Scottish Parliament, 22 June 2000

451 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Introduction

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. Before we start the business of the day, I should inform the chamber that I have accepted a request from the Executive for an emergency statement on the emerging findings of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary in his inspection of the Scottish Criminal Records Office. That will take place at 12.15 pm, by agreement with the SNP, whose morning this is. That means that the second debate this morning will be a quarter of an hour shorter. Mr McLetchie has kindly agreed to delay his members' business by a quarter of an hour.

We are very tight for time throughout the morning. I appeal to the opening speakers to stick strictly to the time limits, so that as many members as possible can participate in the two debates.

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

We accept that the statement needs to be made, but we decided that we would take 10 minutes off our longer debate on fuel duty, and five minutes off the debate on the McCrone report.

David (None, Lothians)

That is fine. I had been told only that 15 minutes would be taken off the morning's debates. The first debate will, therefore, be five minutes shorter than was intended, which is very short indeed.

McCrone Report

David (None, Lothians)

The first item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1027, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the McCrone report, and an amendment to that motion.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will be as brief as I can.

Last September, when Sam Galbraith, the Minister for Children and Education, announced the establishment of the McCrone committee, he said:

"We will examine the committee's recommendations when they are passed to us. I am sure that all members will have a view on those arrangements and we will wish to discuss the matter at that time."—[Official Report, 22 September 2000; Vol 2, c 631.]

Because the minister has not afforded this Parliament the opportunity to have even a preliminary debate on the report of the McCrone committee, the SNP has decided to use some of its time to allow such a debate to take place.

Back in September, I was one of those people who admitted to being sceptical about the minister's motivation in setting up the committee. I suspected that it was more about getting the awkward problem of teachers' pay and conditions off his desk for a few months than about finding a genuine and long-term solution. Since then, I have waited to be proved wrong and to be convinced that the McCrone report would provide a basis for moving forward, for properly rewarding our teachers for the excellent work that they do, and for equipping Scottish education for the future.

I believe that the report of the McCrone committee provides us with that opportunity. I pay tribute to Gavin McCrone and his colleagues—they were not given an easy task, but they have come up with a set of recommendations that, in my view, point the way ahead. They have also made a number of telling observations about the state of our education system—observations that merit a response from the Executive. However, all that we have had so far from ministers is silence. Sam Galbraith is obviously so desperate not to break his silence that he has not even bothered to show up this morning for this debate.

Before Peter Peacock stands up to accuse me of not understanding how these things work, I should make it clear that I accept that the detail and the implementation of the McCrone report—in so far as it concerns teachers' pay and conditions of service—are a matter for negotiation between the Executive, teachers and local authorities. No one expects the Executive to pre-empt those negotiations by giving a line-by-line response to the report. The discussion and dialogue to which the Executive refers in its amendment is important. However, that does not prevent it from taking a view on the report's main conclusions and from telling the people of Scotland, who have footed the bill for the committee's deliberations, what that view is, instead of being struck dumb for fear of having to put its money where its mouth is.

Surely the Scottish Executive has an opinion on the report. The other parties to the negotiations—the unions and local authorities—have an opinion and have been happy to tell people what that is. Will the minister today tell us what his opinion is? After all, it was Sam Galbraith who established the committee, appointed its members and decided its remit. After nine months of deliberations and £500,000 of taxpayers' money, surely it is reasonable to expect that Sam Galbraith or his deputy has an opinion on whether the report is good, bad or indifferent.

On the day that the report was published, Sam Galbraith said that he needed time to consider the recommendations carefully. He has now had three weeks. I do not know how long it takes him to read a report, but after three weeks surely it is time for the rest of us to be told what he thinks.

Does Sam Galbraith think that the report is on the right track in what it says about teachers' pay, the structure of the profession, improving initial teacher education, the importance of continuing professional development, and the scandal of so many teachers being on short-term contracts? Does he agree with the committee that the increased demands on teachers arising from the social inclusion agenda are not being adequately resourced? Does he agree that the Executive needs to take effective action to deal with the problem of pupil indiscipline in schools? Does he agree that the number and nature of recent Government policy initiatives have substantially increased the burden on teachers, and that teachers feel that the amount of bureaucracy in teaching has grown beyond reasonable proportions? Does he agree with the committee when it questions whether all of that really adds value? Does he accept the view of the committee that, notwithstanding the negotiations about implementation, its report should be viewed as a whole, and that no part should be taken in isolation from the others?

Those are straightforward questions, which the minister can answer without in any way pre-empting the negotiations that will take place over the summer months. Why will not the minister answer those questions? Does not the Scottish public have a right to know what their Government thinks about a matter of such importance? Let us remember this point: the McCrone report does not just deal with teachers' pay and conditions of service and it does not just affect teachers and their employers; it is also about the learning conditions of our children. It affects every child and every parent in Scotland. They know how important it is. They know the opportunities that it provides for the education system and the dire consequences if those opportunities are squandered.

The kids and the parents will not be party to the negotiations, however. That is why they need to know the Executive's position. Will the Executive be negotiating to implement McCrone, or simply negotiating it away? The silence of the Executive gives rise to the suspicion that it is not committed to implementing McCrone, that those who thought that the setting up of the McCrone committee was a delaying tactic were right, and that what the Executive is now doing is simply delaying further. When the Executive, which unilaterally decided to set up the committee and unilaterally decided to abolish the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee against the wish of teachers, starts talking about genuine consultation and partnership through constructive dialogue, as it does in its amendment, one cannot help but get the feeling that an issue is being dodged.

That issue is the fact that, in the words of the McCrone report, the

"recommendations will require significant additional funds."

According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the bill will be in excess of £400 million a year—a figure that I note from weekend press reports is not now disputed by the Executive. Will the minister today accept that that will be the bill? Will he also accept that that additional funding must come from the Scottish Executive and that local authorities, which this year were forced to impose education cuts to the tune of £23 million, cannot foot the bill? Does he agree with the COSLA president Norman Murray, who said that

"local authorities are not able to contribute anything. The money is just not there. If McCrone's recommendations are not funded centrally, then they cannot be implemented"?

Will the Executive tell the Parliament, Scotland's teachers, local authorities, parents and children how much money it will make available from central Government to fund the recommendations of the committee that it established? That is a simple question, which only the Executive can answer. Without the answer, what is the point in entering into negotiations when no party to those negotiations and no one outside those negotiations knows whether the money will be available to implement the outcome of the talks?

If the Executive is really committed to dialogue and discussion, it is about time that it started listening to the views of those with whom it will be negotiating. The Educational Institute of Scotland says:

"If this process is going anywhere there has to be money on the table. If there is no funding then this process is effectively dead."

Where is the funding? The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said:

"There is no point in discussing this any further if the Executive is not going to agree to fund the recommendations."

How much money will be made available? COSLA said:

"We must know that we have the means to deliver on whatever is collectively decided."

I repeat the question: how much money will the Executive make available?

The message could not be clearer. The Executive must agree to fund McCrone, or McCrone will fail. If that happens, make no mistake about it, the failure will be Sam Galbraith's, Peter Peacock's and the Executive's.

There is real will on the part of teachers and local authorities to make progress over the next few months.

The remaining question is whether the Scottish Executive shares that commitment. It is time for the Executive to break its silence and to put its weight and its money behind a process that has the potential to reward teachers and to equip Scottish education for the new millennium.

Let us hear some answers from the minister today. What does he think of McCrone, even in general terms? How much money will he provide to fund the proposals? Will he fund them in full? If not, how much is available? Let us ensure that the negotiations that the minister is asking people to enter into over the next few months are negotiations with meaning and not simply negotiations in a vacuum.

"Education, education, education" was a good election slogan. I remember the Minister for Health and Community Care—she is sitting beside Peter Peacock—as education spokesperson mouthing that slogan with almost tiresome regularity during the election campaign. I shall be charitable—it was a good slogan. However, the answers that the minister gives to the questions this morning will prove whether it was any more than a good slogan for the Executive.

Let us hear some answers from the minister today. Let us tell the people out there what the minister thinks of the process that the Executive set up and—crucially—whether the Executive is prepared, at long last, to put its money where its mouth is.

I move,

That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Executive to publish its response to the report of the McCrone Committee of Inquiry into the Professional Conditions of Service for Teachers and to confirm what additional resources it will make available to local authorities to fund the committee's recommendations.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I do not like to be uncharitable, but I am afraid that once again we have heard from Nicola Sturgeon the Scottish National Party's complete inexperience of the real world of government and the extent of its irresponsibility about these issues.

The world that the Executive occupies is one where approaches to policy and decisions matter. It is not a world of posture or of gesture, which, I am afraid, is what characterises the SNP's world. We will not be drawn down the route suggested by the SNP. The teachers—and the pupils who depend on them—deserve better consideration from the Parliament than that suggested today.

The position set out by Nicola almost inevitably contradicts the position that the SNP set out just a few months ago.

I will take this opportunity to outline the approach that the Executive has adopted—and is adopting—to achieve our objectives of having a well-motivated teaching profession, capable of attracting and retaining teachers for the whole of their career and serving the needs of our modern and ever-changing society.

Last year, in announcing that the independent inquiry would be set up, Sam Galbraith gave a commitment to consult all relevant parties on its recommendations before any decisions on implementation were made. The Executive treats its commitments seriously and honours them.

That is in stark contrast to the SNP. When Sam Galbraith announced the inquiry, Nicola Sturgeon questioned its very purpose. "Why have a committee at all?" she asked. "How can the minister justify the substantial cost to the taxpayer?" Well, predictably, we have another volte-face from the SNP. She now appears to support the outcome of the committee of inquiry that she so vigorously opposed in the past. She now demands—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No, I will not give way.

She now demands that the Executive gives a commitment to fund the recommendations of the committee, which she thought entirely unjustified, before any of the detailed discussions with the key players have been undertaken. No doubt that is the approach that pervades the SNP and has brought it to the brink of financial ruin. It spends first, it discusses the volume of the spending later and it discusses the purpose of the spending even further down the road. That is an approach that makes the SNP completely unfit for government—that is why the Scottish people have never trusted it with government.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No, I will not give way, as I have only a short time and I wish to get through this.

On 24 May, in response to a written question, Sam Galbraith said that, after the publication of the McCrone committee report on 31 May, we would enter a period of consultation with the relevant parties. He wrote, setting out his proposals on how to proceed, to each of those parties: the trade unions, the management side of the local authorities and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Copies of his letters were placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

After we laid out our proposals for consultation, all the relevant parties signed up to them. We have been clear and consistent. The work of the McCrone committee and its conclusions require the detailed, careful and collective consideration of all those involved. When we say collective, we mean precisely that. When we say that we will consult, that is precisely what we will do.

Nevertheless, less than one month after the publication of the McCrone report, we are asked to break that commitment and to issue immediate pronouncements. That is not how the Scottish Executive does business.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

With all due respect to the minister, I think that he is rather missing the point of the debate—I do not suppose that that will surprise anyone. No one is asking him to pre-empt the negotiations, but surely it is not too much to ask the Government to tell everyone involved in the negotiations, as well as the public, what the budget is. How much money is available to fund the outcome of the negotiations? Surely that is a basic starting point for all negotiations. That is a question that only he can answer, so why does not he stop prevaricating and answer it now?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That is another example of a question that confirms the inexperience of the SNP in these matters. Nicola Sturgeon is saying, "Don't pre-empt the negotiations, but please, Mr Minister, declare your hand on every point of detail in the report in advance." That is a ludicrous position and she knows it.

Six months ago, the Parliament asked us to continue working towards the objective of ensuring that there is a modern, adaptive and flexible mechanism for determining the professional conditions of service for teachers in Scottish schools. If we are to take that task seriously—and we do take it seriously—we must recognise that all parties must have the opportunity to consider the report and its recommendations in detail, to take time for reasoned discussion and reflection, and to talk to one another. We will not achieve our objective if we are rushed into premature decisions and conclusions. The Executive will resist that—we will not be bounced into that position to satisfy an agenda that has little to do with creating the quality of education in Scotland that we all want and that our children deserve.

We have begun the discussions and we are honouring our commitments. We are serious about the task of creating the world-class education system that Scotland deserves and of which all our people—teachers, parents and children—can be proud. We will not let crude opportunism deflect us from that task.

The approach that we are taking has the full support of the key parties. Only yesterday, the EIS issued a statement that said:

"we believe that there is very little scope for debate about McCrone at this time. We welcome the fact that commentators have refrained from discussing McCrone to date. It is very necessary that all of those concerned have the time to properly consider what we believe is a good Report . . . Time to consider is of particular importance to teachers . . . We appreciate the restraint shown by others which has allowed this breathing space".

Sadly, but predictably, that restraint has not been shown by SNP members. Their motivation and reasons for holding this debate are clear for all to see. Their approach should be clearly rejected.

I move amendment S1M-1027.1, to leave out from "calls upon" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Executive's approach to establish genuine consultation and partnership through constructive dialogue and mature consideration of the recommendations of the McCrone Report, and calls upon the Executive to maintain its progress towards the objective of securing a modern and flexible mechanism for determining the professional conditions of service for teachers in Scotland's schools as a critical determinant in establishing a world class reputation for the Scottish education system."

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I humbly announce that the Conservatives will not be supporting the SNP motion today—no doubt that will please SNP members. If I may throw some of Nicola Sturgeon's words back at her, I will say that the reason that we will not support her motion is that we think that it is political posturing.

