy to oppose. Among the radical suggestions that were made were proposals to cut the sleeper service, the idea that we might be expected to stand for longer on trains and the suggestion that we might increase peak-time ticket prices simply to discourage people from travelling. Some of those suggestions were met with hysteria—I should know, because I led some of it. It is in the nature of a consultation that ideas are proposed that might be beyond the pale. It is up to us as politicians to focus our opposition on such ideas, and I believe that that is exactly what we have done.

Another responsibility that we have when consultations take place, as we have learned from bitter experience, is our duty as Opposition politicians to read between the lines and to interpret what might emerge from a consultation that is not obvious. I believe that that is what the Labour Party has done, and it is entirely appropriate for it to have taken such action.

It has been suggested by some—not least, the Labour Party—that we should never see a station close. I am not prepared to make that commitment, because I believe that, even during a period of expansion, the management of the rail network may require us to take tough decisions about individual stations. However, the idea that we might wreak havoc with the rail network, particularly in Glasgow, causes me serious concerns.

The reason for that is simple and fairly general: we in Scotland are not good at mass transit systems. Most of our cities lack the support that is necessary to get people into and out of the city centre effectively. We mostly rely on buses or cars. We had the bright idea of having a tram network in Edinburgh, but the concept of bringing trams into Edinburgh has been fraught with cost and practical difficulties. We should hold dear the idea that we have one city in Scotland that thought about transport in advance.

The Glasgow subway system is a precious jewel in Scotland’s crown, and we can ill afford not to give it proper investment and support in future. It is unacceptable to consider possible cuts to Glasgow’s suburban rail network.

Rationalisation is often used as an excuse for removing services. Scotland’s rail services, and those in Glasgow in particular, are seeing significantly increased footfall. Demand for those services has never been greater than in recent times, and they deserve our support.

I mentioned hysteria and my part in creating it, and such tactics are often used by Opposition parties. It is only natural that the Government should claim that it never had any such plan and therefore should not be attacked for the very suggestion that it did. Well, what I want to hear from this debate is very simple. At the end of today, I want to know that we have a clear commitment to the consultation process, a promise that no decisions have been taken already and an undertaking that no station will be closed. I also want a commitment that the rationalisation process will not be used simply to justify closures and a promise that what the minister says today will not change after the local government elections have passed. It is the cynical behaviour of politicians that discredits us in the eyes of—[Laughter.] I am glad that members are enjoying this. It is the cynical behaviour of politicians that discredits us in the eyes of the electorate. What the Government says today must stand up in the longer term.

It is essential that we look ahead and see the consultation for what it is, and that we get the Government to give us an undertaking that the consultation is not a Trojan horse for a closure programme that it will deny today but will implement in future.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Since I was elected to the Scottish Parliament, I have had the honour of representing my constituents in the parliamentary chamber and in Glasgow City Council. Most of the time that has been a pleasure, but one of the occasional drawbacks is that I have to listen to the same tired debates from the Labour Party in both places. Unfortunately for me, today is one of those days.

It is a real shame but no surprise that the Labour Party has wasted vital debating time on a manufactured, politically motivated and negative motion that has no basis in reality, as Labour members well know. One would have thought that, by this time, the Labour Party would have realised that scaremongering may get it the odd headline but is no substitute for policy. I suspect that Labour members will find that out, with devastating consequences, in May.

It is clear that the motion was not lodged with the future of Scotland’s railways in mind, because it is about the future of Labour council colleagues throughout the country, but primarily in Glasgow, who are facing the search for a new career in the near future.

Labour knows, I know and the public know that there are no closures of train stations in Glasgow—there never were and never will be.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I would love to, but I have only four minutes.

Why does the Labour Party not bring something positive to the table? Where are its plans for the railways in Scotland? Does it have any? I thought not. It does not have a policy or a constructive suggestion. It has nothing. Richard Baker’s motion talks about “concerns expressed in Glasgow” about

“the future of 11 railway stations”.

The minister has told us that those 11 stations have been named because someone asked for the names. I am sure that we are all keen to know who that was and how it came about. It has come to my attention that, at a public meeting that was arranged by my local Labour member of Parliament, that mystery person asked the question. We all know him: he is the defeated Labour candidate who did not see his own downfall coming when it was staring him in the face.

I am not suggesting for a moment that this is a set-up—heaven forfend—but it has involved a Labour MP arranging a meeting to discuss the consultation, a member of the public asking for stations to be named and, once they were named, Labour running its council election campaign around that. At the very least, it is political opportunism of the worst kind.

As Labour scrabbles around for a bandwagon to jump on—or create—the SNP continues to invest in Scotland’s rail services. Our rail network receives a higher public subsidy than any network elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the recent budget passed by this Parliament increased expenditure on rail services and on maintaining the current network.

The SNP’s record on transport is one to be proud of, especially in Glasgow. That is demonstrated by our additional investment in the Glasgow subway and our commitment to fastlink, which will be an important piece of infrastructure when we host the Commonwealth games. The new Southern general hospital is another huge investment in Glasgow by this Scottish Government. There are countless other examples, which I am sure my colleagues will mention.

We have even put on an extra five trains a day between Glasgow and Dundee. I realise that Labour members do not have much reason to visit Dundee any more, but they have to accept that that is not the behaviour of a Government that does not recognise the importance of railway services.

Labour’s petition against the rail 2014 consultation states:

“I am against many of the changes proposed to Scotland’s railway network.”

It does not specify a single change, and I am sure that I am not the only person who read that and thought of Father Dougal standing outside the cinema in an episode of “Father Ted”, chanting, “Down with this sort of thing.” It is completely meaningless and shows the campaign for precisely what it is—an electioneering tool for May. Labour knows that there is no threat and wants to be able to claim the credit for changing the minister’s mind when he confirms that. That will not work.

Presiding Officer, if you invited me to a party—I await that call—and I said that I had no plan or intention to turn up, but then did, your response would be, “You told me you weren’t coming.” No plans and no intentions means not happening—in this case, no station closures.

Benjamin Franklin once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Clearly, the Labour Party is so desperate that it is willing to play the politics of the madhouse. It has no ideas, no vision and no policies, so all that it is left with is the politics of negativity, carping from the sidelines and spreading fear in local communities. I have—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

The motion recognises the real concern felt by many in communities in and around Glasgow about the future of their local train stations. Five stations in my constituency are on the list. Colleagues will recall the members’ business debate in my name when I and members from all parties represented in this chamber sought a clear statement from the minister that no station would close as a result of the consultation. I will not rehearse the argument that I made during that debate against the closure of those stations, because it is on the record. I note from the Government’s amendment that the mantra of “no plans” has been supplemented by there being no intention to close stations, but I had hoped that the minister would have taken this opportunity to say unequivocally that no stations will close.

It has been suggested—we have heard this again today—that the save our stations campaign is mischief-making. We have also heard again today that the names of the stations were only provided in response to a request. The reality, however, is that when a consultation with a foreword by a cabinet secretary and a minister highlights 11 stations, it is entirely reasonable to ask that they be named. Moreover, when it becomes apparent that those 11 stations are part of a potential group of 60, it is also reasonable to question why they have been singled out, to work hard with concerned local communities to bring their concerns to the attention of the Government and, when we fail to secure an unequivocal statement from the Government that no station will close, to redouble our efforts.

It is no coincidence that since my members’ business debate a month ago, when the minister did not take the opportunity to shut down the debate once and for all, my office has been inundated with e-mails, letters and requests for petitions, because people understand that the phrase “no plans” does not equate to a guarantee that their local station will be safe.

The Evening Times first identified the potential problem and is to be congratulated on the way in which it has supported communities in Glasgow on the issue. The Evening Times understands Glasgow and the economic, social and environmental problems that the stations’ closure would cause. It is a shame that the Government does not get it, too.

The amendment in the minister’s name talks about the benefits that the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme will bring. Let me tell members what EGIP could mean for train travellers in my constituency. The Anniesland to Glasgow Queen Street service, which runs through my constituency, is a busy route, with journey times of between five and 15 minutes. In recent years several new stations have opened, and passenger numbers have increased year on year.

The plans for EGIP threaten the service. Currently, the service arrives at a high-level platform at Glasgow Queen Street, but the advent of additional trains between Glasgow and Edinburgh would leave simply no room for the Anniesland to Queen Street service. It appears that options are being discussed whereby passengers along the line would be required to travel in the opposite direction, back to Anniesland, where they would change trains and make their way to Queen Street by a more circuitous route. Anyone who has ever travelled on the line knows that that is not a viable option. The journey from Ashfield to Queen Street would take not the five minutes that it currently takes but more than 30 minutes. Few people would consider making such a journey, and my concern is that the overall number of passengers would decrease and threaten the line’s viability.

The logic of the minister’s speech—

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

This reminds me of Westminster, which is much stricter with time.

I thank the Scottish Government for its many investments in rail, especially those that have benefited the east end of Glasgow. First, I welcome the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link, which has not been given the attention or praise that it deserves. Despite the name that it is often given, the line does much more than connect Airdrie and Bathgate, as many members know. It has opened up six stations in my constituency, with services every 15 minutes from the east end of Glasgow directly to Bathgate, Edinburgh Park, Haymarket and Waverley.

Secondly, I am delighted to welcome investment in Dalmarnock rail station of some £11 million or £12 million. Dalmarnock is set to become the station for the Commonwealth games, and as a legacy for the area it will be the station for Celtic Park, the indoor sports arena and the area in general.

There have been many other improvements recently, such as a new pedestrian bridge at Shettleston and new access ramps at local stations, which are extremely welcome.

This is a difficult time to embark on major new expenditure; a challenge that we face is to hold on to what we have. It would be disappointing to think that any station might close. The Victorians left us with a tremendous network that is comparable to that of many European cities. Strathclyde partnership for transport—which used to be the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority and the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive—has sought to protect and develop the network over the years.

Beeching cut back lines and services to such an extent that we now realise that what happened was far too drastic and seriously damaged the overall network. I would be concerned if any station were to close, especially Duke Street, which lies just outside my constituency but is the closest station to Parkhead Forge and the retail park, which are the major shopping centres in my constituency—it is also the closest station to my office.

Not only do we not want stations to close but we want to have a bit of vision and we want new stations to open, even if that happens only in the medium or longer term. Top of my wish list is a station at Parkhead Forge on the main line between Glasgow and Edinburgh via Airdrie and Bathgate, which would not just serve the shopping centre but give direct access to Celtic Park from Glasgow city centre and from Edinburgh. There are problems with the site, because the track that crosses Duke Street has a neutral section, and I am advised that if a train stops in that section it is unable to start again. That makes it more expensive to put a station there. However, it would be useful to have a station at Parkhead Forge.

I also hope for the electrification of the Whifflet line, which serves three stations in my constituency, to allow trains to use the low level at Glasgow Central station. That touches on a point that Patricia Ferguson made about congestion in the two high-level stations. In the long run, if we could get more trains into the low level at Queen Street and at Central, there could be much more train transport. There are also problems with congestion at Partick and we need to consider turn-back at Charing Cross.

My third main wish would be for crossrail at some stage, which would link the north and the south of the city. A station at Glasgow Cross would be a tremendous boost for the Saltmarket in that area, which has struggled.

We face challenging times. We should protect the system that we have, but we must also have a bit of vision for the longer term and look at how we can expand the network in Glasgow and in Scotland.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I must say at the outset, for absolute clarity, that, given the process that surrounds consultations, the transport minister could not have been clearer that the Scottish Government has no plans to close any station. I look forward to that being confirmed once the Government has considered the consultation responses. I will be interested to know what various organisations have said about station closures once the responses become publicly available.

People have been concerned about train stations, and the Evening Times has played an important role in voicing those concerns—a responsibility that I know the newspaper takes seriously. Glasgow MSPs have a responsibility to address any concerns that are raised, which is why I met the transport minister and gained the reassurances that I believed were important. However, MSPs also have a responsibility to suggest enhancements to our rail network—indeed, we were encouraged to do so.

I therefore thank the Labour Party for so generously donating its debating time to me this morning; I will use it to draw to the minister’s attention once more some of the suggestions that I made in response to the rail 2014 consultation.

One issue that I raised concerns service provision on the Maryhill line. I often use the line to go to meetings with constituents, and it has been a significant success. However, the service remains incomplete: it does not run on Sundays except occasionally at Christmas time.

I will provide some examples of why a Sunday rail service is important. In Kelvindale there is a high level of car ownership, and 50 per cent of train tickets that are sold there are season tickets, which highlights the importance of the train for commuting to work. On Sundays, residents still wish to travel, and if they want to go shopping in the city centre, for example, they may well choose to use a car instead of the train for that journey. They may even skip the city centre altogether and take a car to the out-of-town shopping centres. A Sunday service could therefore have both economic and strong environmental benefits.

At Gilshochill station, which is on the same line, passenger numbers have trebled in the past four years. The Cadder area of Glasgow that the station serves is not well served by alternative public transport links and has a lower level of car ownership. The train is an important service for that community, and extending the service to run on Sundays would meet local social need. Other stations on the line are in a similar position.

I ask the minister to be cautious about any analysis that he may receive of passenger numbers for the four Sundays before Christmas, when First ScotRail occasionally runs trains as part of its franchise commitment, as those services have been subject to cancellations. In 2011, the service ran only on two Sundays before Christmas, and in 2010 it did not run at all.

Uptake of such services depends on commuters being aware of them, and on strong service reliability. There is likely to be significant room for improvement on both counts. Consequently, any data that is received on demand for a Sunday service will be highly unreliable. I therefore ask that consideration be given to my suggestion that services on the Maryhill line be expanded to run on Sundays on a regular basis, and for that to be a potential condition of any future franchise.

I am sure that the minister will want to consider the various suggestions that I made in my submission, including the feasibility of a train station at Robroyston, enhancements on the Newton line and greater connectivity in north Glasgow. I explored the idea of connecting the Maryhill and Springburn lines; the price for that was an eye-watering £40 million to £60 million, but in the medium to long term, we must take a strategic look at developing the rail network.

Finally, it would be worth exploring the idea of a not-for-profit operator. I thank the minister for listening to my suggestions.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I am glad to speak—quickly—in the debate, on an issue that, as we have heard, is of great interest to the people of Glasgow. I thank my colleague Councillor Alistair Watson and Glasgow’s Evening Times for their save our stations campaign, which highlighted the level of real concern that constituents in Glasgow feel.

Last month, when Patricia Ferguson secured a members’ business debate on rail services, I read Transport Scotland’s rail 2014 public consultation document. I noticed that the ministerial foreword says that the Government believes that it

“can achieve a distinctly Scottish railway, attuned to the needs of our country”.

Figures show that the number of people who use the Glasgow stations that are at risk—those listed in the fact sheet—has risen in recent years. That surely illustrates the need to keep stations open in that part of the country. The fact that the number of people who use those stations has increased at a time when train fares have continued to rise suggests how important the stations are. The Government says that it wants to, and believes that it can, achieve a railway that is “attuned to the needs” of the country, and it is clear that the country’s biggest city needs those stations.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Will the member take an intervention?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes—unless the Presiding Officer is willing to give extra time.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

In relation to the stations in Glasgow that could be affected by closure, we need to consider the impact on our communities. For example, the elderly rely on having train stations close by. Do we ask them to stretch their pensions even more to take a taxi to a station that is further away? Like most other cities, Glasgow has a lower number of car owners than is the average outside the cities, so more people rely on public transport. Those people also stand to lose out if the changes come to fruition.

We have heard that the Government has no plans to close stations, but the people of Glasgow, whom I represent, remain deeply concerned that a number of railway stations are under threat. Is it any wonder that they are sceptical, given the Government’s well-known cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link project and its extension of the ScotRail franchise without consultation?

The rail 2014 consultation document could have provided us with an opportunity to debate positive changes to the way in which our rail services are delivered. As 2012 is the international year of co-operatives, we could have discussed the potential for a co-operative model for our railways. I am keen to hear from the minister in his closing speech what work the Government will do to pursue that as a viable alternative. Surely money that is generated on our public transport should be ploughed back into improving standards and services and not into shareholders’ pockets.

Instead of discussing such alternatives, we are being asked by concerned constituents to ensure that the Government takes heed and bins the station closure plans. I hope that the Government will listen to those calls, drop the proposals and support the motion, as those constituents are also its constituents and the Government will ultimately be answerable to them. I also hope that the Government will not blame any closures in the near future on the results of the consultation.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Following the members’ business debate at the end of January, I welcome a second opportunity to put on record my views. Since speaking in that debate, I have attended public meetings about some of the stations that are mentioned in the fact sheet. I attended one last month, along with Johann Lamont. To my surprise, there was barely a fag paper between us, as the saying goes.

All of us would, of course, express our concern should any of the stations that are mentioned in the fact sheet that accompanies the rail 2014 consultation close but, from the outset, the minister has been robust and unequivocal about the fact that there are no plans to close any stations in Glasgow or anywhere else in Scotland. I do not fault colleagues for asking the Scottish Government for reassurances about rail stations or local amenities that they fear for—that is part of the job that we are elected to do. However, as Alex Johnstone said, with an elected position comes a responsibility not to peddle fear and not to scare communities into believing that there is a threat to local services when one does not exist.

All of us in the chamber—including Opposition members—know fine well that no station in Glasgow is truly under threat. We know that the stations that were mentioned were simply on the fact sheet in response to a stakeholder question, whose context James Dornan laid out.

Although they are dwindling in number, some former ministers remain on the Labour benches, and they must remember—although perhaps they choose to forget—how consultations work. Are they seriously suggesting that they would not have bothered to answer the question had it come before them?

As they have offered such vociferous and robust debate, I am sure that all the Labour MSPs who have spoken today have made submissions to the rail 2014 consultation. It will be interesting to read whether they present a vision for Scotland’s rail network. My own submission to the consultation stated that it is vital for our local communities to be connected to public transport hubs and railway stations—especially as increasing numbers of people rely on public transport. The Scottish Government’s transport policies have helped to shift people from their cars on to our railways. Of course more can and should be done, but we are heading in the right direction.

The consultation is an opportunity to develop a vision of the kind of rail network that we want for our communities. Like John Mason, I have suggested that additional stations could be built in areas where housing developments are expanding. I will continue to work with local councillors, other MSPs and the Scottish Government to help to push the case for a new rail station in the Robroyston area in the north-east of Glasgow, and anywhere else where provision might be needed.

As James Dornan highlighted perfectly, none of us is oblivious to the context within which the debate is raging: we are less than 10 weeks away from local elections. All eyes are on Glasgow. The Labour Party’s domination of the city is being challenged, its iron grip is being loosened, and it is trying every tactic in the handbook to hold on desperately to its last bastion of power.

A couple of weeks ago, a councillor—a friend of many of those on the Labour benches—was in tears, claiming that her son’s apprenticeship had been threatened for a vote for the ruling Labour administration. Serious allegations have been made. That is no way to run a city.

The people of Glasgow are entitled to an honest debate over the next 10 weeks about local issues, including railway stations. They are entitled to an honest debate—not bluff, not bluster, not smoke and mirrors, and not being scaremongered into a vote. The people of Glasgow deserve better.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We move now to closing speeches.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

With today’s debate, it feels a little as if we have been here before. Like me, a number of the speakers talked on this issue a few weeks ago in Patricia Ferguson’s members’ business debate. I congratulated Ms Ferguson on securing that debate, and I congratulate Labour on bringing the issue forward again today.

In the previous debate, I said that the overarching need was for clarity, and that is what today’s motion searches to find. We have heard a number of speeches today on a great many rail issues around the country that are raised by the Transport Scotland consultation document and the accompanying fact sheet. My colleague Alex Johnstone spoke at length about the sleeper services, as did Richard Baker.

Although it is right that rail changes are discussed in the round, I am pleased that the lion’s share of today’s debate has been based on the perceived threat to the 11 stations in Glasgow that are within 1 mile of another station and are on the list. As a Glasgow MSP, I have received a number of representations on this issue, as have others. Glasgow residents have real worries over any doubts about trains on the Maryhill and Paisley canal line.

As they stand, the consultation document and the accompanying fact sheet make it look as though stations throughout Glasgow are under threat simply because they are within 1 mile of another station. There are 14 stations in that category, and I can assure members that Glasgow residents are alarmed by any prospects of closure. That concern is not manufactured; it is real.

More than half a million journeys are made on the Maryhill line every year, and there has been continuous annual traffic growth at all stations. The line serves some of the most deprived areas of Glasgow—areas where other modes of transport are frequently not available.

Bob Doris mentioned my local station—Kelvindale—and said that, despite the high car ownership in the area, the station is well used. It is worth remembering that Kelvindale opened only in 2005, and that it has been a great benefit to local residents. How on earth can it be sensible to close the station now, when passenger numbers are rising year on year, and car ownership is going down?

We can consider another station on a different line. Nitshill is in a deprived area of Glasgow, and it appears that the station could be under threat, as it is one of the stations on the list. The area is poorly served by buses—recently, the 45 route was shortened—and the level of car ownership is low. That may explain why the number of rail passengers has increased by 50 per cent over the past five years. Given that the station not only serves the people of Nitshill but affords access to the Glasgow museums resource centre, which is visited by more than 11,000 people every year, surely what Nitshill needs is investment to provide step-free access to the southbound platform, and certainly not closure.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

At a meeting that I had in Kennishead, which has been affected by the threats and scaremongering, once I explained to the people there what the minister had said, they said that they were comfortable with it, and they were surprised about what was happening. Does the member accept that the scaremongering is affecting communities much more than the consultation is?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have had representations from people who are genuinely worried and are looking for more clarity. That is what I am asking for.

The whole point of a suburban rail line is to have plenty of stations on it. The point is to allow the maximum number of people to use the train services for commuting and leisure. As the representations from my constituents make clear, the consultation has caused consternation and alarm. Now that it is closed, I hope that the minister will give us clarity—not just a Yes, Ministeresque “There are no plans to scrap X, Y or Z” response. When it comes to rail services in Glasgow and GARL, residents know what “no plans” means from the Scottish National Party Government.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am sure that members will agree that the level of interest in the consultation and the number of responses that we have received are such that we should allow adequate time to review those responses before we make any proposals for the way forward.

One of the Opposition parties honestly admitted to “hysteria” in the response to the initial publication of the document. It would be interesting to know whether Ruth Davidson thinks that she was hysterical in her response—it would be interesting to know whether it was just one person in the Tory party, Alex Johnstone, or members across the Opposition parties who were hysterical. Alex Johnstone, who made some salient points, said that we should respect the commitment to the consultation process and asked us to rule out further consideration of some of the responses. It is not possible to do both. We must listen to what people said in the consultation.

Ruth Davidson made a point about a “Yes, Ministeresque”—if that is a word—response in respect of any plans. That may be how the Tories have done things in the past, but that is not how we do things here. This is a genuine consultation process. They should not judge us by their own standards. We have a genuine commitment to the consultation process. We noted, of course, the points that were made about a hysterical response to the consultation. Not for the first time, there was enthusiastic applause from Labour for a Tory speech on railways. How often are we seeing that these days?

It is quite clear that there has been scaremongering, but I do not deny that there is doubtless genuine concern. Whenever there is consultation on an area of major public policy that is of interest to the public, there is bound to be concern, but a number of SNP back benchers have made the point that that concern has been exploited and blown out of all proportion for party-political ends. That is evident from this debate.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I remind the minister that it is not only Labour, the Tories or others who have campaigned on the issue; his own party has done so, too. In the spirit of his consultation as he has espoused it, how many people who responded to the consultation and said that a station should be closed will it take to make a station close?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

If I get this right, the Labour Party wants to set a benchmark by which we will choose to close a station. We will not do that. We will listen to what the people have to say. [Interruption.]

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We will take time to consider the consultation responses, and I will be interested in seeing Patricia Ferguson’s and Richard Baker’s responses.

Part of the problem that the Labour Party has is that scaremongering is not an alternative to a vision. That is a simple fact. We have heard nothing about a vision. I cannot say how disappointed I was to hear, for example, Ruth Davidson saying how pleased she was that so much of the debate had been taken up by what she referred to as the “threat” to stations. The Opposition parties have missed an opportunity to talk about the vision for Scotland. That should be contrasted with the contributions by members such as John Mason, Bob Doris and Humza Yousaf, who talked about things that they wanted to see, such as an increased number of stations and improved services.

We have had a massive cut to our budget—£1.3 billion. A third of our capital programme has been decimated by the UK Government. I do not deny that those improvements are, therefore, difficult to put in place. We are putting more money into the railways than the previous Scottish Governments did. That is difficult to do, but it is right that we at least have that vision.

We have some positive things to say with regard to new stations. We will carefully consider the responses that talk about new stations and ways in which we can grow the network. Unfortunately, we have heard little about that from the Labour Party.

There has been a recognition of the growth in passenger numbers. Even the Labour Party must admit that there must be a correlation between the approach that we have taken—the increased investment, the new stations that we have opened, the new lines that we have opened and the investment in Borders rail, which will continue into the future—and increased patronage. The Government has grown the rail network in Scotland and has put a substantial amount of money into it.

As was mentioned earlier, a report that was published a couple of weeks ago said that Scotland’s rail is the most heavily subsidised in the UK. That was condemned, but that is a sign of our commitment to the railways—greater commitment than has been shown by previous Governments. Members should not forget that many of the points of concern that were raised by Labour members and others are the result of the railway infrastructure that we have and how the railways are organised, which Labour did nothing to change over 13 years. If it wants a co-operative to come forward for the franchise, why did it not change the legislation to allow that to happen? Labour had 13 years in which to do that, but it did nothing.

It is essential that we continue to work towards a railway that meets the needs of Scotland. We know that there are constraints, such as questions of public finance and the increasing cost of rolling stock. It would have been nice if the Opposition speakers had acknowledged them.

The issue of fares was mentioned. What was not mentioned is the fact that we have kept the increases in Scotland to a much lower level than those in the rest of the UK, including the increases that took place during the time when Labour was in control in the UK. That was not mentioned at all, but it is a measure of our commitment to the railways.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the last increase in Scotland was 6 per cent, as opposed to a 5 per cent increase south of the border?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No. If Mr Baker goes back and checks his figures, he will find that that was not the case. The increase south of the border was not 5 per cent. Again, as earlier, he has got his figures wrong. Perhaps he would have been better informed if he had gone to some of the consultation events and engaged in the consultation process.

We are going to listen to the 1,100 responses that we have had so far, as well as the points that have been made in today’s debate. We should be listening to those views. It is absolutely right that the Government listens to the consultation responses. It is also absolutely right that we set out options, which have continually been referred to as proposals by the Conservative leader and others. They are not proposals. That was made clear. However, there is obviously a political imperative to dress them up in that way.

We will continue to invest in our railways and we will oppose the negative scaremongering that is going on. We will see who has been right all along when the determinations are made.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Let us get back to why people are worried and what was said in the consultation document, which started off those worries. This issue was not invented by the Labour Party or the Conservative Party; it was set out in that document. Paragraph 7.8 says:

“from time to time, closures and network modifications need to be considered in the light of changing operational needs and passenger travel patterns.”

Two paragraphs later, the document mentions stations on the rail network that are located in close proximity to one another and specifically refers to the 11 stations in Glasgow, pointing out that they cost a total of £208,000. In paragraph 7.11, the document talks about reconfiguring the network

“by reviewing the location of stations.”

It is impossible to relocate a station without closing the one that is already there.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Mr Dornan wishes to make an intervention, but he himself expressed concern about the possibility of closures, and was quoted in a newspaper as saying that he was going to write to his constituents to seek their views on the effect of those closures on their communities.

In the debate on 26 January, which Patricia Ferguson secured, the minister stated that he had

“no intentions to close stations”

and that the list of stations in Glasgow

“was asked for by someone at a station in Glasgow during the consultation exercise”.

Now Mr Dornan says that it was someone who apparently could not see their own downfall who asked for the list. When John Pentland asked for a list of stations that are within 1 mile of another station, the minister provided him with a list of 60 stations, but the person at the station got a list of the 11 such stations in Glasgow. The minister said:

“That person gave the criteria for what they wanted, which was information on stations close to each other and on the patronage numbers.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2012; c 5884, 5885.]

The list of the 11 stations in the Glasgow commuter area and, indeed, three others outwith that area that are within 1 mile of another station is in a document entitled “Rail 2014 Consultation – FACT SHEET - 1”, which was published on 16 December 2011 and which can be found in a link from the publications and consultations section of the Transport Scotland website. It does not sound like a list handed out to somebody at a station.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I confirm that that link exists and that it is quite right that we publish the information that we have been asked to provide; it was asked for and that is why we provided it. Given what Anne McTaggart said about the increased patronage, why does Elaine Murray think that the stations concerned are at risk? What is the risk to them?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

They were mentioned in the minister’s document; they were specifically mentioned in the consultation document. That makes people think that they may be at risk.

The fact sheet to which I referred has links to other publications relating to station usage and so on. The fact sheet appears to be an official accompanying document and there is no indication that it was produced in response to somebody in a Glasgow station. Interestingly, the “Rail 2014—Public Consultation” web page also has a link to fact sheet 2, which contains information about cross-border services. I can only surmise that somebody at Gretna Green station asked for that information, but it was not me. Perhaps I am not somebody who did not foresee their “own downfall”, to use Mr Dornan’s words.