That will come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber who has heard the SNP contribution to the education debate over the past year. I hear a respectable position, which I am happy to argue with, from the Labour benches. I also hear a respectable position put forward by Ian Jenkins on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. However, when I listen to the SNP outlining its position on education, what I hear is the latest briefing from the EIS—or was it the latest briefing from the SSTA? In a debate on discipline, the SNP looks up the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers briefing, because that organisation is champing at the bit on discipline.

At times one has to wonder whether the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon are the fifth column for the teaching trade unions, so obviously do they think that the way in which to win the education debate is simply to talk about teachers and teaching. I heard Nicola Sturgeon's intervention in Peter Peacock's speech. If she thinks that one negotiates by showing one's hand, I would love to play poker with her. I have no doubt that, although the Conservatives may not win the votes in parliamentary debates, I would certainly win a game of cards with Nicola.

Although the McCrone report has been largely welcomed by the teaching sector, there are concerns about the costs and about who is expected to foot the bill. The size of the bill is another matter, as a variety of conflicting figures have been thrown in the air. Professor McCrone estimated the costs at £260 million—a figure that Sam Galbraith seemed to admit to COSLA might not be enough. Roy Jobson, the director of education on City of Edinburgh Council, estimated that the initiative could cost £25 million to implement in Edinburgh alone. Claims of scaremongering were made when COSLA estimated that costs could total £500 million over five years.

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

Brian Monteith may be talking about costs, but McCrone himself said that

"our recommendations will require significant additional funds. We consider that inescapable, if we are to put the teaching profession on a sound basis for the new century and improve the quality of school education in Scotland."

Does not Mr Monteith think that we could at least hear today from the Executive that it is prepared to put some money on the table and make a commitment that acknowledges the inescapable conclusion that the extra cash must be made available? The Executive should at least announce that it is prepared to put its hand in its pocket.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is not too difficult to find out—from reading the speeches, listening to the minister today and examining what has been said in committee—that the Executive is going into the discussion well aware that more funds will be required, as I will demonstrate later in my speech.

Savings have to be made in some areas. However, the only specific figure in the report is the £100 million that could be saved through reductions in the provision of supply cover for planned absences. It is interesting to note that that was the one aspect that the EIS said that it was less than happy with at its annual general meeting.

An uncertain amount of money must be found, but where is it expected to come from? We should examine two areas—I say to Bruce Crawford that I have no doubt that the Executive is considering this. Back in 1996, when Michael Forsyth first suggested that the SJNC be wound up in favour of a pay review body, part of the argument put forward—I know that the Liberal Democrats have given this strong consideration—was that, over the years, teachers in Scotland had fallen some 8 per cent behind their colleagues in England. That amount of money was offered and provided to local authorities, but it was not negotiated and passed on to teachers. One expects that money could be found within local authority budgets.

Secondly, the Executive announced in a press release on 2 June that Scottish schools were to receive an additional £32 million. However, the annual expenditure report for the Executive, which was published in April, had assigned an extra £87 million for education. Can the minister tell us where the additional £55 million has gone? It would be a fair bet to suspect that that money might be used for McCrone. However, given the uncertainty and size of the costs, even an extra £55 million would make only a small dent in the funds needed.

We need to know whether the Executive can afford more than £500 million for the next five years and, if so, how. If local authorities and the Executive cannot afford the full cost of implementation, will local authorities be forced to increase council taxes to meet the cost? We need clarification of the exact costs of implementing the report. Only then can we begin to debate which reforms are our priorities and how we can fund them. That is the way in which we should take this matter forward. We should not ask the Government to show its hand first and therefore make all negotiations redundant.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Nicola Sturgeon likes to portray herself as the teachers' friend. I often share her attitude to these matters. I should declare that I am a member of the EIS. I have to remember to do that every time that I speak on education.

Brian Monteith is wrong. On this occasion, Nicola Sturgeon is not following the EIS line. As Peter Peacock pointed out, the EIS statement says that

"we believe that there is very little scope for debate on McCrone at this time."

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Ian Jenkins is selectively quoting. That quotation from the EIS refers to the detail of the report. I accept that we should not pre-empt the negotiations on the detail, but is he aware of the resolution passed at the EIS AGM last week that calls on the Executive to clarify its position on the McCrone report and to give a commitment to fund its recommendations? That is exactly what the SNP is calling on the Executive to do. If Ian Jenkins accuses me of being inexperienced, is he also saying that the EIS and the teaching profession are inexperienced?

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I will again quote from the EIS briefing to MSPs:

"Time to consider is of particular importance for teachers, as the Report has arrived in staff rooms at a very busy time of the year, and . . . representative organisations . . . must follow a structured process of consideration."

I will ask Nicola Sturgeon a question, although I do not know whether I am allowed to. She says that she is asking a series of easy questions. Does she believe that the report should be taken as a whole, down to every dot and comma, or should there be negotiations? If there are to be negotiations, we do not know what the funding will have to be. It is cuckoo to say, "We will tell you what the amount of money is, then we will have the negotiations." That is not how things work.

The millennium review was a total disaster because it was cobbled together behind the scenes by the SJNC, which has now been scrubbed but which the SNP wanted to keep. That report got all sorts of things totally wrong and people did not accept it. Despite the fact that it sought to change the structure of promotion in Scottish schools and many aspects of pay and conditions, it turned up on teachers' desks and they had to say yes or no to it in a fortnight.

This process is different. McCrone has considered the pay and conditions of teachers and has produced some very interesting ideas—many of which I, as a teacher, would have supported—but people are not yet sure what some of the proposals mean. We must have time to examine the report. Teachers must have a chance to digest it, discuss it properly and read it in full. They should not have to decide on it just before the busiest, exam time of the year. Nicola Sturgeon says that Sam Galbraith has had three weeks or six weeks, but six weeks is not a long time in which to deal with a big report that will change teachers' lives. Teachers need to discuss it and to decide whether it suits people who may be halfway through their careers.

The report represents a great way ahead for someone who is going into the profession now. I like the ideas about retirement packages, pensions, and sabbatical leave. Those ideas need to be digested. The money for the proposals on pensions would be a big consideration. I can imagine that a deal will be done on short-term issues such as pay and conditions, but pensions are a different ball game altogether and cannot be decided on now with a simple yes or no.

I have gone away off my speech, but I will get back to it.

David (None, Lothians)

You are in your final 30 seconds.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

How long have I got? Gaun yersel, son. I have lost the place now.

Nicola Sturgeon is like one of those kids we used to get in school. There would be a nice wee girl in the classroom who would be a wee bit surly sometimes but was bright and intelligent. One would enjoy engaging in discussion with her and would eventually get a nice relationship going with her, but she would not let other people have their chance. If she was given the main part in a play, when her wee bit was finished, she would say, "I'm not in it for another 10 pages—can we get on to that bit?" Other people need to have their chance.

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

Will the member give way?

David (None, Lothians)

Order. The member is over time.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Nicola Sturgeon's time is not now. She can come back in the last scene when the back-stabbing goes on and everybody dies. Instead of doing "Macbeth", we could do "Monteith". There is a lot of back-stabbing in that—nasty letters and so on.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I leave members with this thought. This is not the time or place to debate the McCrone report.

David (None, Lothians)

I must be frank with the chamber. The open debate has to finish in eight minutes and four members want to speak—members can make their own calculations. Either members will be very brief or some people will be disappointed.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I will try to get back to the subject of the debate.

I had hoped that by the time I was called to speak, the minister would have taken the chance that was afforded him by this SNP-sponsored debate to give his opinion on the findings of the McCrone committee, as Nicola Sturgeon suggested he should. I had hoped, at the very least, that the Executive would have outlined what resources had been set aside to fund the new settlement. I tell Peter Peacock, Brian Monteith & co that negotiation is not about just money, but includes such things as terms and conditions of service. Nevertheless, the minister will be pleased to have the support of Brian Monteith on this vital issue.

I had also hoped that, as an absolute bottom line, the Executive would use today's debate to give a clear and unequivocal commitment that, whatever conclusion was reached, the settlement would be funded by the Executive. I had hoped to hear a clear and unequivocal commitment that hard-pressed local authorities, which—as stated in Jack McConnell's response to parliamentary question S1W-5177—face a cut of £191 million in revenue support grant next year, would not have to pay for the settlement in increased council tax levels or cuts in jobs and services.

Unfortunately, I have been left disappointed, as I am by so much of what the Executive has to say. I am disappointed because—I am sure I speak for the entire chamber when I say this—Scotland's teachers deserve, and have the right to expect, better.

The issue is not whether McCrone—or whatever variation of it ends up as the final settlement—should be paid for, but who will pay for it. I am disappointed because the Executive continues to play politics with the issue and to leave the key players in the process in the dark about its intentions. We should be able to expect a clear statement of how much money is available to fund the award, what local authorities will be expected to pay and what the knock-on consequences on council tax increases and/or job losses and service cuts in each local authority will be.

I remind the minister of COSLA's view, expressed by its president, Councillor Norman Murray, last week. He said:

"We have made it abundantly clear to ministers that local government budgets are already fully stretched and that the Government will have to meet its full share of the bill. So COSLA's message could not be starker. If McCrone's recommendations are not funded centrally, then they cannot be implemented."

I understand that the minister has stated that he wants to consult before making a pronouncement, but it seems odd that the third party in a triangular negotiation should be silent, while the other two parties are forthright in their opinions. One is left to surmise that the Executive's silence has more to do with the need to stall for time than the need to listen to public or professional opinion.

In the spirit of consensus and the new politics, let me offer the Executive a way out. Why does not the Executive use this opportunity to put on record the resources that are available? It would not have to give a commitment to release those resources; all I ask is that its position be made clear. How much money is on the table and how much will local authorities have to find from their resources? Telling us that would not bind the Executive. The minister could still hold his consultation. He would still be able to deliberate, cogitate and mull things over. He would not have made a commitment; he would have said, on record, only how much was in the kitty and how far the Executive was prepared to go. That would give the unions and local authority employers clear parameters in which to operate and would give the discussions an air of reality.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have only a couple of minutes left.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There is only one minute left.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

As things stand, COSLA states that unless resources to implement the McCrone recommendations are met in full by the Executive, the recommendations cannot be implemented at all. The unions say that unless there is money on the table, the process is dead. In the middle, we have the Executive saying nothing at all. The minister has his chance to end the speculation and tell us what resources are available. If there is £450 million in the kitty, let him say so. If there is £250 million, as has been reported, let him say so. If there is no money in the kitty and the minister expects local authorities to fund the recommendations, in the same way that they have had to fund every other award that Labour has sanctioned, let the minister say so.

The issue is one of resources, but it is also one of honesty. If the Executive cannot afford to fund McCrone, let it say so. If the Executive believes that it has a duty to fund only part, or none, of McCrone, let it say so. If it believes that local authority taxpayers should pay the bill, or that there should be efficiency savings in local authority services, we must be told. The Executive does not need to consult to have an opinion and it does not need three months to express a view. The Executive should clear the matter up today and let Scotland's teachers know where they stand.

New Labour and its Liberal Democrat colleagues are fond of saying that politics is about tough choices. Let me put a tough choice to them today: choose between telling the truth—being straight with the teachers and the people of Scotland—and hiding behind spin and delay. I invite the minister to make that tough choice when he closes for the Executive.

I support the motion.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am glad that I did not have to follow Ian Jenkins's contribution, because I would have sounded more sensible than usual.

I listened carefully to Nicola Sturgeon's opening statement, but I am still not sure what she thought she would achieve by having this debate. We could have predicted Peter Peacock's response, which was the only response he could possibly give in the circumstances. It does the Parliament no benefit to have a discussion in the vacuum in which we are having this discussion.

I agree that part of the EIS's statement said that we should hold back from commenting on McCrone at this stage, and I appreciate the reason for that suggestion. As soon as the McCrone report was published, there were headlines saying that teachers were to get huge pay increases or performance-related pay. If members have read the report in any detail, they will know that those headlines were soundbites and were completely off—they do not reflect what the report says. We can do the report justice only by sitting down to consider it, negotiating with interested parties and considering seriously what the report is trying to achieve.

I am surprised that, so far, Nicola Sturgeon has not taken the opportunity to raise the McCrone report at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I appreciate that the agendas have been fairly busy recently, and that that would have been rather difficult, but I hope that the committee will have a role to play in considering the McCrone report. McCrone has signalled several areas that need further work and investigation; one such area is work load. Committee members have spoken regularly to teachers throughout the country, who have told us that work load is an important issue. Even yesterday, during our evidence session on the special educational needs inquiry, teachers were saying that they needed more time to bring children with special educational needs into the class, to give them a quality education.

McCrone flagged up work load as one of the issues that need to be considered, and it might have been more productive to consider that than to have this debate today.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Given the evidence that the committee has heard about the burden on teachers, does Mary Mulligan accept that it would be perfectly reasonable for the Executive to signal its intentions by accepting the parts of the McCrone report that made those points and acknowledging that that will have resource implications?

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

No. I do not think that it would be helpful for the Executive to make any such statements at this stage. I welcome the McCrone report as a basis for examining the issues that are important to the teaching profession, parents and students. We should use that as a starting point, but at this stage, we should not make statements on what we think is right and wrong.