The answer to John Pentland’s written question S4W-04884, which was lodged on 9 January and answered on 19 January, indicated that there are some 60 stations in Scotland that are within 1 mile of another station, so why was reference made to the 11 within the Glasgow commuter area in paragraph 7.10 of the consultation document, along with the cost of operation?

I wonder what question that person in the Glasgow station actually asked that caused him or her to be provided with a list of the 11 Glasgow stations and three others outwith the Glasgow area. What could Invershin station in Sutherland, Ardrossan Town station in North Ayrshire and Golf Street station in Angus possibly have in common with each other and 11 Glasgow stations that they do not have in common with the other 44 stations on the list that was provided in answer to John Pentland’s question other than that they might have been considered for closure, because they are not even all within the Glasgow area? Eleven of the stations are in Glasgow and three are elsewhere.

I draw members’ attention to Transform Scotland’s response on Monday to the consultation in which it referred to

“Recent station re-openings at communities such as Laurencekirk and Alloa”.

Incidentally, some of the lines that the minister is boasting about were initiated by the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive and not by the Scottish National Party, but the SNP is taking the credit for our plans—it is nice to open things that we planned.

Transform Scotland has made the point that separation distance is not a valid tool and that, in fact, there is a good case for a metro-type service in the Glasgow area. Indeed, I think that some of the back-bench members who have spoken in the debate from various sides of the chamber made the case quite well for that. However, I was quite interested by Bob Doris mentioning the stations and enhancements that he would like but not speaking out about the campaign that he and his party’s candidates for Glasgow City Council have been running to save their local stations. They, too, must have been rather concerned that their stations might be closed. That is not just scaremongering. The way in which the consultation document was put together has caused concern generally.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

When the consultation document first came out and the fear of closures was raised by the member and her colleagues, councillors did what they should do: they contacted the people whom they should have contacted and got the reassurances that they required. They did not have to campaign further to save our stations or anything else, because they knew once the minister had said that there were

“no plans and no intentions to close stations”—[Official Report, 26 January 2012; c 5884.]

that no closures were going to happen.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

That is factually incorrect, because it was the Glasgow Evening Times that raised the concerns and started the campaign, not the Labour Party. Clearly, Patricia Ferguson’s and Ruth Davidson’s constituents still have concerns, because they are still writing to their MSPs expressing their worries. They are not reassured by the Government’s claims that it has no intention of closing stations, because closures have not been ruled out. People in Glasgow know that the SNP got rid of GARL after saying that it had no plans to do so. Frankly, they will not trust the Government unless it is a bit more clear.

In my last minute, I will refer to other issues in the consultation about which there is concern. Those include the ownership of stations, the dual-focus franchise and the fact that having profitable and non-profitable services on two different franchises could lead to the introduction of different levels of specification and, possibly, the deterioration of services in rural areas. The cross-border services and the hub approach also cause me a lot of concern. I hope that, in the future, we will get the opportunity not just to debate this but, in a longer debate that I hope the Government might be prepared to bring to the chamber, to go through a number of the proposals in the consultation. There are a lot of issues in that document that need to be discussed, which are causing concern in local communities.

I, too, believe in the opening of stations. I recently wrote to the Minister for Housing and Transport, requesting new stations for Eastriggs and Thornhill. Sadly, the minister, he say no.

Road Equivalent Tariff (Commercial Vehicles)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02087, in the name of Elaine Murray, on the withdrawal of the road equivalent tariff from commercial vehicles. I call Elaine Murray, when she is ready, to speak to and move the motion.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

I feel a bit like the filling in a sandwich—I apologise if some members find it rather unsavoury.

The Scottish Government introduced a road equivalent tariff pilot in the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree in October 2008. In 2010, the pilot was extended until April this year. The Government also commissioned Halcrow to undertake an evaluation of the pilot, which was published in July last year. Halcrow found that around 30,000 additional visits were made by ferry to the pilot area in each year of the pilot and that three quarters of the accommodation providers had experienced increased levels of occupancy. The decision to continue the RET scheme—indeed, to extend it to other islands over time—will be welcomed by tourism businesses in the islands that are to be included in the scheme. Some are to be included from October this year, Arran is to be included two years later and others have a more distant promise.

Halcrow also concluded that the RET scheme had made a positive impact on haulage businesses by lowering their total costs by around 10 per cent. Although Halcrow could not identify the total savings that were being passed on to the supply chain, in the document that it published in July it deduced that those savings may have offset other cost increases and enabled prices to be kept down. In addition, Halcrow found evidence suggesting that the difference in the price of fuel between the Western Isles and the central belt had reduced subsequent to the introduction of the RET scheme. Indeed, the Western Isles was no longer the most expensive place in Scotland to buy diesel, as it had been when the RET scheme was introduced in 2008.

Transport Scotland’s draft ferries plan, which was published in December last year, proposed replacing RET for commercial vehicles with an enhanced version of the discount scheme that had been in operation prior to the introduction of RET. It argued:

“In 93 per cent of cases, the reduction in ferry fares arising through the RET Pilot have been wholly or partially absorbed at some stage in the supply chain”.

Basically, it wanted the savings to be passed on in total. Of course, that means that the ferry savings may have helped to offset price rises in other parts of the supply chain—for example, in fuel costs. In October 2008, when the RET pilot was introduced, the average price of a litre of petrol was 117.1p. By March 2011, when the original pilot would have ceased, the price was 139p per litre, reflecting a rise of almost 19 per cent, and by November last year the price had increased by a further 2p per litre. The RET savings may indeed have been partially or even wholly absorbed by increasing fuel prices but, overall, they helped to keep prices lower than they would otherwise have been.

Those of us who represent rural areas know well that the prices of many items, including fuel, are higher in more remote towns and villages than they are in the central belt. We are told that transportation costs contribute to those higher prices. Therefore, it must be perfectly feasible that anything that reduces the cost of transportation will help to reduce prices. The reduction in the difference in fuel prices between the Western Isles and the central belt is very likely to be a case in point.

The draft plan argues that the increase in freight traffic in the first two years of the Western Isles pilot was only 8 per cent—the Government’s amendment says that it was 7 per cent—whereas the increase in car traffic was around 30 per cent. However, the figures varied greatly between routes. Freight traffic on the Ullapool to Stornoway route, which accounts for 57 per cent of all commercial traffic, increased by 7 per cent whereas on the Oban-Castlebay-Lochboisdale route it increased by 30 per cent.

The draft plan refers to the fares discount scheme of up to 15 per cent dependent on volume of business—which existed prior to the introduction of RET—and proposes that, for the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree, the maximum discount would be increased to 25 per cent.

Those proposals provoked consternation and even dismay among many businesses on the Western Isles and, indeed, even among their political representatives. The Scottish National Party MP for the Western Isles, Angus MacNeil, is reported in Hebrides News Today of 29 November as saying:

“I believe it is a major mistake to remove RET from the haulage industry … The whole point of RET is to help the economy of the islands, increasing transport costs for the haulage industry at a time of crippling fuel costs is disappointing. As recessions go, the Hebrides have fared reasonably well, this was I am sure helped by RET.”

On 6 December, Mr MacNeil declared himself to be

“fully supportive of the hauliers in the Outer Hebrides”

and stated that:

“The removal of RET will ultimately lead to an increase in prices for customers in our islands … If this is not sorted freight costs and prices will go up which could ultimately impact on jobs.”

Donald Joseph Maclean of Barratlantic Ltd joined him in that press release, stating:

“Since RET came into effect four years ago, we have been on the same working level as our mainland competitors and our turnover has increased by 20%, which made us competitive. The removal of RET is unimaginable.”

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I understand the point that Elaine Murray is making about other peoples’ points of view, but I am anxious to get to the Labour Party’s position. Is the party against RET, as it was in 2007; is it, as it was in 2008, in favour of RET for individuals but not for hauliers; or is its position as it was in 2011: that everybody with a car in the Western Isles should get £400?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Our position is stated in the motion. We want a proper socioeconomic impact assessment.

Where and when in 2007 did anybody in the Labour Party say that we were against RET? I have looked for that and cannot find it other than in statements from the SNP saying that we were opposed to RET.

Mr MacNeil has commented many times on how essential it is that RET be retained. Indeed, I understand that his Scottish Parliament colleague Dr Alasdair Allan was originally supportive of the campaigns by his constituents and facilitated a meeting between hauliers and the Minister for Housing and Transport on 7 February. Prior to that, he expressed the view that

“businesses will make … a robust case for the retention of RET”.

The meeting duly took place, although invitations were extended only to a select few and some were offended that they were not allowed to come and make their point. Indeed, the Outer Hebrides transport group, which was recently formed to support the hauliers’ case, was disappointed to be offered only a 45-minute meeting with the minister on an issue of such importance to its members after travelling such a long way for the meeting.

I will be fair: the meeting was productive to the extent that the limit for eligibility to receive RET was extended from 5m to 6m, although I do not know whether that is intended to apply to all routes or only the Western Isles routes.

The following day, the Outer Hebrides transport group met Western Isles Council to call for a review of the proposals—something similar to what we are calling for. The council leader, Angus Campbell, commented that there had been an

“overwhelming response from the local business community condemning the proposals to remove RET on commercials as having a serious economic detriment in terms of job losses across a range of sectors.”

To be fair to the minister and Transport Scotland, there was further movement on 13 February, when Transport Scotland announced a transitional relief scheme under which the Scottish Government would subsidise 50 per cent of the increase in year 1 and cap any increase to a maximum of 50 per cent of the RET fare. A similar formula would be applied in years 2 and 3. That would mean that, for example, if the non-RET fare was twice the RET fare, the haulier would pay 50 per cent the increase in year 1, 75 per cent in year 2 and 87.5 per cent in year 3.

However, increases on some routes would still be significant. As of April this year, under the transitional scheme, the fare for a 17m vehicle on the Ullapool to Stornoway route would increase by £95.48 and on the Oban-Coll-Tiree route by £98.72.

Western Isles Council was not convinced. On 15 February, it unanimously passed the following resolution:

“The Comhairle is of the view that the current proposals by Scottish Government in regard to the withdrawal of RET for commercial vehicles will be detrimental to the economy and community of the Outer Hebrides;

The Comhairle requests that Scottish Government withdraw its proposals as regards the withdrawal of RET for commercial vehicles until the evaluation, referred to in the announcement by Transport Scotland on 13 February 2012, has been completed”.

Given that the motion was passed unanimously, I presume that the council’s half-dozen SNP councillors supported it or at any rate did not turn up to vote against it. After the motion was passed, the OHTG wrote to its MSP, Dr Allan, expressing its satisfaction at the council’s position and asking for his

“clear, and equally unambiguous support in conveying this message to Transport Minister Keith Brown.”

I understand that, on Tuesday, the group received a reply from Dr Allan, advising that he had made its views clear to the transport minister.

I also believe that the OHTG wrote directly to Mr Brown observing that

“the Comhairle requests that Scottish Government re-instate RET for commercial vehicles until the evaluation ... has been completed. It is unusual for a study and evaluation to take place during a time of transitional arrangements, and the Comhairle would suggest that it is in all parties’ interests—Scottish Government, the Comhairle, the Outer Hebrides community and commercial operators—that the study is allowed to evaluate the full operation of RET on the basis of objective evidence.”

Our motion seeks the same—that a moratorium is declared on the RET changes

“until a full and proper socioeconomic study has been carried out”.

As for the Government’s amendment, the OHTG says:

“It is riddled with nonsense”.

That is a bit cruel but I think that, as usual, it is self-congratulatory and complacent.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the road equivalent tariff (RET) scheme has brought significant benefit to the Outer Hebrides, Coll and Tiree; is of the view that the current proposals to withdraw RET from larger commercial vehicles will be detrimental to the social and economic wellbeing of these islands and communities, and calls on the Scottish Government to enforce a moratorium on the fare increases until a full and proper socioeconomic study has been carried out to assess the impact that increased transportation costs will have on households, local employers and island hauliers.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

We welcome this debate on what is, as I think Elaine Murray said, a vital issue for our island and rural communities. I am sure that everyone here recognises the significant benefits of the road equivalent tariff scheme, although I reiterate that it was opposed by the Labour Party—as Elaine Murray will discover when she checks the newspaper cuttings and previous comments from, in particular, Des McNulty.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I want to get started—I will let the member in later on.

Elaine Murray should also look at the comments of a Labour candidate in 2011 who advocated scrapping the entire scheme and giving £400 to everyone in the Western Isles with a car. I have the transcript of the interview, and I am happy to give it to Elaine Murray afterwards. I am simply interested in knowing the Labour Party’s position on this matter. If Labour members wanted RET to be continued for hauliers in the Western Isles—and, I presume, the rest of Scotland—when did they make that representation in the budget process? For example, can they tell us how much they think such a measure would cost? I would be interested to know.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister asks about the representations that Labour made, but the Government was absolutely silent on the issue during the budget process. Indeed, the budget makes no mention of withdrawing RET from commercial vehicles.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The amount being spent on this was made clear in not only the budget, but John Swinney’s autumn statement. We also subsequently made it clear to hauliers what we were doing. Given that Labour was silent about proposals for additional expenditure on the issue, I do not think that we can treat with much seriousness any proposal that it comes forward with now that would massively increase expenditure. Moreover, the idea that the Labour Party put forward in 2011 of giving £400 to everyone with a car would have cost £70 million. Of course, that measure would not have touched hauliers at all.

The RET pilot has boosted car journeys by up to 31 per cent, hugely benefiting tourism and local businesses.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I very much welcome the minister’s commitment to undertaking a proper study of the economic situation of hauliers and other companies. Will he extend that study to fuel costs, particularly in light of recent evidence that the UK Government’s much-trumpeted 5p fuel duty cut might not apply to many hauliers that buy directly from suppliers rather than retailers?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I find it very interesting that, as seems to have emerged today, that particular rebate will not apply to hauliers. I wonder whether we will hear more about that in the debate.

With regard to increasing fuel costs, which Elaine Murray also referred to, the member should ask herself whether it is right for the Scottish Government to continue to pour money back into the Treasury as a result of the fuel duty escalator, the price of fuel and increases that the Treasury itself has caused.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No. I have already taken an intervention from the member—and it was not a very good one.

The additional costs to CalMac alone—[Interruption.]

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The additional petrol cost to CalMac alone is around £14 million. There have been cost increases, and there is no doubt that everyone is having to bear them. When I met the hauliers, I acknowledged the increasing cost of insurance and the fact that fuel prices were higher on the islands. Those are costs over which the Scottish Government has no control and RET was not designed to address them. It was meant to make the cost of travelling by car equivalent to the cost of travelling by ferry.