Teachers tell us that they feel undervalued. McCrone provides a basis to give teachers back recognition of their professionalism. It is not just about finance. I am not naive enough to think that we can discuss the report without realising that there are financial implications. However, I do not think that teachers want the debate to be reduced to cash and nothing else—there are more important issues. Teachers do not want to become the meat in the political sandwich.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I have been asked to wind up.

The minutiae of negotiations cannot take place in the chamber and they should not take place in the committee. We must give time to the on-going discussions. We can do justice to teachers, parents and students only by allowing the debate enough time.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

On a point of order. This morning, every speaker has been either a front-bench spokesperson or a committee convener. That is an abuse of the chamber. The organisation of this business—a one-hour debate in which no back bencher is allowed to speak—is quite inappropriate. I hope, Presiding Officer, that that will be taken back to the Parliamentary Bureau. It is plainly an abuse of the chamber.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I take that point, and I can confirm that I will take the matter to the bureau. I have to say that the SNP gave up 15 minutes of its time to accommodate the statement later this morning. We now move to winding-up speeches.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

It is quite right for the SNP to raise this issue—that is what Opposition parties are for—and to press the Executive. The Executive is correct in saying that there should be more consultation and that it needs to form a measured response.

I will focus on some of the non-financial aspects. I am one of those people who consistently cry out for more resources for education and other public services, but there is an important non-financial aspect to the debate—the morale of teachers, and their work load. The Scottish Liberal Democrats went into the election calling for an overall inquiry into Scottish education. That was not included in the coalition agreement, but McCrone addressed such issues and I hope that the Executive will pursue them in order to keep the good will of the teachers. That does not mean surrendering to every demand of the teachers' unions, but keeping the teachers on board and improving their morale, which at present is extremely bad.

In particular, the issue of pupils with behavioural difficulties must be dealt with more head-on. There is a great reluctance to admit that there is such a problem, because teachers and head teachers feel that they are admitting failure if they do so. There are problems in many places, and they must be tackled more intelligently.

There is the further issue of teachers contributing to out-of-school activities and the more general point about increasing the education of children outside school, where, with all due respect to people who have tried teaching, most good education takes place. We need to consider questions about the management of out-of-school clubs and activities—for example, whether they are run by teachers or by other people in association with teachers.

I welcomed especially the McCrone report's recommendation for a bureaucracy audit. Having previously volunteered to be a bumf tsar, I am volunteering to take part in such an important exercise. Teachers find themselves submerged by the many well-intentioned initiatives and other pieces of paper at national, council and school level, and we need to address that problem to allow teachers to get on with what they are good at—teaching.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I notice the importance that Andrew Wilson attaches to this debate—he is reading The Daily Telegraph.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is The Sunday Telegraph.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

You will agree that the weather is somewhat humid and that there are rather more nats around than usual. As a result, I have decided to designate today bash-a-nat day—and it is Nicola Sturgeon's turn. I am by nature a tolerant and patient person, but your recent posturing and statements have bored me to tears. You could bore for Britain without competition; however, you would no doubt prefer to do so for Scotland.

Yesterday, you accused the Scottish Conservatives of not contributing to the debate on section 2A. However, apart from Michael McMahon, only the Conservatives came up with amendments to that section of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill and chose to debate the question in Parliament.

Conversely, you did not offer any amendments and your policy was dictated by opinion polls, not conviction. The carping continues in today's debate.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

You should speak to the motion, Mr Harding.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The McCrone report is complex and comprehensive, and requires careful consideration and consultation, as we know that resources are not finite. Your motion is premature, as it does not give the Executive time to deliberate and suggest proposals for the Parliament's consideration. Like all SNP motions, it is all about political point-scoring and the ultimate aim of destroying the union. The report presents an opportunity to address the deficiencies in education, and this is not the time to allow rampant political opportunism. Although your party always promises the earth, it cannot produce the resources. Your expenditure plans surpass even the Executive's recycled announcements, which is no mean achievement. However, that is understandable, because if we believe what we hear, your party has difficulties in managing its own meagre resources.

I support the amendment.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that Mr Harding is addressing the chair, it strikes me that the chair is being unnecessarily abused by his language.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Harding?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have finished my speech, so it is difficult for me to respond—but if you think that that was abuse, I will give you some more later on.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I made it clear earlier that we would not be deflected from our commitment to take the McCrone report seriously. After all, the Executive established the committee, despite SNP opposition. We did not establish the committee so that we could then completely ignore its recommendations; we did so to provide the basis for discussions with key interests to secure our objective of a well-motivated teaching profession.

The ultimate aim is to deliver higher standards and better education for our children, and we have confirmed that we intend to consult interested parties before we take any steps towards implementation. We will do so through a series of consultation meetings over the summer with groups that represent employers, teachers and head teachers, and others. That is what we have said we will do and that is what we will do; I have heard nothing from the SNP today that would make me change my mind.

Ian Jenkins's helpful and entertaining speech, based on his experience in the teaching profession, struck a balanced note on how we should approach such matters. Mary Mulligan's mature approach did likewise.

We are determined to use the McCrone committee report for the purpose of securing answers to the difficult questions that must be answered if we are to have the teaching profession that our country needs. We will not use the McCrone report just as a political weapon. We will not use teachers—in Mary Mulligan's words—as the meat in a political sandwich. I urge Parliament to support the Executive amendment.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will take the debate back to its serious intent. The McCrone committee report was long awaited, not just by teachers but by parents and pupils. It was eagerly awaited because of the uncertainty and rancour that had arisen over the millennium review.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

When this matter was debated before and I said that the McCrone committee was the chance of a lifetime, Fiona McLeod condemned that statement. Does she now admit that the McCrone committee was worth while?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We said that the McCrone committee was a delaying tactic. That is also true of the Government's response to the report, which is a tactic to delay having to resolve the uncertainty at the heart of the teaching profession. McCrone identified that when he said that teaching is a profession under pressure and that teachers feel misunderstood and undervalued. My party and I think it right and proper to expect a response from the Government to the McCrone report, to reassure the teaching profession that it intends to take matters forward positively.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Would Fiona McLeod agree that, as the EIS has announced categorically that it will not release publicly any of its negotiating positions over the summer, it is rather strange to ask the Government to release its position before that?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I direct Robin Harper's attention to the resolution of the annual general meeting of the EIS that called on the Scottish Executive to

"clarify its attitude to the McCrone report and to confirm that it will guarantee to provide the resources necessary to fund, in full, the outcome of the negotiations which will follow the publication of the McCrone Report."

That is a clear statement. The position of a union in negotiations is different from that of the Government. We are looking for a Government response—not a detailed one—that recognises the import of the McCrone report. We want to know whether the Government accepts the conclusions that McCrone reached.

It has become obvious that the forthcoming consultation is just another delaying tactic. One would presume that a consultation process has a couple of purposes: to inform the Government of the views of the profession and the public; and to influence the Government's decisions. However, that does not preclude the Government from expressing an opinion on the report at this point.

We know that the Government has opinions on many of the issues that were raised by McCrone. In its manifesto, Labour stated that it would free teachers to teach. Paragraph 6.19 of the McCrone report calls for a bureaucracy audit and, in paragraph 3.45, there is a call for more classroom assistants to

"enable teachers to concentrate on their teaching duties."

By not commenting on the McCrone report, is the Government saying that it is going back on its manifesto commitment to give teachers time to teach? That is a simple question and I would like an answer.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I have two questions. First, how does a lack of comment imply a change in policy? Secondly, will Fiona McLeod state how much the SNP would allocate to implementing the McCrone recommendations? We are keeping a running total of what the SNP plans to spend.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have two answers for Dr Simpson. The Labour party can back up its manifesto commitment to free the teachers to teach, as McCrone recommends. At the same time, as the Labour party is the party of government, it must fund the committee that it set up. We are the Opposition, and we will cost it in our manifesto when the time comes.

We are discussing finances, so let us turn to paragraph 1.11 of the report. McCrone states:

"One specific issue which has been raised a number times with the Committee is the question how any changes to pay, promotion structures and conditions of service it may recommend will be financed."

The quotations on the financial aspects go on and on. We have heard them today, and it is a major issue. Malcolm McIvor of the EIS said that if the process was to go anywhere, there would have to be money on the table and that if there was no funding, the process would, in effect, be dead. David Eaglesham of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said that there would be no point in discussing the matter any further if the Executive did not agree to fund the recommendations and that if the price—which is huge—were not to be met, the process would have been a waste of time.

I do not think that the McCrone report was a waste of time, and nor does the SNP, but if the Government does not tell us whether it thinks that the report was a waste of time, and whether it is prepared to provide the funds to ensure that the recommendations are met, the whole thing will have been a waste of time. I hope that this morning's debate has not been a waste of time, but has allowed the SNP—as the Opposition party—to raise the genuine concerns of the profession and the parents. I hope that the Government will respond to those genuine concerns, and I urge members to support the SNP motion.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are now about four or five minutes ahead of schedule. I shall add that time on to the next debate.

Petrol and Diesel Prices

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1026, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on petrol and diesel prices, and amendments to that motion.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

In moving this motion, I am minded of Labour's campaign song in recent elections: "Things Can Only Get Better". Well, well, well. The singer remains the same, but the words of the song have changed. Now, it is "Petrol Can Only Get Dearer" or, "The Price of Diesel Can Only Get Higher". When people ask me, "What's the price of voting Labour?" I say, "£4 a gallon."

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will Kenny MacAskill give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Maureen Macmillan will have to wait until I have got started.

What has happened to the price of fuel under the Labour Administration? It has gone up, up, up. In 1997, the Tory foot was no longer on the fuel duty accelerator and the iron lady was replaced in the driving seat by the iron chancellor. Not only did he continue to keep his foot on the accelerator—he pressed harder. Labour's turbo-charged taxes have sent petrol and diesel prices rocketing, while fuel-injecting the chancellor's burgeoning war chest.

Last autumn, concerned that petrol prices had gone up by 25 per cent, I asked the minister in committee what representations she had made to the chancellor about the escalating cost of fuel. She replied that he had not asked her. Since then, they appear to have discussed matters on several occasions. Mea culpa—why did I ever ask? What did she say to him? The situation is worse now than it was then. Petrol has now gone up by more than 40 per cent and the price of voting Labour in May 2000 will be £5 a gallon.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The SNP's budget for independence includes a fuel duty escalator of 6 per cent until 2003. What will the SNP's changes in tax plans be to take account of that?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We made it quite clear during the vote at Westminster, when we voted against fuel tax rises—as did the Deputy First Minister—and that is what put matters on the record. The Labour Government put its foot on the accelerator and has continued to press it. We, to our credit, have said no to the fuel tax rises. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats can tell us why the Deputy First Minister argues one way down in London but votes a different way up here.

People know that the chancellor takes 80p in every £1 spent on fuel, but let us look at it another way. If fuel were an ordinary commodity, what would the retail mark-up be? What would be a fair profit in the circumstances? The chancellor's mark-up on a litre of petrol is not 3 per cent. It is not even 33 per cent. It is a scandalous and outrageous 333 per cent. If we consider other commodities, only cigarettes are marked up higher. At least in that case there is a health argument and an argument about costs to the national health service. Even alcohol comes nowhere close: the chancellor makes 62 per cent on wine and 40 per cent on beer.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not at the moment.

What about a comparable fuel? What about the Government's mark-up on electricity? That stands at 5 per cent. This is the ultimate usury—Labour is preparing for an election in which it proposes to offer unseemly tax cuts to the rich while extorting money from those who have no alternative but to buy fuel but who have few resources with which to pay for it. What other tax is at that level? Not basic rate tax, not higher rate tax and not even corporation tax. This is not about targeting congestion, nor is it about promoting transport alternatives; it is about raising £2.25 billion for a war chest. This is about fleecing us through fuel.

Why is fuel important? Its price affects every facet of our life. It is not only at the pumps that we pay; price increases affect the cost of every journey, personal or commercial. It is not only the end cost of products that we have to consider, but the wrecking cost on our road haulage industry.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

What, in Kenny MacAskill's motion, will set all of that right? How much money will he spend on the sole initiative that he has identified? Where, from the available resources, will he find the resources for that?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If Murray Tosh will sit and wait, all will be made clear.

I mentioned the wrecking cost on our road haulage industry. This Parliament has had debates on other industries in crisis—from shipbuilding to the textile industry; from fishing to farming. Let us be clear: the Scottish road haulage industry is in similar trouble. There may be environmental Luddites who think that that is beneficial, but the cost of fuel has not reduced the number of journeys by a truck or lorry; it has simply reduced the number of journeys by a Scottish truck or lorry.

Our hauliers are trying to compete on an open highway when the chancellor is weighing them down with an extra load—higher fuel costs and higher excise duties. They are losing out to foreign competition, which is fuelling up on the continent and back-loading on the journey back. Fuel accounts for about 70 per cent of a road haulier's costs. In Scotland, a haulier will pay more than double the fuel cost of his continental competitor.

Jobs are at stake and an industry is threatened. But there is more. I have been pursuing the hidden costs that have been imposed by Labour's fuel tax and I have discovered some disturbing figures. For example, in rural—and, indeed, in urban—Scotland, transport to school is not a luxury but a necessity. I am not talking about the cost of parents embarking on the morning school run; I am talking about the massive cost to local authorities of carrying out their statutory duties. When I asked the Minister for Children and Education about the cost of running school buses, I was told that in 1997-98 it cost Scottish local authorities nigh on £80 million.