We made a commitment to continue RET on the current routes and we would be keen to hear what Labour has to say about our proposal that RET should be rolled out throughout the network, because it has not said much about that so far. We are looking to roll it out to the Argyll and Clyde islands, in light of the Western Isles pilot—it was a pilot—the aim of which was to find out the consequences of RET. As has been mentioned, the result was hugely successful from the point of view of individuals and in terms of increasing tourism. It was not as beneficial to individuals on the islands, as the reduced costs to hauliers were not fed through to customers.

We have gone beyond what was originally proposed. We recognise the real benefits that RET can bring and we believe that it is right that all ferry users in Scotland should benefit from the scheme, which is why we announced our intention to roll it out across the ferry network.

In the northern isles, we have said that it is our intention that in future the fare structure should relate to RET. That does not mean that everyone pays RET, but that the cost of travelling by car and by ferry should be equivalent. However, if we were to roll out RET to Shetland for example, that would in many cases result in an increase in costs, which is one reason why we have not done that there.

Although RET for larger commercial vehicles made up around 40 per cent of the cost of the scheme, evidence shows that only 7 per cent of hauliers and businesses were able to pass the full savings on to customers.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

Does the minister not accept the contention that the reason that the savings could not be passed on in their entirety was because of things such as fuel costs? In fact, RET was helping to keep prices down, which is one of the arguments from businesses throughout the Western Isles.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have already acknowledged some of the fixed costs that hauliers have to contend with and that increase the pressures on them. All that I would ask is whether it can be right that we continually feed moneys back to Westminster, which increases fuel duty, for example? We give that back by subsidising those costs. [Interruption.] The Labour Party has the opportunity to bring its position to the chamber and I would be interested to hear its views.

We have acknowledged from the outset that the removal of RET from commercial vehicles on the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree routes will have an impact, but those are the only routes in that position. That is why we have come up with the transitional scheme in which, despite what Elaine Murray says, there will be no increases of more than 50 per cent and most will be substantially less than that.

As with many issues, especially in relation to rail, which we discussed earlier, the Labour Party has talked about commitments. Over the years, it had a chance to do this and it did not. This SNP Government has brought RET forward, often in the face of opposition from the Labour Party.

It would be interesting to hear the Labour Party’s position. Does it now support RET? Does it support RET for individuals or for hauliers? Or is its idea, as one of its candidates said in 2011, to give a £400 cheque to every car user in the islands? There was no mention of hauliers.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member has had a chance, and Labour will get another one when it sums up to say whether that is its position.

Our clear objective since announcing the roll-out of RET has been to listen to, to discuss and, where we can, to agree with hauliers and businesses on a more flexible approach that will reduce the impact. Hauliers have queries about the Halcrow study, which Elaine Murray mentioned. We said that we will have a further study on that. They have also said that they want the study to be much more broadly based so that it takes into account the economic impact on the entire islands. We have said that we will do that. We will work with them on the remit for that.

We have also extended eligibility for RET to vehicles up to 6m in length. That was not the case previously, and it is a huge benefit to people—

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am sorry, but I still have a fair bit to go and I have already taken two or three interventions.

We want to alleviate the impact of removing RET from hauliers who previously benefited from it. We have announced plans to extend RET—people who were not getting it before are getting it now. That will ensure that smaller commercial vehicles of up to 6m will benefit from RET from spring 2012. There are real benefits to people.

We are also trying to make the scheme more equivalent. In the past, the discount scheme benefited larger hauliers at the expense of smaller ones. We are trying to ensure that that does not happen in future and we are working with the haulage industry to make the scheme worth while.

As has been mentioned, we had a useful and constructive meeting with key hauliers and stakeholders, which has allowed us to discuss further ways to reduce the impact on hauliers and businesses. Following that meeting, I announced the new transitional rebate scheme. That involves additional funding. It would be interesting to see whether other parties support that additional funding or want to go further, despite the fact they were silent on the matter during the debate.

I move amendment S4M-02087.2, to leave out from “is of the view” to end and insert:

“welcomes the decision to roll RET out to other Clyde and Hebrides routes, including the Sound of Harris and the Sound of Barra; welcomes the investment of £5.3 million next year on the routes to Western Isles, Coll and Tiree; welcomes the increase in journeys to those islands of 30% that has resulted from the RET pilot, particularly in tourist journeys, notes that RET for large commercial vehicles made up around 40% of the cost of RET and that evidence from the pilot study showed that only 7% of hauliers passed the full benefits on to consumers; notes that, following discussions between the Scottish Government and local companies, investment of £2.5 million in a transitional scheme will support all hauliers regardless of the size of their business; welcomes the inclusion of vans of up to six metres in the RET scheme and the Scottish Government’s commitment to a six month study of the costs faced by island hauliers, including fuel duty and insurance costs, and the impact on the local economies and households of the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree, and looks forward to the review of ferry services that will put RET at the heart of an equitable system of fare setting.”

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I support Elaine Murray’s motion, which is sensible and constructive, and I cannot for the life of me see why the minister is against it. When a minister has to start by spending three or four minutes attacking the Opposition, we know that his argument is not particularly good to begin with. Actually, the Scottish Government has a perfectly good story to tell on investing in the islands, so I would have preferred it if the minister had spent time doing that rather than attacking everyone else for reflecting the serious concerns of hauliers and other people in the islands about the current schemes. Those concerns are not just in the islands that Elaine Murray rightly mentioned, but in others as well.

As the minister rightly said, the schemes are important because they are about investments in the islands and in the economies of those diverse parts of Scotland. That is what the Government should concentrate on. I appreciate that this is a Parliament and that, therefore, all the politics have to happen, but Elaine Murray set out some pretty reasonable facts and figures behind her arguments. The minister should have responded to those, rather than talk about things that happened in 2007—believe me, we could all do that.

My amendment simply asks for the constructive approach that is suggested in the Labour motion to be extended to include other ferry routes, because of the further shipping problems that impact on island communities. I am absolutely not clear about what the minister said but, if I got him right, he might have talked about another study that might look into all those issues. If he set out the proposal in detail in his winding-up speech, rather than just attack everyone else, we would all be genuinely grateful.

It is important to recognise the reality of the policy in relation to the Western Isles. Before 2007, volume hauliers from those islands received a 25 per cent discount to travel to and from the Hebrides. That was Government policy. The new Government added 15 per cent to that discount and called the entire package the road equivalent tariff. That is the reality of what happened. I welcome the fact that the new Government did that, as it was a good thing to do as a further investment in the economies of those islands. Frankly, however, the measure had little to do with road equivalence. The extra 15 per cent helped local hauliers and the wider economy, as the Scottish Government’s recently published ferries review paper makes clear, but that Government support was not dissimilar to the support for islands from the previous Government in which Elaine Murray and I served, which also supported shipping services on which the islands depend.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No—I want to make progress.

The nationalists have moved the policy forward, which is good, despite the fact that they ran the longest trial in political history, between the 2007 and 2011 elections. I see that Mr Neil is gracious enough to smile about that—he was probably responsible for it. I am genuinely puzzled as to why the problems that have emerged were not spotted in that longest possible trial for which Mr Neil’s Government was responsible. That is one issue that could have been dealt with.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I want to finish a couple of points.

I do not normally get telephone calls and representations from people in other constituencies about shipping, although I get plenty from my own, but a Lewis haulier, David Wood, has been in touch with my office overnight. He says that the new prices that he has been quoted are the pre-2007 prices plus 50 per cent. In specific cases, he thinks that his freight bill will rise by 60 per cent. That is why the motion and my amendment are necessary.

I appreciate that the minister is in a difficult bind. He would be well advised to accept the fact that his officials do not know the answers to all the issues and, frankly, neither do we. That is why Elaine Murray is correct to call for a full socioeconomic study. Local hauliers as well as the Western Isles Council—as I invariably do, I met the convener and vice convener of that council at Edinburgh airport the other day, waiting for planes to our respective islands—make exactly the same point, as has the Outer Hebrides transport group, which Elaine Murray mentioned.

I genuinely do not know what the minister has to fear from the kind of study that is being asked for. It would help evidence-based Government decision making and would therefore be a credible and sensible way in which to proceed. When I was the minister, I used to be constantly advised, “If you’re in a policy hole, stop digging.” To me, this looks like a policy hole. The Government and the ministers would be well advised to find a sensible and constructive way forward on which we can strongly agree.

The minister mentioned the £2.5 million transition fund that he announced last Monday and he said that it had been properly assessed. Liam McArthur and I, like everyone in Orkney and Shetland, know that he did not ask the Western Isles to contribute to the fund. I agree with that and I think that he was right not to ask the Western Isles to contribute. However, what is good policy for the goose is certainly good policy for the gander. Shetland’s ferry services have been further disrupted this week. That was an entirely predictable disruption that was caused by weather and operational factors.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Last night I asked the minister to meet the local industry and the council to find an immediate solution, and I reiterate that request today.

The Government needs to understand the impact of its changes to RET in the Hebrides and in the wider context, for example in Orkney.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am just finishing this point, Mr Scott.

The debate is an opportunity for the minister to be constructive and to listen to local representations. I urge him to do so.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am happy to do so.

I move amendment S4M-02087.1, to insert at end:

“and that such a moratorium should apply to all fares on all island routes under the responsibility of Scottish Government tenders to allow a full and independent assessment about how RET or an appropriate fare reduction mechanism can be rolled out on an equitable basis to the benefit of all Scotland’s islands.”

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We thank the Labour Party for bringing the issue for debate and I thank Dr Elaine Murray for her constructive contribution; unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the minister’s speech.

In July 2011, the Scottish Government’s evaluation of the RET pilot stated:

“the Western Isles have been historically characterised by higher levels of declining population and poorer economic performance in comparison to other parts of Scotland ... and also Scotland as a whole.”

For that reason, routes serving the Western Isles were identified as the pilot routes. Clear reasons were given for choosing the Western Isles for the pilot, but there is now a distinct lack of clarity on why RET for commercial vehicles has suddenly been withdrawn.

During the pilot, fares for commercial vehicles and passengers fell by up to 54 per cent, and RET helped to increase passenger traffic by more than 17 per cent in the first two years. As Elaine Murray said, an additional 30,000 tourism visits were made in each year of the pilot, and three quarters of tourism providers indicated that they had increased levels of occupancy, higher demand and a longer season.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No, I am very short of time. I will think about taking one if I get through what I want to say.

The RET pilot allowed small firms to compete more effectively in mainland markets and to increase exports from the Western Isles. The initial response of business to an increase in trade was to make better use of existing staff, who might have been underemployed, but, understandably, long-term investment was deferred until there was certainty that lower fares would be permanent. Retail employment in the Western Isles increased during the pilot period.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

All the increases in tourism and so on to which the member refers were a result of RETs for passengers and cars; the additional visitors did not arrive by lorry. Today we are talking about the RET for haulage vehicles; RET for cars and passengers remains as a permanent feature of services to the Western Isles.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We cannot take out the socioeconomic impact that the large-scale hauliers have in the Western Isles. All the figures that I have given are factual economic statistics. It is not possible to separate out the effect of RET on large hauliers.

Paragraph 11.7.7 of the Government’s evaluation report of July 2011 says:

“The predominant perception of both residents and businesses was that RET has been beneficial to island businesses and ... island communities as a whole.”

Against that background, it is difficult to understand the response of Keith Brown, when he was questioned by the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, that the subsidy that was paid to hauliers was not passed on to businesses or consumers in 90 per cent of cases. That contrasts with the view of hauliers, whose spokesman said:

“With RET we revised our prices and reduced costs to customers, we will now have to look again at our cost base, ultimately our customers will have to pay.”

The SNP Government blames the hauliers for not passing the benefits of reduced ferry costs on to customers and it plans to punish them with increased charges, which, ultimately, people in the Western Isles will have to pay for.

Transport Scotland has stated that the minister was pleased that the Western Isles community clearly understood the budgetary pressures that the Government faced. The question is whether the SNP Government understands the budgetary pressures that the community faces. It is not surprising that Western Isles Council holds the unanimous view that the withdrawal of RET for commercial vehicles will be detrimental to the economy and the community of the Outer Hebrides.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Will the member give way?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No, I have less than a minute left.

I appreciate that RET was a pilot and that it has been evaluated, but I cannot understand why the Scottish Government is withdrawing it for commercial vehicles without giving the Western Isles community any idea of what will be put in its place, except that the rise in cost will not be any more than 50 per cent. The socioeconomic need that was identified at the onset of the pilot still exists, but no economic assessment of the withdrawal of RET has been carried out. [Interruption.] I must finish now to stay within my time.

I hope that the SNP Government will act swiftly, will respect islanders, and will ensure that ferry fares are applied consistently and with certainty for the future of the economy on the back of a detailed social and economic assessment.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I lived for 10 years on the Isle of Lewis and I travelled extensively to and from and up and down the Western Isles from the Butt of Lewis to Barra and Vatersay. In my time in the islands, from 1973 to 1983, I remember the Lewis branch of the SNP proposing an RET at SNP conferences, and the party adopting it as our policy. I do not remember the Labour Party making any attempt to introduce an RET, although it had many opportunities to do so. Nor do I remember the Labour Party and the Lib Dems making any attempt to introduce an RET when they were in power in the Parliament from 1999 to 2007.

Indeed, when the SNP Government proposed an RET, Labour’s Des McNulty said that the RET plans were

“unfair, discriminatory and politically motivated.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2008; c 10624.]

Earlier, the then Lib Dem transport minister, Nicol Stephen, said:

“It is far from certain that road-equivalent tariffs would benefit communities such as those in the Western Isles, because the longer ferry routes could well be more expensive as a result”.—[Official Report, 6 May 2004; c 8174.]

So much for Labour and Lib Dem support for RET. Between them, Labour and the Lib Dems did everything that they could to prevent RET from being introduced and now they cry crocodile tears over a system that they never wanted in the first place.

Since the SNP Government introduced RET in 2007, it has proved to be a fantastic success story for Scotland and our island communities. For locals and visitors alike, RET has narrowed the straits between islands and the mainland by lowering the costs of ferry travel.

The figures in the RET final evaluation report tell part of the story. Passenger travel increased by 20 per cent and the number of cars using the ferries rocketed by 31 per cent. We need only to chat to a Leodhasach to see that the success of RET is more than a statistic. It has made life in the islands easier and better. Room occupancy has increased by 24 per cent and there is evidence that the tourism season has been extended. The number of tourism businesses has increased by 10 per cent.

Because of that, in November 2011, I was delighted to hear that the Scottish Government intended to continue with RET in keeping with our manifesto pledge. We will also extend RET to routes all along the west coast of Scotland. It will apply to cars, passengers, vans and other vehicles under 6m in a time of severe budget constraint. That shows a commitment to our smaller, more rural communities that can often slip off the United Kingdom Government’s radar. For commercial vehicles, however, the Government is replacing RET with a new transitional relief scheme that is worth £2.5 million. Keith Brown, the transport minister, has met transport groups and said that he will keep the situation under review.