Some of my colleagues will detail the costs to individual local authorities, but I would like to concentrate on the overall national picture. It is a picture of money flowing south from the oil off our shores, of money flowing south from the pumps on our forecourts, and of a chancellor awash with our money. Meanwhile, here in Scotland, council taxes go up and the quality of council services goes down. This is the only country in the world to find oil and find itself getting poorer. All across the council spectrum, irrespective of the political colours of the council, the price is being paid in the increased costs of public services.

Let us consider the emergency services. We cannot do without them. We heap praise upon them for their selfless dedication, yet those essential services are cash-strapped—in contrast to a chancellor who is cash-rich. A paramedic says to me, "What is the price of voting Labour?" I say, "It's £3.21 million a year to put petrol in ambulances." A policeman says to me, "What is the price of voting Labour?" I say, "It's over £5 million a year, simply to fuel the vehicles."

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

rose—

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

rose—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not at the moment. A fireman says to me, "What is the price of voting Labour?" I say, "It's £18 million in transport costs since Labour came to power."

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Is Kenny MacAskill offering free fuel for fire and ambulances services? If so, is that another spending commitment to add to the SNP's large list?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

As I said to Murray Tosh, Mr Macdonald should wait and he will be told.

What can be done? Two schemes deserve to be considered. First, a fuel duty rebate scheme is within the competence of this Parliament. Is it not within the wit and competence of the Executive to consider extending the fuel duty rebate scheme to school buses and other services? Has that been investigated or costed? At yesterday's meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I asked the Minister for Transport and the Environment whether she had considered or costed that option. She said no. That is unacceptable.

Secondly, cheap fuel is available to certain categories and classes of vehicle, which may answer Mr Macdonald's question. The Finance Act 1995 allows the following classes of vehicle to use rebated fuel: tractors, diggers, mobile cranes, road rollers, gritters, snowploughs and mowing machines. Worthy machines and a testament to man's mechanical ingenuity—all have played a part in the construction of the civilised world. Seriously, I would not want to stop rebated fuel for gritters and snowploughs or any other of those worthy vehicles, but what is the logic of giving rebated fuel to those necessary machines but not to police cars, fire engines or ambulances?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Mr MacAskill criticises the minister for uncosted promises. What is the costing of that new pledge to provide rebated fuel for the emergency services?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I do not know what papers Mr Macdonald reads, but I read The Independent.

"Prescott gets £140 bn boost for transport".

Mr Macdonald may see it differently, but it seems to me that petrol and transport are related. Is it not possible that £140 billion might mean it is possible to say that police cars, fire engines and ambulances are as worthy of rebated fuel as mowers, diggers and tractors? Can he tell me why they are not?

The £140 billion will be spent on

"a £500 million extension for Manchester's tramlines, a new £180 million system in Nottingham and extensions to the Docklands Light Railway in London and the similar Tyne and Wear rail network".

Moreover,

"The Government will give priority to proposals that . . . will blitz congestion 'hot spots' such as the M6 and M25 motorways."

What about the areas where we have problems? What about rural Scotland's problems rather than just the M25 urban corridor?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Is the SNP policy on rural petrol prices—it is, according to Mr MacAskill in the John o' Groat Journal and Weekly Advertiser and Duncan Hamilton speaking in Oban—that petrol prices in urban areas should be raised to the level of petrol prices in rural areas?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I do not know whether Maureen Macmillan is reading that from joined-up writing or whatever, but that is not the position. I believe there should be parity of prices. I do not see why someone who lives in rural Scotland should be discriminated against. I bet if the minister's Mondeo was filled up in Stornoway rather than in Edinburgh, we would see the Government doing something about it quickly.

To return to those worthy machines—is a tractor or a mower of greater social worth than a panda car or Medic 1? Apparently they are. Why do we not tell the chancellor that that is nonsensical and must cease? Let him provide from his ill-gotten gains the resources for our essential services. The price is being paid by ordinary Scots with no alternative to using fuel.

Yesterday, I actually received an answer to a written question. The question was:

"To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the classes of vehicles which are entitled to rebated fuel in Scotland."

That extends Mr Macdonald's question. What are we going to do about it? His colleague, Sarah Boyack, who is not here today, gave me an illuminating answer:

"The Executive keeps in regular contact with Treasury on a range of reserved issues which affect Scottish interests."

Blow me—that gave me a good explanation of why a mower gets the rebate but Medic 1 does not.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

There is a fundamental flaw in Kenny MacAskill's argument, although I agree with many of his points.

Given that 6 per cent of the UK's fuel duty is paid in Scotland and that Scotland receives 10 per cent of Government funding, if fuel duty for public service vehicles was abolished across the UK, we would be 4 per cent worse off and our public services would suffer. Has the SNP addressed that fundamental flaw?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Like my colleagues, I do not understand the basis of Mr Rumbles's nonsensical question. [Laughter.] The fact is that the extension of rebated fuel— [Interruption.] Let us be clear: the 3.1 per cent— [Interruption.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We are talking about the same fuel rebate that is given to ferry services and diesel trains, but which the Government chooses not to give to road hauliers. Why can that rebate be given to the mowing machine and the road roller, but not to Medic 1 or the police car? Why can it be given to the diesel train and the ferry, but not to the road haulier who carries the same goods that may be carried on the train or ferry? The Executive should give a better answer to those questions than that it is holding regular discussions with the Treasury on matters of interest.

My argument applies not only to someone who lives in the Highlands and Islands, but to many a shift worker, such as nurses or policemen, in the central belt. The price is paid not by environmentally unfriendly truckers but by those who come from Scotland. It is paid not from Westminster bounty but by cuts in essential services. It is nonsense that 25 years after North sea oil started to flow, and when Scotland is the major oil producer in the European Union, we have the highest petrol prices in Europe if not the developed world. Action must be taken and the Executive must stand up for Scotland. London's great fuel robbery must cease.

We have a proposed Trident campaign. First, we must end the disparity of fuel prices in rural Scotland—a litre of petrol is a litre, wherever it is bought.

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

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No. I am winding up.

Why is it that when the Government worries about Manchester United being taken over by Rupert Murdoch, the Office of Fair Trading is able to report in a matter of weeks, if not days, but when there is a crisis in rural Scotland about the price people pay at the pumps, we wait for nigh on a year and a half? The Executive can take action—it could say that it will legislate unless that disparity is ended.

Secondly, there must be immediate action on emergency and essential services. We must let the chancellor know that—rather than simply have discussions with the Treasury about mutual interests. We must tell him that it is absurd that we are not providing those essential and emergency services with rebated fuel.

Thirdly, we must freeze fuel duty until we have a level playing field with our European competitors.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that since 1997 petrol and diesel prices have risen in excess of 25%; further notes that Scottish public services are being forced to operate under ever increasing financial constraints; recognises that the increased cost of fuel is a burden which must be carried not just by motorists, but which falls on all Scottish citizens through rising fuel costs to the public sector; believes that it is unacceptable that money should be diverted from over-stretched Scottish public service budgets to the Treasury in Westminster, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to consider extending the fuel duty rebate and to examine the possibility of extending the availability of rebated fuel across Scotland's public services in order to ensure that money spent on Scottish services is spent here rather than being returned to London.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I listened carefully to Mr MacAskill's speech. I suspect that I would have heard it equally clearly had I not been in the chamber but in my constituency. He is a spokesman who does not allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.

I am grateful to the SNP for the choice of topic for today's debate, for two reasons. First, it gives me an opportunity to set out many of the positive measures the Executive has been taking to address the transport needs of Scotland's rural communities. Secondly, it allows me to highlight the hollowness and naked opportunism of the SNP's position, as revealed again by Kenny MacAskill this morning.

All members of the Parliament who represent rural constituencies recognise the very real concerns of many rural communities about high fuel prices and poor public transport services. Scottish rural motorists travel longer distances, spend a higher share of their income on motoring and have fewer alternative forms of transport available to them. The situation is exacerbated by the substantial differential between prices in Scotland's remoter rural areas and elsewhere. Prices in Sutherland, the northern isles and the western isles are, on average, some 7p to 9p a litre higher than prices in the central belt. As I know from my constituency, there are many places where the differential is even higher.

The crucial point is that the Executive is working hard to do something about the problems—working hard to make a difference on the ground in the affected communities. The Scottish nationalist party's agenda is different. Its interest is in soundbites and media headlines. Its tactic is clear, as has been ably demonstrated today: shout loudly enough and, it hopes, no one will notice that its policies are all noise and no substance. What is the reality of its position? Fuel duty is a sizable source of revenue. It raised some £24 billion last year. Despite what Kenny MacAskill has said at every opportunity, that revenue has not been disappearing into some mysterious black hole down in the accursed city of London. It is funding schools, hospitals, local government, environmental protection, and yes, transport, Mr MacAskill; Scottish taxes funding Scottish schools and hospitals.

The SNP's so-called budget for independence— there is a laugh—that was produced in the run-up to the election included the full 6 per cent fuel duty escalator up to 2003-04. The SNP would have been quite happy to spend the proceeds of the fuel duty escalator if elected. In the meantime, in his budget this year, it was Gordon Brown who took his foot off the fuel duty escalator with the lowest increase in duty plus VAT in 11 years. He extended the £100 low vehicle excise duty for cars to 1200cc. He reduced the VED bill for Scotland's lorries by over £4 million per year. Taking his last two budgets together, he has cut some £40 million from Scottish VED bills.

The Executive will continue to represent the interests of Scotland's rural communities in Westminster and Whitehall. By working patiently and constructively with the UK Government, we will ensure that a balance is struck between the interests of Scotland's fragile rural communities, the environment and our wider spending policies.

That is unglamorous, workaday stuff. Our opponents in Parliament would prefer the sound and fury of fisticuffs between this place and Westminster. That might make for sensational headlines, but it would not serve Scotland's interests. I am sorry to disappoint the Scottish nationalist party, but the Executive is not playing ball. [MEMBERS: "National."] The SNP motion calls on the Executive to consider extending the availability of rebated fuel across Scotland's public services. Any extension of fuel duty rebate would, however, fall to the Scottish Executive to pick up, not the Treasury. Perhaps Kenny MacAskill can identify which Scottish public services he would cut to pay for his uncosted extravagance. I am sure that everyone in this chamber—and in Scotland—would be interested in what he has to say.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Was John Prescott lying—or was The Independent misquoting him—when he said that £140 billion was to be spent over the next 10 years? If that is not a lie, or a misrepresentation by The Independent , we will get our share. Can we not spend that share as we wish, to provide the assistance that we need in those areas?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Kenny MacAskill quotes liberally from the press. I wonder whether the press is lying when it tells us that the Scottish nationalist party's finances are non-existent.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can the member of the labourist party accurately mention the name of the party that we represent?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I would be obliged if the Presiding Officer could help me. I am not aware of making an error in naming the Scottish nationalist party.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The name of the party is the Scottish National Party, not nationalist party.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am grateful for your guidance. I appreciate, of course, that the SNP is continually diluting its commitment to independence and nationalism, but I did not realise that its members objected to being called nationalists.

The Executive, unlike the official opportunists, must operate in the real world. As Sarah Boyack has made clear, we are taking enabling powers in the Transport (Scotland) Bill to allow the Executive to extend the classes of bus service for which fuel duty rebate might be paid. We then intend to consider, in the light of the Commission for Integrated Transport's review of subsidies to the bus industry in England and Wales and competing calls on our budgets, whether to extend the fuel duty rebate to community transport and school bus services in Scotland.

We will not rest there. In the programme for government we made a commitment

"to support the variety of transport links which provide a lifeline to remote and fragile communities"

and

"to support the essential role of the car in rural community life".

Sarah Boyack is working with members of the ministerial committee for rural development to deliver on that commitment.

"Rural Scotland: A New Approach", which was published last month, marks the beginning of a new approach to rural Scotland which will acknowledge its strengths and weaknesses, understand its distinctiveness and tackle its problems in ways that are attuned to rural circumstances.

We recognise the need to act now, with energy and purpose. That is why we have established a range of programmes to address the diverse transport needs of rural areas. The Executive is investing in new transport services across rural Scotland. The rural transport fund is providing more than £14.5 million in new investment over the three years from 1998-99.

The Executive is also supporting lifeline fuel supplies for rural motorists in Scotland's remotest areas. That is a very important area of expenditure and it is an important investment. So far, 13 petrol stations have been approved for grant funding.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Ooh!

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

The Opposition may hoot, but that is important investment in areas such as Ardnamurchan. If the money were not spent, people living there would have to travel miles upon miles to get their fuel. That important scheme has now been extended to assist with the installation of liquid petroleum gas equipment. The Executive is investing in new transport infrastructure to help local communities address local problems. The first and second rounds of the public transport fund have provided support for a range of projects across rural Scotland. Last November, we gave the go-ahead to a number of trunk routes of particular benefit to rural areas.

My friend, Fergus Ewing, will recall the £10 million investment for widening the A830 from Arisaig to Kinsadel—the campaign for which lasted 30 years. I could go on. I could cite example after example—the Executive's support for lifeline ferry and air services is one—yet Mr MacAskill asks us if we are spending money here in Scotland. It is ludicrous—in a ludicrous Opposition debate.

Last year, our support for lifeline ferry and air services was at a record level. It included £12.7 million for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. That is money that Kenny MacAskill would divert from subsidy. His ludicrous, harebrained scheme would result in the closure of some airports in the Highlands and Islands.