The Government has promised to preserve RET as a permanent feature of ferry travel to the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree. Its ambitious plan is to extend RET to Harris, Barra, Colonsay, Islay, Gigha, and then to Arran. Following that, it will cover Raasay, Mallaig, Armadale, Kilchoan, Lochaline and the Small Isles, all of which are in my constituency. That will help to secure and develop all those routes and is very welcome. The ferries review is being undertaken at the moment and I have had positive responses from the minister in relation to that.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Could you conclude, please?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Labour and the Lib Dems can cry all the crocodile tears that they like, but nothing will change the fact that it was an SNP Government that introduced RET to Scotland’s islands and that only an SNP Government will deliver for the whole of Scotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I rise to support the Labour Party’s motion on the removal of RET for commercial vehicles. The policy would be ludicrous during a time of economic stability, but to increase fares by up to 134 per cent at a time of economic downturn is rank stupidity.

The SNP Government has a duty to protect and provide for the people whom it serves, but it is not doing that. Because of the public outcry, it has sought to introduce transitional arrangements that will see no fare rise beyond 50 per cent this year, but a 50 per cent rise this year is indefensible.

The Government hopes to divide and rule. It has extended RET to small commercial vehicles of up to 6m, which it should have done years ago. It was cheaper to take a camper van over to the islands than a small commercial vehicle of the same size. The Government has also continued RET for passengers and tourism traffic, again trying to introduce some division.

The Government has sought to accuse hauliers of not passing RET savings on to islanders, again seeking to cause division. I do not want to waste a lot of time on that, but it shows that the SNP Government is trying to drive wedges and create divisions between communities in an attempt to divert attention from its policies. The claim is refuted by all; every haulier to whom I have spoken is more than willing to open their books to the Government so that it can examine them and see that the claim is untrue. If hauliers in the islands were profiteering, they would not be going out of business.

Divide and rule—that is the SNP Government’s hope. What it fails to understand, but what every islander understands, is that the cost will be borne by all the islanders. Nothing can go on or off the islands without the islanders bearing the cost. The policy means that prices will go up in shops, hotels and restaurants. The costs will be borne by the health service and local government as well as by ordinary families.

Divide and rule has not worked, so the SNP Government is trying something else, and it is its usual stance—blaming someone else. We heard Alasdair Allan, in his intervention, trying to make out that hauliers and indeed the Labour Party are looking for lower fares in order to offset fuel prices that are increased elsewhere. We are not asking for lower fares. Nobody is asking for that. We are asking only for RET to continue until the impact can be fully assessed. That claim is something else that the SNP has put into the debate in order to blame someone else and create a diversion from its policies.

The SNP says that the Labour Party never supported RET, but it was in our manifesto to roll out RET to the Argyll islands. That was Labour Party policy, and it was fully costed at that point. The SNP, in a fit of terror, decided to copy us, but it did not cost the policy, so it is stealing from Peter to pay Paul, robbing the Western Isles in order to pay for the roll-out of RET to the Argyll islands. However, those islands are waiting, and some of them will wait for close to five years to get the benefit of RET.

I turn briefly to the Liberal amendment.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Liberal amendment points out that RET on some of the northern isles routes would lead to fare increases. That is hidden gently within the ferries review, under which RET to the northern isles would be phased in. No islander will pay lower prices; in fact, they will face higher prices.

The SNP is breaking another promise as it seeks to rob the most vulnerable in our society.

Jean Urquhart (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I begin by coming straight back to Rhoda Grant and reminding her of the wording in her party’s manifesto as recently as 2007. There is no mention of RET. The manifesto states:

“We will create a new scheme to give 40% reductions in the cost of ferry travel for foot passengers”—

that is not RET—

“with further discount arrangements”—

they are not mentioned, not declared and not specified—

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jean Urquhart (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

That does not amount to RET.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Presiding Officer, is it not normal courtesy, when a member has referred to another member by name, for them to take an intervention from that member?

Jean Urquhart (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Rhoda Grant said that we have not given the approach long enough, but Tavish Scott talked about a four-year trial.

There is a great deal of confusion about what helps economic development. I am not here to defend the taking away of something. The SNP Government was right to introduce RET. I live near the mainland ferry terminal for the Stornoway to Ullapool ferry and I remember that for 30 years people would tell me, “We’d love to go to the Western Isles, but we’ve just looked at the tariffs and can’t possibly contemplate taking our car over.” I know for a fact that that happened every day, so over many years the tariffs must have prevented hundreds of thousands of people from travelling. The industry was seriously restricted because of the cost of ferry travel.

I think that just about every member who has spoken has talked about how the statistics show the success of RET. It has been particularly successful in encouraging people to take their cars on the ferry; car travel has increased—not haulage. That tells us something about how we should approach the business.

We face a 32 per cent cut in the budget—I hear everyone groan—and everyone has to take part of that cut. We simply cannot wait. This year we will have to contract for new ferries to be built, and the measures in the amendment in the minister’s name will have to be paid for. I do not like having to take something away; nobody does, and I am sure that the minister does not want to do it. However, we must consider the evidence that has been gathered.

Let everyone be assured that we always consider economic development throughout Scotland. We know that that is the most important thing to do. Ferry fares are a significant issue in that regard and affect not just hauliers but everyone, but there is evidence that one part of RET has been hugely successful and the other less so, so it is not rocket science to work out where we might continue to offer support.

When RET was introduced our opponents in the Parliament had plenty to say. There was talk of a cynical political bribe—

Jean Urquhart (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It was not cynical, and what we are doing is evidence of that. It was easy then to make such comments—it was just another day in the quagmire of Scottish politics, with one-upmanship at its worst. However, today we face a serious matter. The Government will continue to promote economic development in the Western Isles, despite the problems and the cuts that mean that we have had to take the decision that we have taken. I support the amendment in the minister’s name.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, because I have lived on an island for more than 30 years, so I have an appreciation of ferries that is sometimes lost on mainlanders. The ferry that serves the small island on which I live is an overgrown rowing boat, which has an engine that works most of the time. In the old days, the ferryman used to row the boat, but nowadays he is a wee bit smarter; if the boat has to be rowed he makes the passengers row it. I come from a long line of ferrymen and mariners, so I have a special interest in ferries and in islands.

Thinking about the debate brought back memories of when I first heard the term RET, from a relative who worked for CalMac long ago. He was an islander too, and I remember him being quite excited about RET. I was in my early teens at the time—I am talking about quite a long time ago—and as the years and decades passed, hope of RET being introduced faded and many of us thought that that wonderful concept, which would level the playing field between the islands and the mainland, would never be realised.

I am therefore proud that in the previous session of Parliament the SNP Government introduced the RET pilot for the Western Isles and the Argyll islands of Tiree and Coll, with a promise that if the pilot was successful the Government hoped to roll out RET to other islands. Predictably, the Opposition parties—in particular the Labour Party and the Lib Dems—offered nothing but criticism. I can almost forgive them for that, as it is perhaps what they feel they ought to do, but what I find really hard to forgive is that they busied themselves with blowing on small embers of discontent in the hope of fanning them into a bonfire, and followed an agenda of the most naked political opportunism.

Fortunately, many islanders of good sense were prepared to wait and to place their trust in the SNP in the hope and expectation that we would deliver RET for other islands, given time. I am therefore delighted that there is now a commitment to roll out the scheme to many of the other islands, and that we have repaid that trust.

Unfortunately, we are yet again hindered in our efforts to improve ferry services by the Westminster Government, which is imposing quite draconian cuts to the Scottish budget. RET requires more capacity on some routes and it requires new boats. That is a tall order indeed, when capital budgets are being cut by 32 per cent. It is a tall order when revenue budgets are being cut and it is an especially tall order when much of the existing CalMac fleet is getting to be past its sell-by date.

Neither RET nor the ferries review offers the perfect solution to our islands’ needs but, in terms of improving ferries, the SNP Government has already, in a few short years, achieved an awful lot—much more than any of the previous Governments in this Parliament, or those in Westminster for a generation and more.

Predictably—again—the Opposition parties will carp and criticise, but the suggestion that we can do much more in these difficult times is the kind of fantasy politics that will fool not many people, far less Scotland’s islanders, who are known for their pragmatism and common sense.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Four cold winters ago, I was sitting in a draughty room in the Corran halls in Oban, taking evidence on the future of ferries with other members of the then Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. I see that Rob Gibson, who was with me at the time, is also here today. The hall was packed, and everyone had something to say about ferry services. Commuters were worried about buses leaving as the CalMac ferry steamed in to Oban pier, hauliers were worried about the costs and capacity of ferries, and there was general concern about timetabling, availability, frequency and types of vessels.

That meeting followed an overnight NorthLink ferry from Aberdeen to Orkney and Shetland, a videoconference with business and council leaders in the Western Isles and a conference with the CalMac and Western Ferries boards. That all led to a comprehensive report, which was, in fairness, fully accepted bar one point by the then Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson. More recently, in autumn last year, I attended a massive public meeting in Dunoon, along with Mike Russell, at which there were more than 500 people campaigning on concerns about the Gourock to Dunoon ferry service.

There are many lessons to be learned from all that. Ferry services are not just another mode of transport; they play a crucial role in stimulating economic development, attracting inward investment, sustaining indigenous jobs and providing lifeline services. In short, they are a key and vital driver in rural development, which is why I welcome the debate and the opportunity to raise the concerns of hauliers, local residents and the Western Isles Council.

First, however, there is the obvious question: what is RET? As we all know, it has, in its pure form, been around for a while. I note—as the minister may do—that at least one SNP Highland councillor claims to have invented the principle of RET. Perhaps it is like the old concept from our school days: in history lessons we were asked about the Schleswig-Holstein question and told that only two people understand it, and one is mad and the other has forgotten it.

I understand that RET in its pure form works extremely well in Canada, particularly in Newfoundland, but the Scottish Parliament information centre tells me that the key issue is road equivalence. Taking the example of the Stornoway to Ullapool route, one would measure the distance on the sea route, work out the cost of driving that distance, and use published tables from the Automobile Association and the RAC to come up with the ferry fare. One could do exactly the same with commercial transport.

How, then, can the Scottish Government justify the crippling fare increase for hauliers? The admirable Outer Hebrides transport group, which has—quite rightly—been mentioned several times today, quoted to me an increase of 172 per cent on the Uig to Lochmaddy route before the 50 per cent cap was brought in. Have fuel costs increased by 172 per cent, or have Uig and Lochmaddy all of a sudden moved closer together? I am not sure whether even the resourceful Alex Neil could manage that great feat of geology. That is how RET works. Why does the minister not admit that we do not have a pure RET system, but a system of fare-subsidy control masquerading as a principle of transport economics?

Do not take my word for it; I am sure the minister will not. David Wood, the owner of Woody’s Express Parcels, who has been mentioned already, said:

“The rationale for the government plan to withdraw RET for commercial vehicles is based on a false prospectus ... The claim that haulage companies haven’t passed on the benefits to customers is a falsehood and must be challenged robustly”.

Finally, there are some key questions that I would like the minister to answer in his wind-up. Does the Scottish Government still support the principle of there being a ferries regulator? If so, when will the regulator be in post, and does the minister think that an independent regulator would allow the crippling fare increases for commercial traffic?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I want to concentrate on two aspects of the debate, because it is important to understand some of the background and the emphases that are needed.

First, let us look at the costs for hauliers. It has been mentioned that VAT on fuel, vehicle maintenance and saving up for new vehicles are all part of the costs of providing a haulage service. That is the situation everywhere, but here it is exacerbated by the fact that VAT on fuel is outwith the control of this Parliament. Because of the severe budget constraints, the hauliers have to face that charge and it has to be included in their total costs. If we are to come to any clear conclusions, the six-month study of the costs facing the island hauliers that are suggested in Keith Brown’s amendment will need to take such things into account. This is a socioeconomic inquiry as well, and the Labour Party’s motion should therefore recognise that several routes can be taken in it. The point is that the ferries review must also take into account the socioeconomic conditions of the places that are served. The Government is undertaking the process of socioeconomic comparisons, and I believe that if we support the Government amendment we will achieve the ends that are stated in that part of the Labour Party’s motion.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

We are asking in our motion for a moratorium on the changes to RET, until that socioeconomic study is completed.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Labour failed to attempt to get the money for that from the budget, so Elaine Murray is coming at the matter at the wrong time. She is deluding people on the islands into thinking that they could have such a moratorium now when she did not bother to get on her feet and argue for it then.

Rhoda Grant rose—

No, thank you.

We have to consider things with a wider perspective. I have looked at work we did in the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, which recognised that in countries such as Finland, people—wherever they live—have a right of equal access to services. If we were starting from scratch in an independent Scotland, it would be possible to recognise that people have a right to live in the Western Isles, the northern isles and the northern Highlands and to make transport policies to fit that. The Finnish Government decided in 2010 that everyone would have a basic right to broadband within three years. If we could adopt that approach, we could cut out the arguments about whether one thing or another was controlled from London or here.

Fundamentally, there are attempts to score political points in this debate, by suggesting that we are trying to divide and rule, when the SNP has finally delivered a form of road equivalent tariff that allows many communities to benefit at a time of huge budgetary constraint. In this debate, the Labour Party has not recognised the strength of the Government’s commitment to the socioeconomic inquiry—it is not called that—or that a cost moratorium is not possible in this round.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I suspect that Dr Allan’s constituents and mine are not too bothered about the mechanism; they are bothered about fare levels, which are the heart of the matter for any of us who care about ensuring that we invest properly in lifeline ferry services and that the islands have a viable economic future. I, therefore, become a little puzzled when I hear from the nationalists all the criticisms of other parties that have proposed different ways of dealing with fare levels. I am sure that Mr Brown has the same overall objective as I have, which is to tackle fares and keep them moderate in the context of the financial challenges that any Government would be facing. That is what I think he is driving at in his ferries review.

Mr Brown—I am sorry; it was Mr Stevenson, his predecessor—chose to introduce the pilot on the road equivalent tariff. It was perfectly fair to do that, because RET is a mechanism to tackle fare levels, but to attack everyone else who had a different idea about how to achieve the same policy objective is barking politics. Maybe that is the Scotland that we are now in.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. I am dealing with the fares point.

Mr MacKenzie omitted to mention in his speech the fact that most of us across the chamber believe very strongly in investing in the islands and in finding the right way to do that; it is not about just RET. As David Stewart rightly observed, RET is but one mechanism. It works beautifully in some parts of the country, as the minister rightly reflected, but it does not work in all parts of Scotland—never mind in all parts of the world. There is no such thing as a “pure RET”, so instead of having an obsession with one three-letter word, let us concentrate on finding the correct way to deliver the fares structure as—whatever Government is in power—we must.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Tavish Scott mentioned that there are other ways of tackling the issue. I think that one of his party’s preferred approaches is through the 5p fuel derogation scheme. Can he confirm that that would not apply to the very hauliers he professes to be concerned about? Will that change?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Brown used the phrase “professes to be concerned about”, so is it his contention that I do not care about the hauliers? The partisan nature of the way in which Keith Brown behaves says it all.