Extra money has gone to rural Scotland as a result of the budget, including £2 million for resurfacing the runway at Wick and £3 million for Stornoway and Kirkwall airports. That is action on the ground. It is investment in the vital links on which Scotland's rural communities depend. It means a greater choice of transport where possible and help for people who are dependent on their cars and who have no choice.

That is what the Executive is delivering—not bluster, hot air and soundbites, which is all the SNP seems able to offer Scotland's rural communities.

I move amendment S1M-1026.2, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"recognises concern about the impact of fuel prices especially in rural, highland and islands areas where public transport alternatives are more difficult to provide; recognises that fuel duty is a reserved matter; welcomes the investigation by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee into the bulk purchase of fuel for remote areas; welcomes the progress made by the Scottish Executive in implementing a comprehensive integrated transport strategy and investing in public transport projects across Scotland; in particular notes support for rural public transport services and the network for petrol stations in rural Scotland, as well as measures to sustain lifeline air and ferry links, including the Highlands and Islands; and further notes that the current budget for the fuel duty rebate would have no impact on Treasury receipts but would be a cost to the current budget for Scottish public services."

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

At some risk to my political credibility, I recently said in the Parliament that it is sometimes possible, when listening to Kenny MacAskill, to recognise something in there on which he is right. There is something in what he has said this morning that is right: the price of petrol and diesel is artificial. It is affected primarily by political decisions and by tax levels. He was also right when he pointed out that, in real terms, fuel prices have escalated sharply.

When Labour came to power in 1997, fuel prices in this country were broadly comparable with those in other European countries. Today, they are significantly higher, which presents us with real difficulties: it creates problems for our freight haulage industry, problems with revenue loss on the Ireland-Northern Ireland border, difficulties in our industrial competitiveness, difficulties for our tourism industry and real difficulties for people in rural areas. Those are important, sensitive issues that this Parliament is right to discuss. They are important to the people of Scotland and I believe that this Parliament has a representational role to play on them in relation to the Westminster Government.

We ought to have a sensible debate. We should reflect on what the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has been doing to try to get at the root of the rural-urban disparity and to identify solutions that the industry—or the Scottish Executive or, more probably, the Westminster Government—can tackle. Those are appropriate steps to take and avenues down which we should proceed. Is not it a terrible pity that the opportunity to debate those issues has been callously disregarded and thrown away this morning?

Did Kenny MacAskill's speech address any of those issues? Does his motion address any substantive proposal to remedy the overall problem? His preamble was perfectly acceptable, but what measures and costs did he propose? He set out the problem and then ranted. He ranted in his press release, he ranted on the radio this morning and he ranted in the chamber. He made some strong points, but nowhere in his speech was there anything that represented a comprehensive solution to the transport problems of rural Scotland.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will Murray Tosh give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Not at the moment.

Kenny MacAskill proposed fuel duty rebates for the emergency services. That is an option that it might be worth examining and discussing when we look at the bigger picture, but what did he say about the impact on rural motorists? Nothing. What did he say about private sector costs?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Did Murray Tosh listen to the speech?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am referring to the motion, which ignores those things. Kenny MacAskill threw freight into his speech, but it is not mentioned in the motion. He will say outside the chamber that he would subsidise freight, but that is not mentioned in the motion. The motion is all about public sector costs. Mr MacAskill does not spell out how much his plans would cost and where he would spend the money, although he was challenged during his speech to do so. He said, "I'll tell you later." In the words of the song—"I'm still waiting." He did not tell us how much money it would cost and he did not tell us where he would make the cuts to fund his plans.

Kenny MacAskill said that more money is coming from Mr Prescott. We believe that, but Kenny has already made it clear in parliamentary debates that he would spend it on road construction. A fortnight ago, when Parliament met in Glasgow, he agreed with me when I said that we could spend some of the money on investment in railways. How much money is coming and how many times is Kenny MacAskill going to spend it?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does Murray Tosh accept that if Scotland got its pro rata share of £140 billion over 10 years, the projects that I mentioned could be delivered in that time scale? Does he also accept that if that money were available, we could address the crisis in our rural emergency and other essential services, such as road haulage? Does he accept that the level of funding that is being talked about by John Prescott—and on which the minister would not comment—would provide for the delivery of that aim?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Once we know how much money is available for transport, I intend to be part of the debate about how we allocate it. I am not opposed in principle to the idea that the SNP has proposed this morning, or to other transport priorities, but we must examine transport expenditure and the problems in rural areas in the round. To propose a slice of a possible section of a possible solution to the problem is merely an apology for a motion. The motion is merely an opportunity for Mr MacAskill to rant. It does not represent a substantive contribution to resolution of the difficulties.

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

Murray Tosh seems to have forgotten that Kenny MacAskill plainly stated at the end of his speech that we must end the disparity that is associated with rural petrol prices in Scotland. Does Murray Tosh accept that the fuel duty escalator is a policy that was initiated by the Tories? Is Murray Tosh's case now je ne regrette rien?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If Kenny MacAskill had lodged a motion that sought support in principle and that included some practical suggestions on how to equalise rural and urban fuel prices, I would have been happy to say, "Good idea, Kenny. What a smashing idea for a debate. I'll vote for your motion." He did not do that. We are not here to talk about what he might throw away when he gets excited in his speeches; we are here to debate his motion and to vote on it at the end of the day. The motion deals only with a segment of the issue—it is a pitiful motion.

Kenny MacAskill is trailed as a great figure in the media. He is an impressive performer and the media love him. He roars and he bawls and he tears into the minister, who is depicted regularly as a poor wee trampled victim of Kenny's road rage. Kenny is the subject of awe. Kenny will sort out the minister. Do members know what he really is? He is not a source of awe or wonder. He is just a big loud voice—he is the wizard of Oz. I was going to say that the Minister for Transport and the Environment had come this morning in her little ruby slippers, but she has sent Alasdair Morrison in her stead. We have pulled the curtain aside to see what is behind it. What is there? There are a few ragbags of ideas. There is no message, no solution and there is not even a proper appraisal of the difficulties.

The motion is just a pitch for cheap and easy votes, which is—astonishingly—backed up by an attack on the Labour party, from which the SNP learned all about unseemly bribes. What is Kenny MacAskill's speech but a lot of uncosted unspecified, unseemly bribes? He has not even spelt out where we would get the money from, how it would be paid, how it would be passed on or who would benefit. Would councils benefit? Would the consumer benefit? Would the kids on school buses benefit? Will their fares be cut? We do not even know why he wants to do it.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I suggest that it might be appropriate to call for a medic soon. Will Murray Tosh reflect directly on the motion and the two suggestions that relate most obviously to the comments that he has made in his speech? Murray says that there is a role for this Parliament to make representations to London. Kenny MacAskill has asked for an extension of rebated fuel, a matter reserved to London on which the Executive could make representations. He has also made a specific proposal for the Executive to consider the fuel duty rebate being extended. Surely that would form a useful part of its extended policy review. There we have two constructive policy suggestions from Kenny.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am perfectly happy to debate sensible ideas, but I do not think we have had an idea costed, laid out and described. We have had an attack on an overall problem, which is very real—I began by recognising that. We must do something to tackle the problems of rural Scotland, and urgently, but I do not think that the approach that is suggested in this motion is at all convincing or credible.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have taken three interventions and I must close.

Kenny MacAskill's press release said that he would exclusively reveal that there is such a thing as high fuel duties. Let me exclusively reveal something about Kenny. Kenny will shortly offer unlimited amounts of money, without saying how he will get it, to every citizen, council, agency and interest in Scotland, for every conceivable purpose. He will do that again next week and the week after that. He will do it every week in the build-up to each election. It is the same old stuff from the SNP—"We will spend more on everything, on everyone, for ever, but we will never tell you what it will actually cost or where the money will come from. We just want your votes and we think that if we stand up and make a loud noise we will get them." This debate and this motion are an insult to the intelligence of this Parliament. They are an insult to rural Scotland, as they mean that we have passed up the opportunity to have a meaningful debate about an issue that needs addressing.

I move amendment S1M-1026.1, to leave out from "through rising" to end and insert:

"and calls upon the Scottish Executive to make representations to Her Majesty's Government with a view to ensuring that fuel prices in Scotland are kept broadly in line with those of neighbouring countries and that prices in remoter areas are brought into line with those in other areas of Scotland."

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

In spite of what members may think, the United Kingdom fuel tax is not a green tax. It is a brown tax—a Gordon Brown tax.

Over the past six years, the fuel escalator has been used as a blunt instrument, hammering car owners in an attempt to force people to choose public transport. The Government has ignored the fact that in rural areas access to public transport is limited or non-existent. Instead of investing the funds from fuel duty increases in public transport, and instead of accepting the case for special provisions and derogations for rural areas, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have used the mechanism to increase income from car drivers.

We need urgent action from the United Kingdom Government to deal with the unbalanced playing field between urban and rural transport as regards fuel costs. That means hypothecation and using the moneys generated over the past six years of excessive increases to fund transport and environmental initiatives.

When introducing the fuel duty escalator in 1994, the former Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke said that anyone who dared oppose it while supporting the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions would be

"sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy".

The Tory Secretary of State for Transport, John MacGregor, claimed that the fuel escalator was good news for Britain. He said:

"Increases in fuel duty and motorway tolls will help people make informed choices about using their cars."

What absolute nonsense. Did they not realise that in much of rural Scotland people do not have a choice? Only now, when facing years of future opposition, have the Tories finally recanted on the fuel duty escalator that they invented.

We Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the manner in which United Kingdom Governments have implemented the escalator. At Westminster we have consistently voted against the fuel duty rises of both Tory and Labour Governments, because those measures stink of false piety. Tax rises have been forced through under the guise of environmental action.

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

I am sure that in the SNP we all agree that the fuel duty should not have been increased, as John Munro has argued. Why, then, did Charles Kennedy on 16 March in a press release state that fuel duty should be increased by 5p a litre? Would John Munro support his colleague, who represents the same constituency, on this matter, or vote against him?

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

I accept that that statement was made. It was addressing the congestion and pollution in urban areas of our country that we hear so much about. But Charles Kennedy went on to explain that there were measures that would address the situation in rural parts of the country.

In principle, as Liberal Democrats we accept the need to cut non-essential car journeys. We all recall that a royal commission in 1994 called for the doubling of fuel prices over 10 years to cut non-essential car journeys. Tory and Labour Governments supported those proposals with glee, until this year when it became apparent, even to Gordon Brown, that that duty was damaging the economy, rural areas and jobs. The royal commission and successive chancellors failed to understand that in rural areas there are no alternatives to the car. Practically all rural journeys are essential.

A Scottish Office study in 1998 showed that less than 10 per cent of rural residents used a bus once a week or more. Buses account for just 2 per cent of all journeys in the Highlands and Islands. The report by EKOS Ltd for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Highland Council in January showed that the average mileage in the Highlands is 75 per cent more than the Scottish average. The same report showed that fuel prices varied between 5 and 15 per cent more expensive than the average in the central belt.

We need honesty in regard to our taxes upon motorists. A genuine environment tax to cut non-essential car use can be justified only if it is revenue neutral. Every single penny that is collected must be ploughed back into public transport and special provisions for rural areas. Liberal Democrats believe that motorists in rural areas are taxed enough. The fuel escalator since 1994 should have been used to tackle rural exclusion. Postcode-based allowances or value added tax derogations could have ensured that the effect of duty increases was ameliorated for rural motorists.

Scottish Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament Elspeth Attwooll has pursued the European Commission on the question of reducing VAT on fuel duty in rural areas from the current 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent. Westminster must be forced to follow that through. Liberal Democrats will support changes to the taxation and duty system that faces motorists only where such changes are entirely revenue neutral, and where rural motorists are given special protection against increased costs.

Issues around fuel duty are, of course, reserved to Westminster. We welcome the efforts that are being made by the Scottish Executive where it has authority. We welcome efforts to create a Highlands and Islands transport authority as a key part of an integrated transport network throughout Scotland. We acknowledge that £14 million extra has been invested in rural transport. We also welcome the action taken by the Executive to extend the rural community transport grant scheme, and the additional grants to protect rural petrol stations. The Scottish Executive is taking action, and recognises the difficulties that fuel duty creates in our rural areas.

I share the sentiments of Fergus Ewing, who was quoted in yesterday's The Press and Journal congratulating Ross Finnie on "speaking out for Scotland" on fuel duty. But I ask the SNP, is it really serious when it calls for fuel duty that is raised in Scotland to stay in Scotland, and for duty that is raised in England to stay in England? Only 6.8 per cent of UK fuel duty is raised in Scotland, yet Scotland receives more than 10 per cent of UK spending through the Barnett formula. An independent Scotland would thus mean an increase of around 50 per cent in fuel duties just to raise the same amount of money that we do at present.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

I am winding up.

It is a serious issue, facing all areas. Liberal Democrats are coming up with solutions that will protect rural areas. I suggest that the Parliament should speak with one voice to Westminster, so that our rural areas get what they deserve: a better deal on transport and fuel tax.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have until 11.48 am for open debate, and 11 speakers. If speeches are kept to about four minutes, it should be possible to fit them all in.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I was most intrigued by the minister's great difficulty in getting the name of my party correct. To help him, the name of the party is the Scottish National Party—I hope that he will get that right in future.