Let me deal with the point. [Interruption.] Mr Brown should listen. The fact is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is dealing with the issue. That is on the record and it is what is happening. Instead of attacking the UK Government, maybe Mr Brown should stand up and praise the fact that every constituent in my constituency and in Mr Allan’s constituency will get a 5p discount on their fuel. He should applaud that instead of attacking it.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

What about the hauliers?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The hauliers point is being dealt with by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Mr Brown nods and shakes his head—that says it all, for me. Let us find a diversion, let us blame London and let us do everything else. Mr Gibson had the gall to talk about London. This policy is the Scottish Government’s; it is its alone, so it should deal with it and stop blaming someone else all the time.

I will make one other point about investment in the islands’ future. When I was Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, we introduced an air discount scheme for all the islands. It was not based on how the people there had voted. When this Government realises that the economic future of our islands is based on those islands being there, not on how they vote, it will have a transport policy worth supporting.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to close the debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I welcome the fact that Labour chose to debate the issue.

As we have heard from members, including my friend Mary Scanlon and Rhoda Grant, the removal of larger commercial vehicles from the RET scheme is causing real concern in the Western Isles and on Coll and Tiree, with their fragile economies and their reliance on hauliers to supply the goods that they need.

Like other Highlands members, I have been contacted by numerous concerned constituents on this matter and I first made representations to the Minister for Housing and Transport back in early December. I have since written to the minister a second and, indeed, a third time on behalf of the cross-party group on crofting about crofters’ concerns about rises in the cost of transporting stock and feedstuffs. I have also lodged a series of written questions.

I accept that, thanks to the powerful and effective lobbying of many of my constituents, including the Outer Hebrides transport group, which represents more than 70 businesses, the Scottish Government has moved its position to some extent. The rises that hauliers initially faced of up to an eye-watering 175 per cent compared with current RET prices will now—thanks to some extra funding for transitional arrangements—be pegged at a still hugely alarming 50 per cent. Ministers still need to explain why they believed that the first enormous rises of up to 175 per cent were ever going to be acceptable to hauliers or consumers or, indeed, why they believed that they would be sustainable to local economies that have been so affected by the price of haulage. Why did they not anticipate the worry and anger that their plans would cause and take immediate action to prevent that? They need to do more to address the continuing concerns about rises of up to 50 per cent. Many of my constituents are frightened that those rises will be passed on to them.

As Mary Scanlon rightly said, hauliers are clear that they have been able to reduce costs to customers because of their inclusion in RET. Correspondingly, they are now faced with little alternative but to pass on the costs of increased charges to consumers. Scottish hauliers who make journeys all their lives to Scottish islanders for profits that are not enormous will be gravely insulted by the Scottish Government’s insinuation that they are not passing on the benefits.

The Freight Transport Association has warned that the proposals will add

“serious inflationary pressure to communities, damaging their economic well-being and threatening the tourism on which they depend.”

As we have heard, in its preliminary analysis of the proposals, Western Isles Council suggested that there would be a loss of around 100 full-time equivalent jobs. That is a massive number in the Western Isles.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am sure that the member welcomes, as I do, the extension of the length limit, to include transit vans, for example, so that the absurd practice of local carriers having to have the length of vans chopped down will finally come to an end after years.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I know quite a lot of hauliers personally, and they are not happy. They are certainly not happy about the Government’s insinuation that they are not passing on benefits when, in some cases, they are not making much profit anyway.

In conclusion, as my friend Mary Scanlon said and Western Isles Council argues, the Scottish Government was correct in deciding to conduct a socioeconomic impact study of ferry fares policy, but that should be concluded before hauliers are faced with fare rises that have the potential to be seriously damaging to the economies of the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I think that members universally agree on the importance of the island communities to the economy and wider society of Scotland, and I hope that everybody agrees that we should try to do our best not only for the Western Isles, but for all our island communities.

I hear what Tavish Scott says about the particular situation in the northern isles. As he knows, there is a heavy subsidy for the ferry service to the northern isles, and that subsidy will be continued, as we believe that it is essential.

In talking about ferry services, we are talking not only about increasing tourism, improving standards of living and all the other good things that we are trying to achieve, but, in many cases, about lifeline services. Therefore, we are very committed to the ferry service in Scotland. Indeed, the central theme of the ferries review and the consultation is the need to improve the ferry service—both the number of services to the islands and the quality and the number of ferries that are available. We start from that basis.

RET was introduced in the Western Isles for the reasons that Mary Scanlon outlined. There were very high levels of unemployment, deprivation and poverty there. As a result of policies that have been pursued by London in recent years, other areas have suffered, producing equally difficult statistics on unemployment and deprivation. That is one of the reasons—although not by any means the only reason—why we have already announced our intention to roll out RET for cars and passengers to all the island communities down the west coast of Scotland. I hear what Tavish Scott says about the need to address some of the issues in the northern isles, and I am happy to meet him to discuss them, as is Keith Brown.

I want to nail two myths that have arisen during the debate. First, Rhoda Grant said that some hauliers are facing an increase of 134 per cent in fares. That is simply not true. There is an onus on all members not to exaggerate and create hysteria, bringing about a situation in which people are informed, wrongly, of increases that are far in excess of what is actually happening. Secondly, a lot has been made of the hauliers not agreeing with the Scottish Government when we say that the benefits to the hauliers of RET were not passed on. It is not the Scottish Government that says that; it is the hauliers. Elaine Murray should listen to this and she will be educated. The independent research that was carried out as part of the evaluation of RET—an independent evaluation not by the Scottish Government but by an independent company—involved a detailed survey of 160 hauliers in the Western Isles. It was the hauliers who told us that only 7 per cent were passing on the benefits to the end users in the Western Isles. I accept that, now, the hauliers say that that is not true. However, members can believe me when I say that the information came, in the first place, from the hauliers themselves. That is in a public document, which members can check.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will, in a minute.

We accept that the hauliers say that that is not the case. That is why the minister has already agreed, with the hauliers, to a study to examine the situation and to evaluate the impact on the Western Isles economy of RET for hauliers. That is also why we have introduced a transitional arrangement. At the end of the transitional arrangement, we will review the position in the light of the results of the study, which we will carry out with the hauliers. That is a reasonable position for us to take.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary put the review in place before it increases the charges?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have already announced the transitional arrangements, and I see no reason at the moment to change them.

I remind members of the situation that we inherited five years ago. There was a rebate scheme for hauliers in the Western Isles—only in the Western Isles, not on any other island, although some islands could have claimed that they should benefit from it as well. The total value of the subsidy to the Western Isles through the rebate scheme under the previous Executive was £500,000. With this transitional arrangement, we are giving a subsidy of £2.5 million to the hauliers in the Western Isles, which is five times the level of subsidy that we inherited five years ago.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will, in a minute.

The independent survey that I mentioned said that, according to the hauliers, ferry fares to the Western Isles accounted for, on average, less than 10 per cent of their total operating costs. Therefore, if the fare is increased by 50 per cent, that represents an overall increase in their operating costs of 4 to 5 per cent. Compare that with the 60 per cent increase in fuel duty that Gordon Brown—Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer—implemented, and the damage that it has done to the economy, the ferry service and the hauliers in the Western Isles. Compare it also with the increase in VAT in the very first budget of the coalition Government in London, which took VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent. The VAT increase is on all the goods and services that Mary Scanlon referred to, as well as on the hauliers. VAT is calculated such that, when hauliers pay VAT on their diesel fuel, they pay it also on the fuel duty. Therefore, fuel duty was put up by 60 per cent, then VAT went up by one seventh, from 17.5 to 20 per cent, and then there was VAT on the higher fuel duty on top of that. The Opposition then has the cheek to accuse us of not looking after the Western Isles. We have done far more for the Western Isles than that shower put together.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The reality is that if we had not had an SNP Government, there would have been no RET in the Western Isles: Labour and the Tories opposed it. We are not only maintaining it permanently in the Western Isles and extending it to the sounds of Barra and Harris, but extending it to all the islands on the west coast. It is high time that the Opposition parties woke up and smelled the coffee and realised that it is only this Government that has delivered on RET.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I do not think that the myths and misrepresentation that characterised the cabinet secretary’s speech do justice to this very important debate about the future of our island communities.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Not true.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

If the cabinet secretary would stop shouting, it would help.

The chamber should surely be as one in its desire to ensure that our island communities and their economies and families receive the support that they need—the cabinet secretary himself said that in his speech. Travel has to be affordable for cars, passengers and tourists and for those transporting goods and products to and from our islands. However, following the outpouring of fury and indignation in the communities affected, we are now having a debate in Parliament on the impact of withdrawing RET for commercial vehicles, which Rhoda Grant highlighted in her speech. Tavish Scott was right to highlight the fact that a number of the affected island communities would be happy to support his amendment.

The Labour Party has a long and proud record of supporting island ferry services and discounts for ferry travel to the islands. A 25 per cent discount for commercial vehicles existed prior to the SNP’s new scheme. I am aware that calling that scheme RET is in itself highly debatable, as Dave Stewart pointed out, but the crucial issue is that it provided a further, welcome 15 per cent discount for vital lorry journeys, which has clearly been crucial in dampening the cost of goods and services in the island communities. That is why we supported the retention of the additional discounts last May.

I am aware that Halcrow’s analysis that the extra discount was not being passed on to customers is being challenged by the Outer Hebrides transport group and others, as Mary Scanlon said. Island hauliers will happily show invoices to demonstrate the reality of their case and the injustice being visited on islanders by the SNP. The reality of removing that discount is, as Elaine Murray pointed out, that costs for island communities and families will rocket.

The Government is about to usher in and impose an SNP haulage and household tax for the islands. RET will go for commercial vehicles, albeit over a longer timescale. As for the extensions to include 6m vehicles as small commercial vehicles, the reality is that most goods are transported in the 17m vehicles, which are the ones that will bear the SNP’s new tax. The concessions are limited; even with the transitional scheme, 17m commercial vehicles travelling between Ullapool and Stornoway will see their fares increase by 50 per cent, from £190 to £286 from April 2012. If the transitional fare was scrapped, the fare would increase by 134 per cent, to £447. The reality is that the transitional fare is scheduled to go. That is not scaremongering; that is the current proposition.

We know that the SNP in the Western Isles is split from top to bottom on this issue. We lodged a helpful motion today that SNP members should have no difficulty in supporting because it entirely reflects the spirit, tone and content of a motion that the SNP supported at a meeting of Western Isles Council a week ago today.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

The motion was passed unanimously, with the support of the chairman of the transportation committee, Councillor Donald Manford. Clearly, local members of the SNP and their nationalist MSP are politically impotent and have failed miserably to secure anything resembling “major progress”—the words that Alasdair Allan used to describe an increase of 50 per cent on ferry fares. I hope that Dr Allan goes to the pubs and clubs of Stornoway this weekend and tells his constituents that a 50 per cent increase on lorry fares is “major progress”. God willing, we will see him back here next week.

SNP members might want to reflect on an article in last week’s West Highland Free Press. It was from 35 years ago—the cabinet secretary may recall it—and describes the decision at that time to increase ferry fares by 7.5 per cent. The decision was described by the then Western Isles MP, Donald Stewart, as “absolutely appalling”. We can only imagine what Mr Stewart would think of the decision of his political successors to increase fares by 50 per cent.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The member is not going to take an intervention. Sit down, Mr McDonald.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

It is not just members on the Labour benches who believe that islanders will bear the brunt of the massive increases. The minister will have read the letter that was sent to him by Angus Campbell, the leader of Western Isles Council, in which Mr Campbell says that the council has commissioned a

“preliminary assessment of Government’s proposals to help us understand the potential impacts. The results of this preliminary analysis suggest that the impacts, in terms of jobs, will be”—

as Jamie McGrigor said—

“a loss to the local economy of”

around 100 full-time equivalent jobs. Mr Campbell goes on to say:

“As you will appreciate this would be a significant and highly damaging impact for a fragile, peripheral economy such as the Outer Hebrides. You will be aware from the meeting that the commercial sector strenuously denies that the benefits of RET were not passed on to local consumers.”

That is why, in our motion, we are backing the council’s position that there should be a moratorium on the changes to allow for more detailed evaluation of their socioeconomic impact. SNP councillors supported that position and many people will be bemused that the Scottish Government is ignoring the serious concerns that exist. Those concerns are so great that the Outer Hebrides transport group has campaigned hard on the issue and has secured, in only five weeks, the support of more than 100 businesses, countless individuals and the local authority. The SNP will seek to dismiss the concerns that we have expressed today, but it should listen to those voices, as they come from those who will be directly affected by this ruinous and flawed policy—a policy that was recently denounced as “economically illiterate” by the business economist Professor Neil Kay of the University of Strathclyde.

The SNP may dismiss our concerns, but surely it should listen to the concerns of lifelong nationalist and Lewisman Iain Don Maciver, who had been selected as an SNP candidate for the forthcoming elections in May. Mr Maciver is also the port manager for CalMac at Stornoway harbour and a man who, we may safely say, will have forgotten more about ferry fares and the importance of economical ferry links than the minister or Dr Allan will ever know. Announcing his resignation from the SNP and his decision not to stand as an SNP candidate, Mr Maciver said:

“This is not a decision that I have arrived at easily, especially as it means that I have to give up my SNP membership, but given the abandonment of RET for Commercial vehicles, which is going to have such a detrimental impact on the islands I see no other choice for me.”

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Does the member intend to continue quoting that statement, in which Mr Maciver talks about the utter hypocrisy of Labour’s position on the issue?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I note that Dr Allan agrees with Mr Maciver’s analysis in the quote that I have just given. Or is Dr Allan going to support the Government today and stand in absolute contradiction to those words from Iain Don Maciver?

We believe that the case is clear: scrapping additional support for commercial vehicles will damage the welfare and economies of our island communities at a time when they can afford it least. Today, SNP MSPs, particularly those who represent the communities that are most affected, have a choice. They can vote to proceed with tax increases that will directly affect our island communities, or they can back Labour’s motion, step away from that damaging decision and give our island communities, their families and their important local economies the support that they need.

Living Wage (Discussions)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with local authorities to progress the implementation of a Scottish living wage of £7.20 per hour. (S4O-00697)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I have had several discussions recently with local authorities that have included the Scottish living wage. I welcome the fact that a number of local authorities have already introduced the living wage or are committed to doing so.