I was also intrigued by Murray Tosh's great diatribe. He did not seem to understand, nor indeed did the minister, that the SNP is offering, as part of this debate, two solutions to which we should give serious consideration: the rebated fuel duty and the possibility of using red diesel. We suggest to the Parliament that the Executive make the appropriate representations to the Westminster Government on those matters.

The Executive is looking for a detailed response. We have the facts and figures here, but we will not do all the work for the Government. Indeed, why should we also do all the work for Mr Tosh? If he had taken the trouble—since he was so concerned—and had paid close attention to the figures, he too could have had this information.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

This is a serious Parliament indulging in a serious debate. It would be helpful if Brian Adam would specify precisely which services are to receive this assistance, how much money the SNP proposes to spend and which section of the Executive's budget it will draw the money from.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am talking about money that is being recycled round the system. Mr MacAskill has suggested that such money might have a major impact on Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. In fact, all that happened there was that money was recycled from the Scottish budget to the Ministry of Defence's budget.

What we are doing with fuel duty is recycling back to Westminster a substantial part of the £77.6 million that is currently spent on school transport. The money does not provide direct services, which seems an inefficient use of it. Indeed, in Aberdeenshire, one of the areas that I represent, 10 per cent of that money is spent on school transport. Would the money not be better applied to providing more obvious services? It would be more fair and transparent if that money were being used for public services.

The education services in particular in Aberdeenshire have been cut, partly due to the poor settlement given to Aberdeenshire by Mr McConnell, but also due to the poorly run administration there, which has singled out education for cuts.

The suggestions that we are making this morning, and the figures that we are giving on how the costs impact on services, are fairly straightforward. I strongly suggest that the minister look closely at how—

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

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Sorry, I did not notice the member.

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

I did not realise that I was so small and insignificant.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I did not hear the member.

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

Does Brian Adam agree with the comments attributed to Kenny MacAskill which appeared in a recent newspaper article? Mr MacAskill seemed to accept that EU rules mean that national taxation has to be applied at a standard rate and that the only apparent scope for alteration to the fuel charges is to surcharge motorists in urban areas.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

It is quite possible to vary VAT. Indeed, Mr Munro mentioned that issue earlier. What we are doing here is recycling taxes, when they would be much better applied directly to providing public services. One of the major problems with taxation in this country in recent years has been the significant movement away from the traditional position of taxes based on ability to pay, to indirect taxes. That is a major factor.

John Farquhar Munro is absolutely correct: these are Brown taxes, not green taxes. They do not deliver improvements to the environment or tackle congestion. They are merely revenue-raising mechanisms.

We have made two significant suggestions and the Executive has the capacity to do something about it. The Executive will have its share of the £140 billion and the opportunity to allocate it. The SNP has made two positive suggestions about how to make best use of that money.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I cannot tell members how pleased we are on the Labour benches that the Scottish nationalist party has called this debate on fuel prices. It is important that this Parliament and the wider public are clear about the SNP's policies. However, as SNP members themselves seem far from clear, that might be an ambitious goal.

Having examined their various announcements and policy proclamations, I tend to think that the SNP members are having this debate to allow us to point out to them the inconsistencies, contradictions and gaps in their policies. They seem to treat this chamber as a consultation exercise, putting forward a number of differing, and often contradictory, options to test their validity. As a policy-making process, that technique is deeply flawed. SNP members owe Alasdair Morrison some thanks for his helpful critique and for pointing out where they are confused and where they have got it wrong, although they will be disappointed at the short time that he had at his disposal to do so.

The SNP has no answers to issues such as price differentials or public transport. Its economics would cost the Scottish people jobs, income and quality public services. By separating out fuel pricing from the wider issues of transport policy, the SNP will continue to flounder for an answer.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Why is it that, down south, when differential car prices vis-à-vis Europe are a problem, the minister can apparently consider legislation immediately? As I said, when Murdoch proposed to take over Manchester United, instructions were given for the Office of Fair Trading to investigate. However, it seems that the present Labour Government can do nothing about differential fuel prices, and is waiting 16 months, 18 months or longer for the OFT to report. If Labour can legislate on car prices, why cannot it legislate on fuel prices?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We are waiting for the OFT report, as is Mr MacAskill, who admitted in the John o' Groat Journal and Weekly Advertiser article that he was

"still looking for the best solution to the problem of exorbitant fuel prices".

He thinks that the OFT report will provide those answers, and so do we.

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

Will Mr Wilson give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am just coming to Fergus Ewing; he can just hold his horses for a moment.

The SNP conference last year called for lower rates of duty to be applied in rural areas, and that position was recently reiterated by Fergus Ewing.

Kenny MacAskill tends to agree with Labour that that is an avenue that raises false hopes and sets up a prospective confrontation with Europe. However, it is clear that the European Commission would rule out such derogations as being contrary to state aid policy or leading to distortions of internal markets. He criticises us for a lack of joined-up government, but there should be some joined-up opposition from the SNP.

That policy is not unrealistic only because Kenny disagrees with it. There are huge difficulties in setting the boundaries of the areas that would benefit. Reducing prices in one area would encourage people from adjacent areas to drive there to buy petrol. While promising the impossible for short-term popularity, the SNP neglects the long term by encouraging independence and the use of an expensive and polluting mode of transport. That is a further example of the hypocrisy, given its membership of the European Federation of Green Parties.

Labour's goal is to deliver a transport system that provides genuine choice for all.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Can Allan Wilson explain exactly how the fuel duty has affected the demand for petrol?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

One of my Liberal colleagues has already quoted no less an authority on the subject than Ken Clarke, who said:

"Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 30 November 1993; Vol 233, c 939.]

The SNP is indeed sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy.

As we know, the chancellor abolished the fuel duty escalator in the last budget and hypothecated any money raised from the increased fuel duty for use on roads and public transport. That undoubtedly causes problems for the Scottish nationalist party, because the money raised from the escalator is included as income in its budget for a separated Scotland. Andrew Wilson and Alex Salmond had better get out the bookies' biros again to readjust the black hole that exists in the SNP spending plans.

Both at Westminster and in this Parliament Labour is implementing properly budgeted policies and initiatives allowed to us by the successful management of the economy. Those budgets are transparent and open to examination. The SNP calls for more and more spending, but refuses to show how it would pay for it. The motion put forward by Kenny MacAskill is as confused and misinformed as is the SNP's policy. He tried to paint a picture of Scotland-raised revenue going to London to be spent there, when we all know that the constitutional settlement voted for by the Scottish people means that the Barnett formula ensures that that money plus some more is returned and spent in Scotland.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Close now, please.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am concluding.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

You are a full minute over, so you are denying other members a chance to speak.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

This fuel duty rebate seems, in practice, to be the same as ring-fencing public expenditure for use on fuel. It would take away the flexibility and creativity that we would allow public services to have. Kenny MacAskill's motion calls for an extension to the fuel duty rebate. It is yet another example of SNP faraway-tree, Enid Blyton economics, where it tries to increase expenditure by reducing income.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

It has been a most amusing and entertaining morning. Murray Tosh complained about loud and noisy speeches. I am afraid that that is rather like the 1 o'clock gun complaining to the Noise Abatement Society. I do not want to offend any sensibilities; however, I will emphasise that I come from the Scottish National Party. After almost 70 years, can people please understand that that is its name?

More than a year ago, in May 1999, I entered this Parliament, driving up to the front on a 40 tonne truck. There is no truth in the appalling rumours that the newspapers captioned the pictures the next day, "The truck is to the right; she is on the left." That was the first protest to this Parliament and it was about fuel tax, in relation to the latest and most appalling hike by Gordon Brown in March last year. That truck was driven by Mr Russell Smith of Denny, who represents an old and decent family business. Mr Smith's business was about to be hit for an extra £70,000 a year by the fuel tax hike. That is an extra £70,000 that punishes a Scottish business, which started bravely as a haulier in the age of the horse and cart. Nowadays, 40 different haulage firms have closed within the past year. They cannot keep going against competition from such as the French, who fill up their diesel tanks in Calais—those tanks are extended so that they can manage runs up to Inverness and back. That is what we are forcing our Scottish firms to compete with.

We have forgotten about taxis in this debate. Taxi drivers, and private hire drivers, are suffering a direct loss of income for each driver of between £20 and £30 a week due to Gordon Brown.

We know that this tax is crippling tourism in Scotland. The Dutch, in particular, like to come to Scotland to drive around. They love driving holidays and many of them are among our caravanners. I love caravanners on the roads, unlike most people, because caravanners are exceedingly nice tourists. Look at how they are being punished when they arrive in this country and see more than double the prices that they pay in their own.

Petrol tax, parliamentarians, is not just a stealth tax. Look at the first five letters of that word—"steal". It is stealing from the Scottish public. It is grossly unfair. Scotland is Europe's largest oil producer, as we all know. Can members imagine any other oil-producing country in the world where the local inhabitants are so punished? Do the Texans or the Saudi Arabians pay more? Of course they do not, as oil producers, apart from this poor country, hold the whip hand. Scotland is kept poor because of the money that is stolen from its oil wealth.

Mr Morrison said that there was no black hole in London into which the money was being sucked. I do not think that he has visited the black holes that I have visited in London over the years. Mrs Thatcher built London docklands by ripping off Scottish oil money. I refer Mr Morrison to the autobiography of Dennis Healey, the previous Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:

"But for North Sea oil Britain would have been bankrupt in the early 1980s and Mrs Thatcher would not have won a second term."

We are a rich country which is kept poor. I tell the minister and Westminster to get off our backs and let us get off our knees.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It must be obvious to anyone who has sat for hours in a traffic tailback on the outskirts of London, as I did recently, that discrimination against the private motorist by continual hikes in fuel tax is not working even in urban areas. In rural areas such as Argyll, the western islands and elsewhere in rural Scotland, the option of a viable public transport system to replace the private car is simply not available at a reasonable cost.

When Labour came to power, the situation was bad enough as petrol cost 58p a litre, but within three years it has risen to more than 80p a litre and, in some remote areas, to 90p a litre. That is a rise of 40 per cent. It has compounded difficulties in the rural economy, all sectors of which are under severe threat. It has loaded the dice even further and has caused distress by imposing the highest fuel charges in areas that can afford them least.

The average Scots driver has been paying the equivalent of 21/2p more in basic income tax since Labour came to power. There is a double whammy, as the roads are getting worse, which causes extra damage to cars and therefore higher garage bills. We pay higher taxes for a poorer service. Out of the £2 billion that is paid in tax by Scotland's motorists, only £244 million—14 per cent of the total—is spent on roads and public transport. Scotland's road hauliers pay a vehicle excise tax that is 11 times as much as is paid in France. Where is the harmonisation in that?

The average price of diesel in Scotland is 72p, compared to an EU average of 42p. The economic impact on rural fuel stations is obvious and devastating. People cannot find stations at which to buy their fuel. At the present rate of closures, up to half of Scotland's fuel stations could close within five years. The main tourism competitor of the Highlands and Islands is Ireland, but every time a tourist fills up his tank in the Highlands, he pays on average between £16 and £18 more than he would in Ireland. How are we meant to compete? Argyll alone loses £10 million per annum—5 per cent—because of the failure of tourists to return, a failure that is caused by the price of fuel.

In the Highlands and Islands, motorists pay £88 million more in driving costs than do motorists in the central belt. On average, 15p more a litre is paid up there than is paid in Edinburgh. Highlanders are thereby paying a great deal more in VAT, which proves that there are already different tax areas in the UK. Surely it is time to find a simple method of giving a fuel discount in rural areas. That could be done by carefully studying the map of Scotland and ascribing a different tax code to rural petrol stations, to reduce the current unavoidable tax penalty on users in rural areas.

Tourism all over Scotland would be given a boost. The number of private car tourists has dropped considerably due to high fuel costs. Those high-spending tourists pass through urban areas on their way to rural areas. In particular, foreign users must be encouraged, as driving a private car in the Highlands remains a great pleasure, which should be promoted. Most small rural businesses, which are being crippled by the unavoidable overheads of travel costs and transportation, would be boosted by such a measure and would create more employment.

I am interested in Alasdair Morrison's good idea about LPG, which would be helpful to local residents, as long as changing to such a system was affordable. However, we must also get rid of the rural disparity of which Murray Tosh spoke. Why does the Government not use joined-up thinking to give rural areas a fuel advantage? Such measures have been successful in America and Canada. I say to the Executive: please take note and please stop the paradox of the poorest areas of Scotland making the largest fuel tax contributions.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue that is very important to many of my constituents. I am neither amused nor entertained by this morning's debate. The motion is narrow. It should consider the broader issues of transport in the Highlands and Islands, the things that are important to people. I will address some of those later.

The Labour Government has recognised the problem faced by rural motorists and has abolished the fuel duty escalator. As Allan Wilson said, any future increases will be hypothecated to transport spending. The issue of real concern to people in the Highlands and Islands, in addition to the high price of fuel, is the differential between rural and urban areas. I can well understand the frustration and sense of unfairness that people feel when they see that petrol is so much cheaper in urban areas. There is no reasonable explanation for it; it is unrealistically cheaper. I look forward to the OFT report into the issue, which cannot come soon enough.

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

Will the member give way?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No, I must carry on, as I do not have a lot of time.

We should concentrate on what this Parliament and the Executive can do. The Executive is aware of the problem and has identified areas for support. There has been help for rural petrol stations with the cost of tank replacement and ground water problems. The Executive has also given local councils discretionary powers to provide rates relief of up to 100 per cent for petrol stations. Such assistance keeps rural petrol stations open. Had they closed, people would have had to travel longer distances to put petrol in their cars, which would have added to their costs. That measure was within the remit of this Parliament and has been delivered.

I urge the Executive to go further and to establish a Highlands and Islands transport authority. I also support Calum MacDonald's call for such an authority to be allowed to bulk buy fuel to sell on to rural petrol stations. However, that is not an easy answer. It needs to be examined in some depth. We need to negotiate with the petrol companies. Many stations are tied into contracts for many years. To establish a contract for one lot of petrol stations, which others cannot join, would create an unlevel playing field and would put more stations out of business. The policy must be considered and taken forward.

Giving an authority such powers would provide a wake-up call to the oil companies. They tell us that they cannot give discounts to the Highlands because not enough petrol is sold there.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am struggling to fit into my time. I am sorry.

The SNP blames the Government for high fuel prices, but has not come forward with a solution. The SNP constantly takes the pressure off the oil companies, getting them off the hook. Brian Wilson worked hard to urge the oil companies to reduce fuel prices. That paid off when BP announced the scrapping of the retail zonal premium, which resulted in a reduction of 1p. Okay, 1p might not be enough, but it is a cut that would not have happened if we had approached the issue in the same way as the SNP approaches it—ignoring the role of the oil companies and focusing on the Government makes scrutiny of oil companies difficult. If we all took that line, we could not have done it.

The wider issue of public transport is really important. We must consider new solutions to address the shortage of quality public transport in rural areas. We cannot allow the debate to focus on the car. The car is an essential lifeline, but it is not the only one. The most recent census showed that in some of the most remote areas of the Highlands and Islands a third of households did not have access to a car. That is why we need alternatives, for example, community minibus or community car schemes to which all members of the community have access. The rural transport fund has provided funding and will provide funding for such schemes in the future.

Those are real, innovative solutions to problems that this Parliament can address. I urge all parties to come forward with other solutions to tackle the problem.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have found the debate to be informative, interesting and significant. To Rhoda Grant, I would say that for the average oil company the margin on a gallon of petrol is less than a 10 th of the chancellor's tax take. A proportionate response would be appropriate.

The key idea from the Labour speeches was that the fuel duty was somehow an environmental tax. Allan Wilson was challenged on that point. There is no evidence to support that idea; the fuel duty continually rises and the take continually rises, because the demand for petrol continually rises. Allan Wilson should examine the facts and not rely on Ken Clarke for economic advice. The fuel duty is an ineffective, distorted and—most important—regressive tax, which damages human beings as well as the economy as a whole.

The chancellor takes a mark-up of 333 per cent on average from a gallon of petrol. More important, the duty has gone up by 39 per cent under the Labour Government—five times the rate of inflation. That is the most distorted and damaging of Labour's economic policies. However, the most important point—and the reason why I was reading The Sunday Telegraph at the beginning of the debate—is the myth that the fuel duty escalator has been stopped. That is something that the Labour brief has persuaded the back benchers to believe, but it is simply not true. This year, pensions were increased in line with one rate of inflation—1.1 per cent—whereas fuel duty was increased by 3.3 per cent, which is three times that rate of inflation. The chancellor is guilty of a cruel lie and a distortion in the latest budget; by forecasting inflation at three times the rate that he increased pensions, he hit pensioners at the same time as he hit every person at the petrol pump. His policy is a lie and a deceit, which the chamber should condemn absolutely.

When the policy was challenged, the Labour party line was, "This is what the Tories used to do." I am the first to criticise what the Tories used to do, but even that excuse was a lie. Three days later, Labour had to admit that the policy was a Labour innovation, designed to hit pensioners as well as motorists. Those are the lies that are coming from people who are being paid a fortune to lead the country—it is a disgrace and they should be condemned. We should not have to rely on Her Majesty's The Sunday Telegraph to tell us the truth.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

On a point of order. In the past, the SNP has objected to Labour members accusing other members of lying. Presiding Officer, will you rule on Mr Wilson's speech in that respect?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Such points have been raised in the past. I will double-check the Official Report —as I have on previous occasions—and take appropriate action.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am happy to reaffirm my point that, if someone says that petrol is to be uprated according to inflation and uprates pensions by 1.1 per cent when petrol duty goes up by three times that, they have either made a mistake or told a lie. Either way, the chancellor is to be condemned.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the member give way?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If Malcolm Chisholm has a reasonable point, I will be happy to give way.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As ever, I have a reasonable point. As an economist, Andrew Wilson knows perfectly well that there have always been two official rates of inflation, depending on whether mortgage rates are taken into account. Gordon Brown's announcement was in line with well-established practice; certain inflation rates are used for certain upratings. There was no departure from decades of tradition.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is an absolutely new innovation. There is one rate of inflation that uprates every benefit and pension in the country—the same rate should be used for uprating fuel tax. Fuel tax was uprated at three times the rate of inflation based on a Treasury forecast—everyone knows that a Treasury forecast is not to be trusted.

I ask Murray Tosh—wherever he is—to reflect on the fact that Kenny MacAskill has made two serious and considered suggestions. First, the Executive should approach the Treasury for an extension of fuel duty rebate. Alasdair Morrison should not simply say that that would cost the Executive money. He should have unallocated money in his current budget; if he does not, he should tell us so. He must consider and review the implications of an extension of fuel duty rebate. If that cannot be done, we should be told why. What are the constraints on the Executive? There is an inconsistency: why is a rebate good enough for road rollers but not for police cars and ambulances? That is a policy mistake that the Executive must consider. The Opposition's job is to press and probe the Executive on areas where its policy does not stand up. That is a job that, today, Kenny MacAskill has undertaken ably.

Labour members—and the Conservatives—must reflect on the fact that this is the issue for most people in Scotland today. The price of fuel affects everyone and the duty hits everyone hard. Those members can either stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the policy is not hurting or they can join us in condemning Gordon Brown for his lies, deceits and the appalling way in which he is treating Scottish motorists.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Although the price of petrol and diesel is a reserved matter, it is absolutely right and proper for us to debate it today. Even though we do not yet have the power to effect a change in the taxation system in Scotland, we can voice our concern at what are the highest petrol prices in Europe, if not the world.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I have only just started—however, I will give way.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The member says that we do not yet have the power to deal with such issues in this Parliament. Does he agree with his colleague Malcolm Bruce that we should have significantly greater powers over fiscal matters in Scotland to be able to do so?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that view. I agree entirely with Malcolm Bruce's comments and understand that devolution is not an isolated incident, but a process. [MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let us get back to the issue. Six years ago, I left the Army. My last posting was to the British military garrison in Münster, Germany; because of the huge cost of petrol in Germany, we received coupons for half-price petrol—I think that that is still the case. However, petrol in Germany costs 60p a litre and, as has already been pointed out, it is more than 80p a litre in this country. I find that situation somewhat ironic.

The Rural Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into employment change. The lack of public transport and the outrageously high cost of fuel in our countryside is consistently the issue that people have raised as the most important example of the difficulties faced by our rural economy. As part of its inquiry, the committee held one of its six public meetings in Laurencekirk, which is in my West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency. I can tell the chamber again about the strength of feeling that was expressed on this subject. If we could change just one aspect of taxation policy in order to help rural Scotland, fuel tax would be the one.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Not again.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have not spoken yet.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will let David Davidson in later.

Much nonsense has been spoken about the Liberal Democrat approach to petrol taxation. I want to make it absolutely clear that we support environmental taxes and the polluter pays principle. However, we do not believe that the high fuel duty imposed by Westminster can be supported because, as John Farquhar Munro rightly pointed out, it is a Brown, not a green, tax, whose purpose is solely to raise revenue for the Treasury.

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

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Go on.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Oh, so Fergus gets in.

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

I was interested to hear Mike Rumbles say that fuel tax is far too high. In that case, why does Charles Kennedy want to add 5p a litre in tax to make it even higher?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

As ever, Fergus Ewing has a selective memory. Charles Kennedy has made it absolutely clear that there are two halves to Liberal Democrat policy in these areas. People who drive up to 23,000 miles— [Interruption.] Do SNP members want to listen to the answer? People who drive up to 23,000 miles a year benefit from Liberal Democrat policies.

Not enough of the money raised from the poor motorist is used to fund alternative means of transport. More important, there is no recognition of the impact that such punitive rises in petrol taxation have on our rural areas, where driving a car is not a luxury to be discouraged, but an essential of life.

The Liberal Democrats have voted against fuel duty rises at every budget, due to the failure of successive Conservative and Labour chancellors to address the real issues. Does David Davidson want to intervene now?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Rumbles, you really should be winding up now.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Okay.

Although this is a most important issue, we must not forget the efforts of the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition to help the situation. As well as the fact that £14 million has been made available for road transport initiatives, 350 new or improved public services and 53 community transport schemes have been assisted. Within the limits of its powers, the Executive is doing a reasonably good job. However, the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that we will rural-check policies to ensure that they meet the needs of our rural areas, and we will continue to oppose the imposition of higher fuel duty until the problem is recognised by Westminster.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It was quite amusing when speaker after speaker spoke about the dearth of policy proposals in the motion. At one point, I thought that Kenny MacAskill was advocating that we go to work on a lawnmower. That would be a unique and innovative idea.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It would be cheaper.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

But we would never get to work on time.

I get annoyed when people assume that petrol is much more expensive in the Highlands than it is elsewhere in Scotland. I do not think that that does too much for tourism. It is true that petrol is more expensive in the islands, but the prices are exactly the same in Inverness as they are in Edinburgh. The issue is not the Highlands versus elsewhere, but urban versus rural. Petrol is more expensive in rural communities in north-east Fife such as Anstruther, Cellardyke and Auchtermuchty than it is in the Highlands.

Pricing people out of the car and into public transport is a laudable proposal for overcrowded cities. However, there is no reasonable alternative to the car in most parts of rural Scotland, especially for tourists. From our office window, we can watch people taking a tour of the whole of Edinburgh in a double-decker tourist bus. To see the Highlands of Scotland would cost £200 or £300 in petrol. It is impossible to see the Highlands by public transport.

Alasdair Morrison and Rhoda Grant mentioned the investment in the petrol station at Klilchoan in Ardnamurchan, which is the most westerly point in Britain. However, the investment was aimed not at bringing down the cost of petrol sold but at allowing the petrol station to stay open. It would be misleading not to point that out.

I am concerned about the inelasticity of demand for petrol. Petrol—however high the price—is a necessity in the family budget that must be met before budgeting for food and other household expenses. That means that people on low and fixed incomes are penalised more heavily by petrol prices. The same applies to the cost of employment: travelling to work costs those in a rural area much more than those in an urban area, although the wages might be the same.

In the Highlands—despite the fact that residents of the area get only 80 per cent of the average EU income—car ownership is much higher than it is in the lower-income categories in major cities. Two thirds of people in the Highlands who earn less than £10,000 a year own a car. In Glasgow, very few people in that income group own a car. The car causes deprivation in low-income groups. It is ironic that the poorest members of our rural society might be paying more in tax on petrol than they pay in income tax. The repopulation of the Highlands and the stabilisation of the economy has gone hand in hand with increased mobility in the form of the motor car. As Mike Rumbles said, to price people in the Highlands out of the car would have a devastating effect on the fabric of rural life and might reverse the repopulation that has taken place.

Rural areas have benefited from increased car ownership as people have access to centralised public services and jobs while continuing to live in remote and rural areas. Many people would be unable to visit a hospital in less than a day without a car. They would have to pay for public transport and overnight accommodation and would also waste time.

Although this Parliament does not have the powers properly to address the issue, we can give a clear message to Westminster MPs—including those sitting in this chamber—that the matter should be debated in a place where decisions can be made.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

A few words in preface: I have no problem with the calls from members to do something about rural fuel prices. Something must be done, and as soon as possible. However, that is not an argument against the fuel price escalator, a problem that I shall address in the few minutes that I have.

The Conservatives, in their wisdom, introduced the fuel price escalator; the Labour party has backed off it; the Liberal Democrats have two policies on it; and the SNP has at least been consistent in attacking it.

I shall present members with some figures to study so that they can make up their minds on the basis of reality. The first set of figures is from the period between 1993 and 1998 and the second set of figures is from the period between 1974 and 1998. From 1993 to 1998, UK policy was to increase the price of motoring to make it reflect more accurately its social and environmental costs and to improve the competitiveness of public transport. Most important, that occurred through the fuel duty escalator—a policy that increased the duty on fuel at above-inflation rates, in line with the recommendation in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 1994 report "Transport and the Environment". The commission is now reaffirming that we need a general policy of high taxation on fuel, and Labour can take no pride in backing out of such an important policy before it has taken proper effect.

For most of the period from 1974 to 1998, the UK Government policy was characterised by an obsession with providing for private motoring irrespective of the consequences of such a policy. By 1998, rail fares had risen by 80 per cent, bus and coach fares had risen by 50 per cent and overall motoring costs had fallen by 1 per cent in real terms. We have therefore had only two years of a real fuel price escalator.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I advise Mr Harper that other factors must be considered, in particular the competitiveness of Britain internationally in the freight and tourism industries. Simply to press on with the fuel duty escalator and not to consider the relative prices of fuel in other countries could be deeply economically damaging, even before we start to examine the impact of the fuel duty escalator in rural areas.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I shall address those points in concluding my speech.