The Government will continue to encourage all public sector employers to introduce the Scottish living wage. However, it is a matter for local authorities as independent corporate bodies to set their own rates of pay and to determine whether to implement the living wage.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

North Ayrshire Council, which is in my area, has implemented the Scottish living wage. One of the reasons that it did so was to allow it to be in a position to encourage large employers in the area to embrace the concept.

Does the minister agree that it is right that councils should lead by example on the matter? Will he tell us which other councils are fully signed up to the Scottish living wage?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I entirely agree with Margaret Burgess. It is welcome that many councils have moved towards implementing the living wage.

I can announce to the Parliament that seven councils have already introduced the living wage; six have agreed to implement it in their budgets for 2012-13; two have indicated their intention to introduce it; and four councils, although they do not state the living wage as a policy, are de facto delivering it. That means that, for the first time, the majority of councils are implementing the living wage.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government has continuing discussions with local government on the concordat, the local government settlement and the council tax freeze. Will it continue to discuss the living wage with local authorities as the settlement negotiations progress over the next year?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Yes. I reassure John Park that, in the individual local authority visits that I have undertaken, I raised the living wage and re-emphasised the Government’s position on rolling it out across all parts of the public sector. Also, at a recent meeting with Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders, we explained our position on the living wage. We will continue to do so and to work in partnership with local government to ensure that all 32 local authorities sign up to the policy.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the minister confirm whether the proposed sustainable procurement bill will consider the inclusion of the living wage in contracts?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I am aware of continuing debate in the Parliament about procurement and the living wage. One matter that will have to be addressed is the European position. We are questioning a court ruling, and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment wrote to the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services in early December seeking clarification of the European Commission’s view on conditions such as the living wage in procurement.

We will consider the matter as part of the procurement bill, but we will have to be mindful of the position that the Commission outlines. We certainly intend to consider social benefit clauses in any procurement bill that the Parliament considers.

Delivery Charges and Road Fuel Taxes

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it can take to mitigate the economic impact of high delivery charges and road fuel taxes on sparsely populated areas. (S4O-00698)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

People in rural communities are faced with high prices for fuel and online deliveries. The Scottish Government fully supports Citizens Advice Scotland’s call for online retailers to sign the pledge to display costs clearly prior to sale, ensure that charges are based on costs incurred and offer Royal Mail delivery wherever possible. I have written to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ask for the United Kingdom Government’s support on the issue. The Scottish Government continues to lobby the UK Government on the scale and scope of the fuel derogation.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 3—Mike MacKenzie.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what advice it can give to local authorities in the Highlands and Islands—

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

That is twice in two days. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

There are compound examples of surcharges in delivery north of Inverness in my constituency. Indeed, the area has been excluded from any concession under the fuel rebate that London has talked about for islands. Will the Scottish Government seek an Office of Fair Trading inquiry into the matter and consider plans for a Scottish postal service based on universal service obligations for letters and parcels?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am well aware of these matters and have campaigned with Mr Gibson on them for more decades than both of us really care to remember. The OFT has launched a call for evidence into the challenges faced by people in remote areas, including the issue of delivery charges, and I encourage people to submit evidence to that inquiry.

As for the creation of a Scottish postal service, that is, I am sad to say, not an option, as postal services are reserved. Nevertheless, we have consistently emphasised to the UK Government the importance of retaining the universal service obligations and that Scottish consumers must not be put at a disadvantage.

Sustainable Economic Growth (Highlands and Islands)

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what advice it can give to local authorities in the Highlands and Islands region to assist them in achieving sustainable economic growth. (S4O-00699)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

“The Government Economic Strategy”, which was published in September 2011, sets out the priorities for accelerating the recovery, promoting jobs and supporting sustainable economic growth. At its heart is a commitment to work with partners across the public sector, including those in the Highlands and Islands, to ensure that all communities across Scotland have the opportunity to flourish.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that Argyll and Bute has the highest unemployment rate and the lowest rate of growth in the Highlands and Islands region? What advice can he give Argyll and Bute Council to help it to tackle the problem?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I say to Mr MacKenzie and Argyll and Bute Council that certain parts of the country clearly face more acute economic challenges than other parts and, through the local authority funding settlement, the Government has provided effective support to assist local authorities in being players in local economic development. Some months ago, Mr Neil decided to locate a tax increment financing project in the Oban area, which is in Argyll and Bute, and with the investment in the University of the Highlands and Islands project there is clear support for a number of educational institutions in the Argyll and Bute area. In addition, the Government continues to deploy European structural funds to support developments in the Highlands and Islands. Indeed, just this week, Mr Neil announced an additional £5.3 million through that mechanism to boost economic growth and create jobs in the Highlands and Islands.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Oh. Actually, I pressed my button for a supplementary to the previous question but you did not notice—

Firefighters’ Pensions (Discussions)

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with firefighters regarding their pensions. (S4O-00700)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am in regular contact with the Fire Brigades Union as we consider the impact of public sector pension announcements by Westminster and the serious effect that they may have on the pay and families of courageous and dedicated firefighters throughout Scotland.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary reassure Scottish firefighters that the heads of agreement in the pension negotiations will not be picked up from the Department for Communities and Local Government in Westminster but will be set and negotiated here in Scotland, given that the power to do so is already devolved to the Scottish Government?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We are in regular discussions with the FBU. However, the difficulty is that the United Kingdom Government’s position seems to be a moveable feast. We have made it quite clear that this is nothing but a blatant cash grab. Under duress—I refer to the financial actions threatened by Westminster—we have had to do various things, but we are working with the FBU to protect its members and their families from the outrageous actions of the coalition Government south of the border.

Housing Association Board and Committee Members (Payments)

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive whether permitting or promoting payment to housing association board and committee members were intended consequences of the repeal of schedule 7 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. (S4O-00702)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Schedule 7 to the 2001 act was repealed by the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 and replaced, at section 36 of the 2010 act, by a duty on the new Scottish Housing Regulator to consult on and then issue a code of conduct on the governance and financial accountability of registered social landlords.

The intention was to replace a prescriptive and detailed set of rules with a code that was more proportionate and which would give individual RSLs reasonable discretion to decide their own governance arrangements. In that spirit, section 36 of the 2010 act neither promotes nor prohibits payments to members of RSL boards but provides for the regulator, in consultation with interested parties, to determine what provision the code should make in that regard.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If that was the intention, neither the Scottish Parliament information centre nor the housing associations to which I have spoken are aware of it. Where is that indicated? The Scottish Housing Regulator seems to think that it must bring in payments because it cannot go against what it sees as the will of Parliament. I do not think that MSPs were aware that that would be a consequence. Should not such a fundamental change be discussed by Parliament to clarify whether it is our will?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As the minister who piloted the legislation through Parliament, I made it clear at every stage and in the accompanying documentation that there was no requirement on—it was not mandatory for—the new regulator to impose any particular conditions or payments on RSLs and their board members.

I am happy to debate the issue in Parliament—it might be up to the member to secure a members’ business debate on it.

Kincardine Bridge (Refurbishment)

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive when the planned refurbishment of the Kincardine bridge will commence and what measures it will put in place to minimise the impact of the works on the local community. (S4O-00703)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The scheme is in the current trunk road programme and will be taken forward at the earliest possible opportunity when funding allows. When Transport Scotland is in a position to confirm a start date, discussions will continue with the local authority to ensure that any impacts are managed and mitigated wherever possible.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know that the minister was involved in my members’ business debate on the issue in 2008 and has a constituency interest.

There is a concern that there will be major road congestion in Kincardine and the west Fife villages because cars and other vehicles have to pass through Kincardine to get to Clackmannanshire bridge. I ask the minister to request that Transport Scotland consider the option of keeping the bridge open while it is being refurbished.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am afraid that I cannot confirm that the bridge will be kept open. It will be shut simply because there will be a large gap that cannot be bridged by any vehicle. The gap is inevitable, as it is necessary for the works.

I understand the member’s point on the impact on the village of Kincardine, not least because of the Higgins’ Neuk roundabout, which will have great pressure on it from one side but very little countervailing pressure from the other. That is why I reiterate that there will be proper consultation with the local authority. If the member wants further information on that, I am happy to give it to him.

Bus Services (Regulation)

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to regulate bus services. (S4O-00704)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

There is currently regulation in the bus industry. We want affordable, innovative, good-quality bus services and a competitive marketplace that delivers such services, with appropriate but not burdensome regulation.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

FirstBus wrote to me last week to advise me that there would be significant increases in fares and a reduction in bus services in Glasgow. Does the minister agree that now is the time for full regulation of buses to ensure that, instead of profits being put before services, our communities are served by bus services?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The member can correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure that when the company wrote to him it did not ask for further regulation in the bus industry.

We provide substantial investment and support for the bus industry—around £0.25 billion—through concessionary travel and the bus service operators grant. We will continue to do that, despite requests from Opposition members to reduce the concessionary travel scheme.

Scottish Government Information Technology Projects (Audit)

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will ask the Auditor General for Scotland to audit Scottish Government information technology projects where costs are in excess of £20 million. (S4O-00705)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand that the Auditor General has asked Audit Scotland to look at proposals for examining the outsourcing of information technology contracts and how well they are performing.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of a recent report by the Auditor General on an IT contract signed with a large United Kingdom provider in 2004 that has resulted in a significant overrun in expenditure. Will the cabinet secretary now confirm with procurement Scotland that all public IT contracts are not limited to large providers but are open to smaller and indigenous Scots IT providers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government goes to considerable lengths to ensure wide availability of, and accessibility to, public service contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland. That is principally, although not exclusively, undertaken through the public contracts Scotland website, through which we advertise all public sector contracts for work to be undertaken on behalf of public bodies. That website is used principally by small and medium-sized enterprises, but all companies can register their interest on it free of charge. The website provides companies with an opportunity to ensure that they have the greatest accessibility to those contracts.

To date, three quarters of all firms that win contracts from across the public sector that are advertised on public contracts Scotland are SMEs. The Government is determined to increase that level of activity. We are also trying to strengthen the capability of public contracts Scotland by rolling out a standard pre-qualification questionnaire, which will further ease the burden on small and medium-sized companies and increase their ability to tender for public sector activity. Many of the issues will be developed as part of the sustainable procurement bill, which will be taken forward during the current parliamentary session.

Bus Travel (Promotion)

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

10. To ask the Scottish Executive what it is doing to promote buses as a method of travel. (S4O-00706)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The Scottish Government is investing nearly £250 million per year in promoting the use of bus.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

That sounds a laudable answer, but the minister did not say that the bus service operators grant will be cut by 20 per cent in the coming year. As predicted in the Parliament, we are now seeing the effect of that locally. As a direct result, one major bus operator in my constituency, Lothian Buses, has already announced fare rises of up to 9 per cent. The other main local operator, First Scotland East, has announced its intention to increase fares on similar terms. Its managing director has said:

“It is inevitable that the reduction in funding will lead to increased fares and service reductions.”

From the minister’s answer to my colleague Paul Martin, I understand that he does not wish to pursue regulation of bus services—at least, not any more. However, can he explain how forcing up fares is meant to promote buses as a method of travel?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I repeat the point that the bus service operators grant equates to about £50 million of support. Similar support has been completely taken away in many parts of England in the past couple of years because of budget pressures, but we have maintained that support of £50 million. We have also maintained the level of the concessionary travel scheme, despite the suggestions that I mentioned from Opposition parties that we should reduce it. Therefore, there is substantial support.

Setting fares is a matter for individual bus operators. The bus service operators grant cannot account for a 9 per cent increase in fares, given the proportion of bus service operators’ income that it provides. There is an issue in Lothian, because we are trying to stop encouraging increased fuel use. The previous Administration’s approach encouraged fuel use, but we are trying to provide the bus service operators grant in a way that helps to reduce fuel use, which is important. However, there is a transitional period in which Lothian Buses, for example, will have to make that change. We have therefore announced a £3 million support package for that.

We will of course continue to discuss with bus operators the pressures that are on them. They have a reasonable point, but they have been told and have accepted that we must move to provide further support for operators in rural areas, where there are pressures from fuel duty costs, which are imposed from elsewhere. We are doing what we can to support the bus industry, but it would be good if Westminster did the same thing.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

What steps can the Scottish Government take to encourage the continued development of low-omission green buses?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

This Friday is the closing date for bids for our second Scottish green bus fund. The green buses that are purchased with the support of that £2 million fund will add to the 48 green buses that were purchased through the first Scottish green bus fund. We intend to run further rounds of the fund in future. In addition, the low-carbon vehicle incentive in the bus service operators grant, which I have just mentioned, further encourages operators to invest in green buses through a payment rate that is double the rate for standard diesel buses.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00480)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Last week’s unemployment figures revealed that more jobs are being lost in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. This week, we have been presented with more grim forecasts for the construction and retail sectors in Scotland. The First Minister needs to realise that this is about real people and real jobs. The First Minister’s plan MacB—the one that he boasted about to all who would listen—has clearly failed. Why have one in three of all the jobs that have been lost in the UK in the past three months been Scottish jobs?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The unemployment problem in Scotland and, indeed, across these islands is extremely serious; of that there is no doubt.

Johann Lamont should, in fairness, remember that the employment rate—the percentage of people who are employed in the economy—is significantly higher in Scotland than it is in any other country in these islands and that the inactivity rate, which relates to people who are not in the labour market, is much lower. Those are good things about the job market.

However, the recession and the slow recovery are impacting on the lives of families in Scotland and across these islands. Therefore, should not we turn our attention to what can be done about that through the UK budget that is coming up, by increasing capital spending, which has been demonstrated to be a rapid and effective way of getting people back to work, and by increasing the funding to small and medium-sized businesses, which are the great drivers of employment in the economy, and in relation to which we now know that Merlin as an operation has refused to deliver the full goods that were promised? Let us turn our attention to what can be done. That is what the Scottish Government is doing, and I suggest that all members should act constructively and do the same.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

As ever, the First Minister focuses on other people’s responsibilities and not his own. Never mind the budget at UK level—his own budget for jobs and growth could be done under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Last week, the number of young people who are unemployed broke the 100,000 mark. That is unacceptable. What was the First Minister’s response? He had nothing to say. Perhaps he was much too busy falling out with his old pal Donald Trump, falling in with Twitter fan Rupert Murdoch and arguing with the Prime Minister about who knows best how to run a referendum. All the while, more and more young people are being shut out of the job market, with long-term consequences that we should all fear.