Huge advantages could accrue to this country if we adopted the simple strategy of economising on all fuels. That would save untold damage to our environment and would, ultimately, make this one of the most economically competitive countries in the world.

The SNP is in alliance with the Green group in Europe. It is not in the European Federation of Green Parties, which is made up of 30 Green parties spanning the old iron curtain. I am afraid that the SNP would not stand a chance of getting into that federation—at least, not at the moment. However, it is in alliance with the Green group. The SNP should be campaigning for a European fuel price escalator that would be effective in reducing environmental pollution and that would provide a Europe-wide efficient transport system.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does Robin Harper agree that, so far, the fuel price escalator has had no impact on the environment in terms of a reduction in traffic? Can he tell us precisely how much extra duty we should add to fuel?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I accept that the fuel price escalator was just starting to have an effect when the Government backed off. The whole point of it was to establish an escalating series of economies. When someone bought a car, their first consideration would have been its efficiency. What is actually happening in the car market? An increasing number of huge, multi-purpose people-movers are being sold and the small car market has not expanded as one would have hoped.

I conclude by saying that it is sad that the Labour party gave up on one of the best environmental policies that it had been gifted by the Conservative party.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The cost of fuel in Scotland is a serious political issue. It directly or indirectly affects every person in the country. We must therefore approach this debate rationally, responsibly and intelligently. Unfortunately, the nationalist rhetoric that we have heard this morning has approached the debate in none of those three ways.

I have to say how frustrating it is to have to stand here, week in and week out, defending the union. I did not think that that was what this Parliament was supposed to be about. As long as the SNP continues with its pointless, petty attempts to drive a wedge between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, I will not be able to understand the point of its being here.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

No, I am sorry. We have had 15 minutes from Mr MacAskill, plus all the rest. I think that we have heard enough from the SNP this morning.

In delivering an efficient and modern transport system, the UK Government and the Scottish Executive have to balance a number of competing considerations. It is important that our transport policies cater for everyone in Scotland—from people living in the centre of Glasgow who cannot afford a car to people living in the rural Highlands who simply cannot survive without one. We must also always be mindful of our environmental obligations. Legislative bodies cannot allow car use to escalate out of control, as that would cause tremendous environmental damage. We therefore have to consider ways of making everybody think twice about whether they need to use their car.

That thinking cannot be blindly applied in all circumstances. Central to the notion of getting people out of their cars is the provision of a quality alternative. Public transport must be improved before we can be serious about making a substantial reduction in the number of people using cars. I am pleased that a number of recommendations in the recently published Transport (Scotland) Bill address that problem.

I am also pleased that the Executive is providing £90 million through the public transport fund to provide alternatives to car use and to assist in innovative investment in new railway stations, new bus lanes, new rapid transport systems and park-and-ride schemes. The Administration is committed to providing a transport system that is genuinely for all. However, we must consider the rural issue. It is naive to suggest that people living in sparsely populated areas can survive on public transport. Although I represent an urban constituency, I understand that the public transport service in some rural areas is virtually non-existent. That is why I am pleased that the Executive has ploughed £14 million into the rural transport fund.

We would all acknowledge that the promotion of public transport in rural areas can go only so far towards healing the problem. That is why I was heartened to hear that the Executive will continue to discuss with the Treasury possible tax changes to help those rural areas that depend so much on car use.

This is a serious issue. Unfortunately, this debate has become just another attempt by the SNP to undermine devolution and to blame everything on England. The nonsense that was spouted about money from Scotland going to London was unhelpful and divisive. I am afraid that it was typical of what we have been hearing recently. I will not stand here and pick holes in the SNP's arguments, because I do not believe that that is what this debate should be about. None the less, it is interesting to note, as it has been by more than one person this morning, that the SNP is a member of the European Federation of Green Parties— [Interruption.]—which has strong views on fuel prices and which supports a considerably steeper fuel escalator than the one currently used in the UK.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The policies of the SNP fly in the face of its claim to be a friend of the environment. It seems that the party is prepared to say anything that has the potential to drive a wedge between this Parliament and Westminster.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I am sorry, but I have finished.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The Liberal Democrats can agree with the SNP about the nature of the problem that we are debating. In truth, rural motorists have virtually no choice of transport. In my constituency, the bus network tries to cover the area; however, simply because of the geography, even the best bus network cannot give people access to places when they want it. Of course, we want an improvement in rural public transport, we want better bus services, and we want the rail services to be expanded, to provide a vital economic artery to ill-served areas of our country. No one will be surprised to know that I am thinking of the Scottish Borders.

However, in rural Scotland, the car will always be a lifeline, an instrument of social inclusion and a vital element in the economy. As John Farquhar Munro said, people in the countryside do not make non-essential journeys. That changes the whole pattern of how fuel duty impacts on people who use cars. Similarly, our farmers and road hauliers—the backbone of the rural economy—are massively affected by fuel prices. As Murray Tosh and Mary Scanlon said, all businesses that are associated with tourism are under the cosh when petrol prices act as a disincentive to travel.

We accept the problem—but the solution is not as simple as some people seem to think. The Liberal Democrats favour environmental taxes and agree with the principle that the polluter pays, but we cannot support the highest fuel taxes in Europe. Chancellor Brown must pay attention to the arguments that are being made today. Rural areas need a level playing field. In the partnership agreement, we acknowledge the concern about fuel duty but note that it is a reserved matter. The Liberal Democrats approve of the measures that the Executive has taken in its area of responsibility, such as the rural transport initiatives, public transport schemes and the community transport grant scheme.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will Mr Jenkins take the opportunity to agree with his colleague Mr Rumbles that, although this is a reserved matter, it need not be in the long term and that perhaps in time Parliament could take that decision?

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I do not think everything for the Parliament is cut and dried and fixed.

Pressure must be kept up on Westminster. Our motorists, hauliers and farmers need and deserve help. Our Liberal Democrat colleagues at Westminster will put pressure on Chancellor Brown. The Parliament is sending out vibrations that ought to be listened to. Although this is a reserved matter, we can nevertheless express a view and we must use such influence as we have.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This morning I talked on the phone to my insurance broker, who deals, in the main, with farmers. We discussed the small problem that I was trying to get him to sort out for me, then he said, "I note in the papers this morning that you guys are going to deal with fuel taxation." Nice of him to say so. He went on to say that he was going to the Highland show, which opened today. Fuel taxation is a major issue for the rural economy and presentations will be made about it at the Highland show.

The debate this morning suggests that most members, in one way or another, accept that the high price of fuel here in relation to the rest of the European economy is doing Scotland no favours and will be deeply damaging to the long-term prosperity of our rural community if something is not done, but who is to do it?

Dorothy-Grace Elder mentioned how nice it was to see so many Dutch people coming to Scotland. A couple of days ago, a garage owner in the Trossachs told me that he was at the pumps one afternoon when he saw a string of Dutch cars heading back to the coast mid-week, which is unusual. He asked the Dutch people if they had enjoyed their holiday and was told yes, but that they could not afford to go on to the Highlands as they had wanted—their budget was not big enough.

Today, we are supposed to be considering the economic issues, although when I listened to Kenny MacAskill's usual rant and cant, I lost the plot a little about what he was trying to demonstrate. If he is supposed to be the shadow minister, he has a duty to come to the chamber and present clear policies, although, by all means, he should question the Government.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

rose—

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I do not have time to take an intervention from Kenny MacAskill, and anyway there is no point. I will follow what one of his colleagues did to members who tried to intervene yesterday.

Having dealt with the SNP's role, I will move to that of the Conservatives— [Interruption.] Oh, behave yourselves, boys.

We should consider the role of the SNP and the Conservatives in opposition and, to an extent, the role of the Liberals—they are partly in opposition, as I am not quite sure on which side of the fence they sit on this matter. We could push collectively for the Government to go to Westminster—we have no argument with that approach. Since the election, we have said consistently that we should debate in this chamber the issues that affect Scotland. However, the thoughts that we take to Westminster must be rational. I would like those members who go to Westminster, such as Mr Salmond, to do a little more, a little more rationally, when they are there.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am grateful to Mr Davidson for giving way.

Mr Davidson mentioned an insurance broker and a garage owner—no doubt they support the view that we should debate fuel duty today. He also agreed that we should hold this debate and take the case to Westminster. How does that position square with the view of Mr McLetchie, expressed in the Parliament two weeks ago, that we should not debate reserved matters?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I do not think that that is what Mr McLetchie said—Mr Salmond is misrepresenting his comments. Mr McLetchie said that we have the right to debate such matters, and that the only other right we have is to send a clear message to Westminster through the usual procedures. We are following those procedures—we have done so before; indeed, Mr McLetchie has done so himself.

The Liberals have come up with a range of policies today, which, I presume, are based on their federal position. It was interesting to hear them slate the cost of fuel, given that they want to raise new taxation through this Parliament. Where is the balance in that approach? My colleague, Murray Tosh, in his rationally delivered speech this morning, pointed out quite clearly that we must have a balanced approach. We cannot simply draw money out of the air.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will take an intervention from Mr Rumbles, although I am not sure whether I have time.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

It is entirely up to you whether to accept an intervention, Mr Davidson, but you are running close to your time limit.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mr Davidson said that the Liberals wanted to raise taxes in the Scottish Parliament. That is not our position. I said quite clearly that devolution is not just a moment in time—it is a process. My personal belief is that we should have more control over our affairs in time. It is as simple as that.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

So we can assume that Mr Rumbles includes taxation in that position.

The minister said that Gordon Brown had reduced vehicle excise duty on hauliers. Of course he did, but only after he had wellied up the prices in the previous year. The haulage industry is crying out for understanding, and taking one meagre step back, having taken five steps forward, is just not enough. I hope that the minister will take that message to ministers down south.

The minister talked about lifeline grants for filling stations, but will he move the ceiling up to which they are eligible for support? I know of a business that is associated with a small hotel and restaurant; because the total rateable value of that business comes to a certain amount, it does not qualify for Government support. What about the fuel loss for which those little garages are paying, which is disproportionate to that faced by garages with a high turnover? The minister should be paying attention to those issues, to which I hope he will respond at some stage.

Today's debate has been a little unseemly in places, but it flagged up the fact that this is a highly emotive subject. I welcome the fact that the SNP brought the debate to the chamber, although the way in which it did so is a shame. The SNP is asking for little bits and pieces, whereas we need a radical review from the Executive, with the help of the Westminster Government. That review should cover the action that is required to deliver a balanced and inclusive economy in Scotland.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Today we heard about policies of two halves, and this has certainly been a debate of two halves, with many MSPs debating the real issues of concern to rural communities, such as high fuel prices, the availability of public transport alternatives and sustaining lifeline links.

Many speeches were reasoned, realistic and delivered in a constructive tone. Janis Hughes and Andrew Wilson raised a number of serious and relevant points. My colleague Rhoda Grant, from the Highlands, mentioned the Highlands and Islands transport authority and bulk buying. We are making progress on a transport authority, and bulk buying will be an issue for that authority once it is established.

Sadly, others have chosen to play political games. The nationalist front-bench members have excelled themselves once again with vacuous rhetoric. I will answer one of the first charges that was levelled by Kenny MacAskill, when he brandished an article from The Independent. That article, which related a story about Prescott's £140 billion, was complete speculation. Such is the accuracy of the article that it says that the £180 million Nottingham tram is already under construction. In relation to Mr MacAskill's point on Scotland—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

rose—

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am dealing with Mr MacAskill's point. I would appreciate it if he would allow me the opportunity to address the points that he raised in his opening statement.

The direct question levelled at the Executive—and at John Prescott—was whether Scotland would get its share. I stress that Scotland will, of course, get its pro-rata share once the UK settlement is decided in July. Decisions on Scotland's future spending plans will be announced in the autumn. I hope that Mr MacAskill—I know that he is a reasonable man—will accept that.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister take an intervention now?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

With all due respect, I must make progress.

Mr MacAskill raised the spectre of the Treasury Dick Turpin stealing from Scotland's motorists. He ignored the fact that the sums that are raised go to Scotland's schools, hospitals and transport. The SNP proposes to extend the fuel duty rebate across Scotland's public services, but ignores the fact that the cost of such largesse would come out of the Scottish budget. Those who claim to oppose the escalator—including some whose party originally imposed it—must explain how, without it, they would have cut the deficit, made money available for public services at levels never seen before and, at the same time, met our international environmental commitments.

The nationalists are particularly fond of comparisons. Every time they go abroad, they return to lecture the people of Scotland on how the promised land could be found if only we were more like the country they have recently visited. I find myself in agreement, however, with my friend Andrew Wilson, who said that there must be more honesty on the tax issue.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Honesty means drawing valid comparisons—not just on fuel duty, but on information about taxation that adds to the cost of motoring. Different European countries have different ways of taxing motorists. When that is taken into account, more honesty appears and the comparisons should have the nationalists choking on their own rhetoric. The independently compiled world road statistics from the House of Commons library provide an objective comparison of the taxation that is paid by motorists throughout Europe in respect of various types of vehicles undertaking identical mileage and consuming identical amounts of fuel.

A motorist with a 1000cc engine pays £527 tax in the United Kingdom; that figure includes fuel duty and road tax. I invite Mr MacAskill and his friends to guess the equivalent figure in France. The answer is £640. Norway is another country that the nationalists are always wittering on about. The tax paid there is £821.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—