To coin a phrase, when will the very man who launched a consultation document in a castle put people before prestige?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The position on youth unemployment is extremely serious. That is why this Government has appointed a Minister for Youth Employment. It is why we are bringing forward initiatives such as the provision of 125,000 modern apprenticeships over the next five years, which is some 60 per cent higher than the level of modern apprenticeships that we inherited. Of course, every modern apprentice in Scotland has a job. That is a critically important feature of our modern apprenticeship system. Above all, it is why we are offering to every 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland who is not in education, training, a job or a modern apprenticeship a guarantee that they will have a training or education opportunity. To me, that is very substantive action to tackle the issue that is before us.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we had a forum for youth employment in Scotland, which united the unions, the employers, a variety of people in the voluntary sector and, indeed, the other political parties. People united to drive against the evil of youth unemployment and the prospect of seeing a lost generation of the kind that was seen in the 1980s. Everyone at that substantial forum signed up to that joint effort. All that I ask Johann Lamont to think about is whether she can bring the good wishes and good will that were expressed on a cross-party basis in that forum into this chamber, and demonstrate to Scotland that every party and every MSP are committed to fighting the evil of youth unemployment.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Of course we support all those across the country who want something to be done. We want the First Minister to get on and do those things that need to be done, because what he is doing is not working.

The First Minister talks about his new Minister for Youth Employment. That is one job for one woman, but what about the other 399 women who are losing their job every day under the SNP Government? Although the First Minister talks about it, and despite the promise that was made by the First Minister at the election to protect public service workers, almost 24,000 people who were delivering public services lost their jobs last year. The First Minister chose to pass on 89 per cent of the cuts to local government, so it was inevitable that women would bear the brunt of those cuts. Female unemployment is at its highest since records began. Why has the First Minister broken his promise to protect those public sector jobs?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have two or three things to say about Labour’s approach to such matters. If I remember correctly, Labour demanded in this chamber the appointment of a minister for youth employment. What is the point of demanding something and then deriding it once the initiative has been taken? Labour voted against having 25,000 modern apprenticeships a year in Scottish society. Two weeks ago, Labour also voted against the increase in capital spending in the budget that John Swinney presented to members.

Labour is calling for action. Of course, it has its five-point plan for growth, four of which are issues for the United Kingdom Government. Four out of five of Labour’s points in its plan for growth are issues for the UK Government. How on earth can Johann Lamont say that we should not be calling on the UK Government to do things when that is what Labour’s plan is?

On the extraordinarily serious issue of women’s employment in the workforce, we should remember that female employment in Scotland is higher than it is elsewhere in these islands. Let me tell Johann Lamont what we are doing to ensure that women in our workforce are given their equal and proper status. In 2008-09, 2,857 young women went into modern apprenticeships; that was 27 per cent of the total of modern apprenticeships. Two years later, in 2010-11, in a much larger group, 9,656 young women went into modern apprenticeships, which was almost 45 per cent of modern apprenticeships. I would like to see that figure even higher.

It ill behoves a party that had a low number of modern apprenticeships and a minute percentage of women entering the programme to criticise a party that has increased modern apprenticeships by 60 per cent, and the number of young women who are taking that life opportunity by fully 20 per cent. Let us see whether Johann Lamont has the grace to welcome that substantial improvement in female participation in the workforce.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is breathtaking complacency on the part of the First Minister, in the face of unemployment figures that must make his blood run cold, to find figures and suggest that everything is okay. On the very day that those shocking unemployment figures were released, the First Minister was in London giving a lecture about separation. Rather than lecturing people in England, perhaps he could take advice from the Labour Government in Wales and those in other parts of the UK where the figures have got better not worse. In Scotland, unemployment is heading towards the 0.25 million mark on the First Minister’s watch. Instead of focusing all his energies on running a referendum campaign, when will the First Minister get on with the job of running the country and addressing people’s real concerns?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I asked whether Johann Lamont would have the grace to acknowledge the huge improvement in the number of young women who are entering the workforce. Perhaps that was not a question that should have been asked, because the answer was pretty obvious.

Johann Lamont mentioned Wales, but I am not certain that that is the best route for her to take. Unemployment in Wales is currently at 9 per cent, which is high compared with the 8.6 per cent in Scotland. In the past year, the rate in Wales has gone up by 0.7 per cent compared with 0.6 per cent in Scotland. The unemployment situation in Wales and Scotland is serious, but it is slightly worse in Wales than it is in Scotland. That is why the First Minister of Wales and I have called jointly for the action from the UK Government that we realise is necessary to address the employment crisis.

One of the keys to addressing the issue is to do exactly what this Government did two years ago by bringing forward capital investment. The Conservative Party has adopted the Labour Party’s capital budget—the one left to it by Alistair Darling—which has deeper and tougher cuts than those of Margaret Thatcher. However, last week there was a chink of light. In my discussion with the Prime Minister, I said, “Isn’t capital investment the way to drive forward the economy, not in two or three years’ time, but at this particular moment?” He asked us to submit a list of shovel-ready capital projects for his consideration, and that is exactly what we will do. When that list of new school buildings, hospitals and roads, and a new repair budget, is submitted, I hope that the initiative will at least have the support of the Labour Party in order to try to break the stranglehold of Westminster Government on the capital budget of Scotland.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00470)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister, having met him last week.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Last Thursday, the Deputy First Minister was caught out on a radio programme when she suggested that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development endorsed a claim that an independent Scotland would be the sixth-richest country by gross domestic product in the group, and the First Minister has himself cited that figure in this chamber. Will he confirm that the statistics are not in fact endorsed by the OECD and are not official?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

They are Government statistics that we have placed in the Scottish Parliament library. The OECD rankings are for the countries in the organisation, and yes, an independent Scotland, in terms of gross domestic product per head, would be sixth in the rankings. That seems to support Ruth Davidson’s comments on “Brian Taylor’s Big Debate” last May that an independent Scotland would be big enough and rich enough to be an independent country.

Before Ruth Davidson starts to talk about other people being caught out on radio, we should examine the record of her remarkable interview on “Newsnight Scotland”. Faced with the difficulty of trying to reconcile Lord Forsyth and David Cameron’s views on Scotland and the constitution, she produced the remarkable formulation that she agreed with them both simultaneously.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Prime Minister agrees with me—first we settle separation, then we discuss devolution.

On the issue that I actually raised with the First Minister, last Friday afternoon his adviser was scrabbling hastily around this Parliament’s press tower, handing out a 12-line document supporting the claims about the OECD. The document shows that the estimates of Scotland’s GDP came from the experimental Scottish national accounts project, or SNAP. The figures on which the First Minister relies are on the Scottish Government website, under the heading, “Data Being Developed”, with the cautionary warnings that they

“are not deemed fit for general use”

and

“do not yet meet the rigorous quality standards of National Statistics”,

and that they “are not ‘official’” and—this is my personal favourite—should not

“be the subject of media releases.”

The First Minister needs to stop presenting his assertions as fact and stop manipulating the data to suit his narrow purpose. Did he authorise the release of information based on those figures to the media? If he is prepared to be so slippery on this issue, how can anybody have any faith in anything he ever says?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, I did and yes, I will gladly republish the information through the Scottish Parliament information centre. The calculation is simple—take the GDP of Scotland and then take the bit that is excluded from the United Kingdom Government figures, which is our geographic share of oil and gas production from the North Sea. Members might ask why we should put in oil and gas production for the North Sea. The answer is because that miraculously appears in the United Kingdom Government’s figures; it is excluded only from the Scottish figures allocated by the UK Government.

If Ruth Davidson cares to read Alex Kemp’s magnificent book, “The Official History of North Sea Oil and Gas”, she will find that back in the 1960s a UK chancellor decided to create another country in these islands, called the offshore continental shelf, as a device so that the oil and gas industry could be extracted from the figures for Scotland. We know from the leaks that have come out that at the time successive Governments were being told that an independent Scotland would be richer than Switzerland, while Labour and Tory politicians were telling us that we would be poorer than Bangladesh. Ruth Davidson is on very shaky ground when she tries to defend the exclusion of the oil and gas industry from Scottish statistics.

Before we move off that remarkable interview on “Newsnight Scotland”, Ruth Davidson has just said that we will talk about devolution after settling independence. What has happened to the “line in the sand”, by which she beat Murdo Fraser in the Tory leadership contest? Now that she has been safely elected in that narrow section of the community that is called the Conservative Party, will she follow the policy of Murdo Fraser, whom she beat, or of Lord Forsyth, whom she phones up?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

The First Minister might be aware that Peri-dent, a company that manufactures oral care products, which is located at Tweedbank, in my constituency, closed its doors to manufacturing on Friday, transferring production to Malaysia—as usual because of cheaper production costs. There was a loss of 130 jobs.

The intention to relocate was made public in June last year. What has been done since then in preparation for the redundancies that I regret to say have now become a fact?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I share Christine Grahame’s concern about developments in respect of Peri-dent and their impact on the employees who are affected and their families and on the Borders.

I can tell Christine Grahame what we have been doing and I confirm that we will continue to do everything possible to support those employees. The local partnership action for continuing employment scheme has been involved in providing support to affected employees since Peri-dent announced in June last year its intention to move operations to Malaysia. PACE support has been provided at various times during the past months and has included two special events for employees, which were held on 22 November and, more recently, on 31 January. I assure Christine Grahame that the local team will continue to provide support to employees, to minimise the time that individuals are affected by redundancy and are out of work.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The First Minister will be aware of NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s extraordinary mishandling of a freedom of information request and of Kevin Dunion’s condemnatory report on the poor management and governance that might have put patient safety at risk.

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy’s announcement yesterday of an inquiry by Healthcare Improvement Scotland into the board’s practices and procedures. Can the First Minister assure me that the lessons that should have been learned after more than 20 deaths and 50 critical incidents, and after the creation of action plans, which might or might not have been implemented, will be learned, and that patient safety in my constituency will not be put at further risk by the intransigence and ineptitude of senior managers at NHS Ayrshire and Arran?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I should perhaps declare an interest. Rab Wilson, who made the freedom of information request, is a personal friend—and, incidentally, a very estimable character indeed. He was involved in the critical incident in September 2006.

I welcome the way in which John Scott introduced the subject and I support his welcome for the health secretary’s actions. The straight answer to his question is yes. The detailed answer is that the health secretary has instructed NHS Ayrshire and Arran urgently to review its FOI policy and report back to her within the next week, to ensure that it is fully compliant with the legislation. She has also asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland to carry out an urgent audit of relevant clinical governance procedures in NHS Ayrshire and Arran and to consider national lessons that can be learned.

I hope that that satisfies the member that the action that the health secretary is taking is appropriate to what are serious circumstances.

Cabinet (Meeting)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00484)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On the subject of NHS Ayrshire and Arran, and the response to John Scott’s question, I am now rather confused about the issue. It is clear that the First Minister knew about that emerging circumstance, but yesterday the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy instructed an immediate report into the problems in NHS Ayrshire and Arran. Why has it taken three months since the PricewaterhouseCoopers report was published in November for the health secretary to act?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The actions that the health secretary has taken are extremely timeous. The double action of looking not only at the freedom of information policy but at the heart of what the FOI request was about is very important, hence the request for Healthcare Improvement Scotland to carry out that urgent audit.

I think that most fair-minded people would say that the twin action of not only getting NHS Ayrshire and Arran to abide by its statutory FOI responsibilities, but getting to the heart of the failures in the systems that are perhaps evident and getting the audit done, is a pretty comprehensive and proper response to those serious circumstances.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Why has it taken three months for us to find out about that serious problem? Earlier this month, I asked the First Minister about extending freedom of information laws, and he refused. This case shows the value of freedom of information.

Kevin Dunion was very critical in his last report. He said that the case was perhaps

“the most serious catalogue of failings”

that he had ever dealt with.

Yesterday, the First Minister’s personal friend did a great service. He is a persistent individual who stood up. When can we expect to see in the Parliament a comprehensive report on freedom of information that covers all health boards in Scotland, not just NHS Ayrshire and Arran? Will patients throughout Scotland have to rely on Rab Wilson, or will the Scottish Government do its job?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The report came out this week, and the health secretary has taken the appropriate serious response.

Health boards are covered by freedom of information. It is not about the issue—which Willie Rennie recently pursued—of extending FOI, but about enforcing FOI on a body that is already covered by freedom of information legislation. Although that aspect is important and is being pursued by the health secretary, I am sure that Willie Rennie will agree—and the constituency member will certainly agree—that addressing the underlying issue of health and safety and the procedures that are in place is the key to improvement as well.

The twin action of ensuring that FOI legislation is enforced on a body that is covered by it and looking at the underlying issue of the safety procedures is an appropriate action for the health secretary to take.

Scotland to Heathrow Routes (Competition)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

4. To ask the First Minister, given the economic impact, what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that competition remains on routes from Scotland to Heathrow airport. (S4F-00477)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Together with our agencies, the Scottish Government is committed to working with airlines and the operators of Scotland’s airports to improve our international connectivity. The primary focus is on business, inward investment and inbound tourism.

There is no shortage of interest from airlines wanting to develop connectivity at present. That is exemplified by Emirates offering a double-daily service from Glasgow to Dubai from this coming June, Jet2’s continued expansion at Glasgow and the growth of Lufthansa and Azerbaijan in Aberdeen. In addition, we expect the current owner—and, it is hoped, the future owner—of Edinburgh airport to compete strongly to attract new airlines that meet the demand and potential demand.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am sure that the First Minister shares my disappointment that earlier this week Ryanair announced its decision to cut back its services from Edinburgh.

What progress is being made in urging the United Kingdom Government to devolve the power of air passenger duty so that Scottish airports—and the important links between Aberdeen and London—can remain competitive?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I regret Ryanair’s decision, but it provides an example of the difficulties for both the airline and the airport. As Edinburgh airport pointed out, it would have been impossible to grant some exemption or special deal to Ryanair from air passenger duty without doing that for every other carrier in Edinburgh airport.

A key solution should therefore surely be to replicate in Scotland what the United Kingdom Government is currently offering to Northern Ireland, which is the devolution of air passenger duty so that we can ensure that our airports are competitive in order to expand Scotland’s international connectivity. After all, if I remember correctly, that was a recommendation of the Calman commission, which has somehow disappeared from the bill that is going through the Houses of Parliament in Westminster.

In case anybody in the chamber thinks that that proposal does not have support outside the chamber, I will quote a letter from Derek Provan, Aberdeen airport’s managing director. He says:

“APD remains a significant barrier to growth ... I therefore welcome the continuing efforts of the Scottish Government to devolve APD to Scotland so that decisions affecting the future of our industry can be made here in Scotland—in the best interests of Scotland’s airports.”

So say all of us.

Construction Sector

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve confidence in the construction sector. (S4F-00473)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

In the face of a United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal Government cut to our capital budget of more than 30 per cent—a cut that was first put in place by Alistair Darling, whose cuts were to be deeper and tougher than those of Margaret Thatcher, according to that former chancellor—the Scottish Government is maximising capital spending to support infrastructure investment and jobs. We are at the most difficult time switching £750 million from resource to capital over the spending review period and taking forward a new programme of non-profit-distributing investment that is worth £2.5 billion. As a result, capital spending will grow over the spending review period. Of course, with capital borrowing powers, we could do a great deal more.